Documentation Review

Just reading through the “General” channel on Discord and saw this post about staking rewards:

ThiruM — Today at 1:30 PM: “I stopped investing more in to this project because of the lack of information and frankly this is the only project where I am finding it difficult to find information and feel like the communication is too vague to do anything.”

You may agree or disagree with ThiruM. What his comments do show, however, is that a thorough review of Centrifuge’s documentation is warranted. I’m not referring to copy-editing for typos, spelling and grammar (though that’s needed too). Rather, I am referring to the organization of information, its currency (is it up to date) and completeness.

In August, there was talk around setting up a “Documentation WG” with members of the Centrifuge Team and Ambassadors to improve various aspects of the documentation. Did that happen?

PS Why not reach out to ThiruM – who has “north of 10K CFG staked” - validate his concerns and invite him to participate in a review process.

Hi BLahar.

I agree with you, the Centrifuge and Altair documentation is a crucial part of the ecosystem. I can assure you the Documentation WG has started and all documents are under review (not only typos but more important their content and readability).
As well the community has written guides and user documentations for a better understanding of topics such as claiming crowdloan rewards, staking, governance which can be found in the forum (Community FAQs)
At the moment - amongst others - an important part of the documentation rework and editing is Altair because of the onboarding of the parachain and in particular the governance processes

ThiruM’s comment hasn’t been unanswered in Discord just to let you know

1 Like

I did see that ThiruM’s concerns were addressed. But take note of his final comment: “I truly feel that the information provided when this question was asked earlier was not clear for an average investor like me. I think most people can’t go through the extensive documentation of polkadot and understand how it all works…”
Why not validate his concerns and be more welcoming? This will help foster community. For example, “Thank you for airing your concerns. We recognize that our documentation needs improvement and, in fact, are actively working on it. If you have any other concerns or suggestions on documentation, we want to hear them. Also, you are welcome to take part in the improvement process. DM me if you’re interested.”

1 Like

As @Tjure07 mentions, the documentation is under review, and I also agree that information should always be as clear and easy to understand as possible. As a teacher, this is something that I care a lot about and always focus on when presenting information.

I am not trying to undermine your point in any way, because we agree that the community should be (more) involved in the different aspects of a project. However, I believe it is important to highlight that his concerns were primarily oriented towards the staking mechanisms, which is based on Polkadot.

@Tjure07 Thanks for the help!! The links provided by Rhano and Imdior helped to find the information i need related to staking rewards. It is mostly my fault not spending time to learn about how staking works in DOT and this is the only project I have invested in the DOT echo system. Sorry for making a fuss about it.

I personally have read the documentation on Polkadot and yes, it is not exactly explained in layman terms - that is what motivated me to make a “light” version of the whole staking process so the average user, who isn’t necessarily super tech savvy, can understand the process.

This brings me to my last point, which is that community members should always feel free (and encouraged) to suggest improvements/changes proactively in order to contribute to the growth of a project.

There are many ways to voice one’s concerns - in my world the best way is to suggest specific improvements and how to implement them.

But in the end, I think we agree on the subject at matter.