MoneroKon-2022-CCS

MoneroKon 2022 Funding

What:

A small working group (#monero-events) would like to push forward with plans for a Monero conference.

We had originally planned for an event in Berlin in 2020, but this was cancelled mid-way through planning, due to the pandemic. 2021 was also cancelled.

We feel that 2022 is the time to try again. Due to the ongoing situation in Germany (high case numbers and greater restrictions), it was decided to try in Lisbon, Portugal - mainly for two reasons. The first is that Portugal has taken a relatively risk-tolerant approach to the situation, and has also begun opening up for public events. Recently it hosted Web Summit 2021 - which had 10,000 capacity.

The Monero conference will be in a similar theme to the last MoneroKon, which was hosted in Denver, Colorado in 2019.

We are hoping to put on a professional two-day event, with capacity for 200 people, live-streamed (hopefully), and including an afterparty. The intended date is sometime in June 2022 (venue availability ending). The conference itself will focus on high quality talks, workshops, and panel discussions. We will also build in some downtime for people to mingle, and enjoy conversation with peers and friends they may not have seen for some years.

We are imagining this will be the first of two CCS requests.

This first one (CCS-1) covers the total (maximum) estimated cost of putting on the event - €55,650 (328 XMR approx @ current price of €170 per XMR - 6th January 2021).

edit2 - changed price above to reflect more closely current market value.

edit3 - changed price above to reflect more closely current market value and also include the addition of a ticketing system.

edit4 - changed price above to reflect more closely current market value (6th January) and also include the addition of a ticketing system.

The second CCS (CCS-2) will cover the cost of speaker and volunteer travel and accommodation. We imagine there will be 25 total speakers and volunteers, and we have a **very rough estimate that CCS will be around €25,000. **

The idea is that CCS-1 is the** maximum cost for the event.** As we get closer to the actual event (Mar/Aril 2022), we should know how much we have saved from CCS-1 (i.e. the actual costs being less than the imagined maximum costings). Any funds that we have saved will be used to reduce the CCS-2 amount.

Please note that if the actual event costs are not significantly lower than the quoted maximum then the second CCS will be required to cover the total costs for speaker and volunteer travel and accommodation.

edit3 - we also discussed the possibility of obtaining sponsors for the event. The decision was made to keep this an option, and to direct sponsors towards the second CCS (speaker, travel and volunteer costs). This way sponsors will hopefully have more certainty of the event happening (March/April), and they can ask speakers to note the support they have received from corporate donors. We will try and and ensure that sponsors are not a requirement for event success, but if they can lessen the load on the community, that is also welecomed.

The two CCS idea is mainly for two reasons:

1. To protect the community in the event of travel restrictions being imposed/or in the event that the event may be cancelled. The cost of travel is delayed until things are clearer/more certain.

2. Two CCSs reduces the immediate burden on the community, by splitting the request into two smaller amounts.

Who:

I (midipoet) am one of the main instigators of this funding proposal - along with a number of other known and trusted community members. Personally, I have been a community member for a number of years, speaking at various events, conducting research, and constructively working on Monero through the Monero Policy Working Group.

However, this CCS is not for me as there is a core group who will be supporting organisation, planning, and overseeing the project throughout (#monero-events), including known and trusted members of the community such as msvb, ajs, carrington, kico, and reset (as well as others).

How:

This is the important bit.

Firstly, I am proposing to hire two designated project managers to support organising the event. A PM was also hired for MoneroKon 2019 (so there is precedent).

I am personally nominating (and taking ultimate responsibility for) two entities known and trusted to me. They own and operate Provenance Events, and have recently successfully put on www.liscon.org (1500 capacity Ethereum conference in Lisbon, in October 2021). They also have experience at putting on cryptocurrency/blockchain conferences in Ireland, Japan, and Korea.

A series of photos from their events may be found here.

They are currently based out of the Azores and know Lisbon well, having lived there for the last six months leading up to Liscon 2021. They have agreed to do the project management for a fee of €5000 + estimated expenses of €1500 (capped to that amount).

They are ultimately our eyes on the ground and will be coordinating all decisions through the Monero events work group (#monero-events), in discussion with the overarching planning team.

They have drafted up this excel of estimated costs. They believe this to be the maximum required to put on the event. It includes their fee. Everything marked in yellow they believe may be optional/dependent on venue.

Any surplus from CCS-1, we will use to either:

1. fund speakers and volunteer related expenses thus reducing CCS-2
2. returned to the general fund to be used for MoneroKon 2023 (to be held in the USA).

Once the 320 XMR has been raised, it will be moved immediately to the capital reserves of a company entitled Digital Renegades Corp. This company is owned and operated by Monero Core member binaryFate. This will then immediately be converted to fiat, or a stable coin, to hedge for any price fluctuation.

Digital Renegades Corp will use the capital to pay for invoices in fiat, directly to the invoicer, as and when they are received. This will include an initial outlay for the PMs to get started (I am proposing €1500). The PMs have agreed to keep an ongoing transparent record of all expenditure for the event (including their own expenses). The PMs will not handle fiat unless explicitly having too. All CCS funds will be managed by the Digital Renegades Corp.

edit2 - It has been agreed that the €5000 fee will be dispersed to the PMs through a series of milestones. All milestones will be non-refundable. The first will be paid once (if) the CCS is funded (€1500). The second one will be paid around March/April (€1500), and the last one pre-event in May/June (€2000). Their expenses will be paid as and when necessary - through Digital Renegades Corp. They have agreed to keep an open and transparent record of expenses (including receipts) and it will be limited to €1500. This agreement is also reflected in the contract between DR and PMs.

