Your proposal’s $9000 marketing section does not list designing a frontend web portal.
- Marketing: $9,000
- $2,000: SEO and Content Writing for marketing sites
- $2,000: Social Media Marketing
- $5,000: High-quality Introduction/Explainer marketing video
Your proposal’s $9000 marketing section does not list designing a frontend web portal.
- Marketing: $9,000
- $2,000: SEO and Content Writing for marketing sites
- $2,000: Social Media Marketing
- $5,000: High-quality Introduction/Explainer marketing video
Thanks.
That is because I mentally put it based on the type of task, design/code, or SEO/content/video. That might be my fault.
Thus why I’m asking for clarification based on as well as the removal of the marketing websites portion of the “Design and Development Work” in your budget request.
The second marketing site I was potentially planning would be the same portal but targeted at a different market in web3 that I could see potentially falling more under the Foundations’ definition.
Our goal is to keep the scope of the grant limited and focused. Removing any secondary websites or efforts and saving them for a follow-up would make more sense.
So I should then word it as a frontend portal app, not marketing?
Based on the limitations, what is the foundation not ok with being in the design or site content? I am getting the impression there is a fine line based on the foundation talking with its lawyers.
A front end to the portal is needed, and I view that as marketing, so I would like to understand those limits.
Thanks.
I wouldn’t classify a frontend for a public web app as marketing. That’s required for basic access. My primary concern is with the secondary websites alluded to in your proposal and comments.
Ok, will it be an issue for the front end to have a pricing UI or marketing-related content (assuming I am not hiring for the content)?
Asking to be sure based on what has been requested.
To clarify, the intention is to have 2 web apps from a technical POV:
Lastly, would it be an issue to leave the design & development budget the same and consider anything I might deduct as a buffer? I will state that while I intended to have a second site, it was not guaranteed, and I still don’t have a guarantee it would have been built anyway, as I’m still trying to secure the asset.
Why cannot you keep the scope at what you are sure you can achieve within the project timeframe? You can always expand if you feel you have resources, and if you run out of budget, well, the Committee is generally open to considering such requests.
Sorry, can you please clarify cannot you keep the scope at what you are sure you can achieve within the project timeframe?
Scope-wise, the only thing guaranteed now that I’m not doing is a second marketing site, and no content/seo, etc. nothing else has changed. I am only trying to understand what is not wanted given marketing is being asked to be removed. The rest it seems is mostly communication issues on definitions.
To clarify, based on the committee’s request, the scope of the development work budget only removes a single marketing site that was not 100% guaranteed (I don’t have the asset yet). And that I estimate to be a fairly small portion relative to everything else, assuming I executed on it.
From the start, my definition of marketing sites was portal web app frontend(s) that also served to do marketing via its content and pricing.
Nate has stated that would generally not fall to marketing, thus the miscommunication of definitions, but to remove the second site.
So, my questions ensure the committee understands what I mean and what apps I’m developing. I’m also trying to ask, since marketing is being asked to be removed, what are things on the frontend app that would not be allowed?
The question about keeping the budget the same is due to the second site being a minor part of the budget, which I was not 100% sure was guaranteed.
So this is about me ensuring I don’t break rules on what’s being allowed and ensuring the committee understands what I actually meant by marketing sites.
Thanks.
To make it plain: please remove this section entirely. There is little point in keeping this discussion. As was mentioned, there are legal issues involved, and you surely wouldn’t want that.
Yes, That I am not disputing.
I am trying to understand what limitations, if any, are on the portal front web app design or content (where I’m not paying for the content) based on the no-marketing limitation. I do not want to violate the rules unknowingly due to that request.
I think we can summarize the changes here:
Lume Web is our way of stitching together the vast web3 landscape. We’re building a hub for everyone to access decentralized content easily without relying on any central power.
Our aim with Lume is to be that one-stop gateway for all decentralized content in a genuinely decentralized way.
Our goals for 2024:
As the dashboard will be the most significant frontend effort, we are looking to get the following designed and implemented:
For more information, you can visit https://docs.lumeweb.com/ or check out a snapshot of the documentation at the time of writing at https://git.lumeweb.com/LumeWeb/docs.lumeweb.com/src/commit/e5520d24023895d14d3f950f9f3f45b7d34b265a.
Additionally, as the Lume project is slowly maturing, we are attempting to be more structured and organized in project management.
The project benefits:
For 2024’s focus, it provides a reliable platform for Sia users to host their data for both S5 and IPFS-based protocols. It also creates a community service based on the software built.
The web needs paid data storage to ensure things stay online and censorship-resistant and users need private data storage that retains their privacy and self-sovereignty.
Amount of money requested and justification with a reasonable breakdown of expenses:
The initial funding needed includes:
Goal: Complete architectural redesign with support for multiple protocols. Start with S5 support and DNSLink
Validations:
Milestone Progress: Will create a video showing uploading/downloading, login/register, S5 registry, DNSLink, and file import in the monthly report
Goal: Integrate hypercore for metadata sharing
Validations:
Milestone Progress: Will create a video showing the validations in the monthly report
Goal: Integrate IPFS into the portal
Validations:
Goal: Complete integration of Stripe billing for subscriptions
Validations:
Milestone Progress: Will create a video showing in the monthly report:
Goal: Set up hosting environment and monitoring systems
Validations:
Milestone Progress: Will have a portal service ready for the community to test and use
Leave a link where the code will be accessible for review.
Email: The email the Foundation already has on file.
Any other preferred contact methods: Discord @pcfreak30
We are aware that we are submitting this about 1-1.5 months before our current grant is completed. Our justification is that we need to ensure continued funding in 2024 (Jan) and cannot afford to have a large gap, as we have no other significant active income at this time. Lume is our full-time mission.
Additionally, our plan is for the end of our 2023 grant to finish with the web3.news MVP as a deliverable.
Hello @pcfreak30,
Thanks for providing us with the requested updates to your proposal. The removal of marketing items, change to the budget disbursement, and additional milestone validations were very helpful during our assessment. After review, the committee has approved this grant!
We’ll reach out via email to get you set up. Onboarding typically takes a week or two, so feel free to adjust your internal timelines as appropriate.
Regards,
Kino on behalf of the Sia Foundation and Grants Committee
No problems big enough to need to document.
Note: view develop branch
@lumeweb/s5-js) and implementing Swagger potentiallyX protocols, enabling it to support web3 services and beyond.@lumeweb/s5-js js library got refactored to use https://github.com/anymaniax/orval which itself use axios, the same library s5-js used before, so it minimizes the design changes.https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch, an Apache2 rust-based billing system that can be integrated later this year, and eventually extended as needed.
clustered mode such this can work solo without billing or needing a complex setup. This will evolve through out the year, and functions supported as the community requests it for private use vs commercial.Hello @pcfreak30,
Thank you for your progress report!
Regards,
Kino on behalf of the Sia Foundation and Grants Committee
Parallel TUS uploads turned out to have some quirks to them. The behavior of CLI vs JS TUS showed some issues and required me to temporarily restrict the dashboard to upload in serial.
This will be worked on more in Q2 with some possible design/strategy changes for TUS uploads, but is potentially complex enough to need to be punted a quarter.
Per the grant proposal here is the video demo demonstrating all but one milestone: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qMxoM1fQMJ4
Please be aware the demo voice over is AI generated
Any testing can be performed at https://account.testing.pinner.xyz
One slight issue hit: One of the validations is the registry. Due to existing known issues with compatibility between the Dart and Golang implementations of S5, where Vup has not yet been updated, it was not possible to demonstrate a visual usage of the registry. The core dart libraries have been updated though and a dart test case (sample script) demonstrating the network function can be provided to the foundation upon request.
Great to see you launch the initial version of the S5 node and portal, looking forward to see you iterate on the features!
Seeing that you are revamping your workflow, I would like to suggest you use GitHub as your primary repository and mirror this to your Lume git server for backup. Although it is very cool and more decentralized to work on your own git server, GitHub is where the dev ecosystem lives and imo activity and development on GitHub is necessary for discovery and contribution.
With that, the subtitles in French are very great !