It should also be noted that we plan to sell tickets for the event. All ticket revenue will flow back to Digital Renegades Corp, and will be recycled into a fund for MoneroKon 2022/2023. This will be accounted for in a transparent fashion.

edit1 - It has been discussed that a contract should be signed between the organisers and Digital Renegades, and this is the process of being organised. A contract template has been provided, and we are reviewing and amending it, so it is fit for purpose - thus protecting both the organisers, and of course Digital Renegades Corp

Why:

To ensure we have a MoneroKon 2022 and not have it cancelled for three years in a row.

Amount:

328 XMR

Covid fallback:

Due to this ongoing issue, we will need to have a plan in place to mitigate potential eventualities where the event has to be cancelled. We are not envisaging this for an event of 200 people. However, we will organise to have a refund agreement in place with all venues/service providers, and also for anybody that has pre-purchased tickets. We will also be reticent of travel and accommodation refunds that may be forthcoming. Obviously this won’t be possible for everything - but hopefully will be for most things. Any surplus XMR raised and not spent in this eventuality will flow back to the General Fund to be used for MoneroKon 2023 (if not cancelled as well).

edit2 - As @rottenwheel has stated, the CCS does not afford refunds to be paid to donors. To this effect, if the CCS is funded and the event has to be cancelled/postponed all XMR will be directed towards MoneroKon 2023. If the CCS is only partially funded - all raised XMR will be directed to the MoneroKon 2023 fund

edit3 - Please note that if this CCS is not funded in full by mid February (estimated date), the raised funds at that time will roll into the MoneroKon 2023 fund, maintained until 2023 by Core. This was discussed in the #monero-community channel, and agreed upon as a way to move forward.

added 1 commit

• 8fb20be7 - Update MoneroKon-2022-CCS

Compare with previous version

marked this merge request as ready

changed title from Add new file - MoneroKon_2022-CCS to MoneroKon-2022-CCS

added 1 commit

• 9354e19c - Update MoneroKon-2022-CCS

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 871fdcbc - Update MoneroKon-2022-CCS.md

Compare with previous version

changed the description

I respect and appreciate the time @midipoet has spent in running the planning meetings for MoneroKon 2022 thus far; however, there are at least three (3) irregularities I cannot keep to myself and need to draw attention to in order for us to be aware of everything that has been happening during the last two or three weekly meetings on IRC/Matrix/Telegram. I use the word irregularity because that is how I, personally, judge such behaviour of not conceding what not one but a few of us disagree with (midipoet) yet he keeps on doubling down with his interpretation of words and ways around issues. It must be done the way he says it has to be, since he does not 'understand' our alternatives to tackling matters differently than what he considers appropriate. Therefore, I consider this necessary, to bring the discussion to GitLab, to get to know what other contributors may have to say about it all.

1. Midipoet does not deem necessary the existence of a conference champion that has boots on the ground (in Lisbon,) that is somewhat known, trusted and vetted, familiar with Monero's community and ethos. @sgp and I have vocally linked him to an image that goes over what a project champion is. Instead, he is pursuing the path of outsourcing and handing the ground logistics to a third party, not involved with Monero, on the premise of him knowing them and be aware of them taking care of events' logistics in the past. I would be hesitant of supporting such endeavor. For context, MoneroKon 2019 did have something similar but Surae Noether, Monero Research Lab contributor, was the champion of the event, not such third party company. Refer to image below to get an overview of what a champion project is and what their expectations are.

What midi does not realize is that should there not be such a boss that meets some of the outlined criteria and happen to be somewhat vetted by our communities and workgroups, that means we are passing the responsibility of MoneroKon organization, our very own, academics and intellectual brand event, to some people we are not even acquianted with as a project. What if it is poorly planned, what if it does not fit the bill for what the original MoneroKon set the precedent for in forthcoming editions of it? We could, to an extent, be putting our overbroad public image as a cryptocurrency project in danger due to this.

Note: there has been some loose mentions of a couple people in Portugal that could take care of this vital role, but there has not been a single concrete participation of them, nor commitment to it, hence it does not exist up to this point.

2. Current draft is shooting for 55k. Check out what midipoet had to say re: speaker travel and accomodation costs:

> sgp: these costs don't include speaker travel and accommodation, right?
> midipoet: No
> sgp: for 20 speakers at roughly $1000 each, that's another $20k.
> midipoet: yeah. But we think the overall cost won't be 55k. We estimate we can shave 10k off the total, and then recycle that to speaker costs.
> sgp: I see what you mean but... what if you don't, then what, new CCS?
> midipoet Yes.
> midipoet: Because I am guessing some speakers won't need funding
> midipoet: So we can appraise when we know better the lineup/agenda
> sgp: okay, I consider it quite risky to have a sort of reverse overage, lol. We estimate costs will be $X, so we will raise $X-Y

I will not say much on issue number 2, other than it rubs me off the wrong way to run a first CCS proposal leaving the chance for a second one to cover speakers' costs, nor do I fully agree with the possibility of 'shaving 10k off' from the original invoice the third party organizing the conference has preemptively generated for us to glance over and discuss. In my opinion, we totally should include such costs within the first CCS proposal. I quite agree with sgp that it is quite risky, such reverse overage. Running a second proposal because we are short of money might be bittersweet for some potential donors to the cause. Cover all possible expenses at once.

3. Midi does not get why there has to be a signed contract between Digital Renegades and the organizers, claiming it is 'too much work'. Even though it is completely logic to put such paper in place. Logs below:

> sgp: is anyone signing a contract with the event planner?
> midipoet: I don't think a contract is necessary, but I guess we could draft one?! Was there one in place for MoneroKon2019?
> rottenwheel: If there's no contract, how are they expected to pull the event off upon getting paid?
> rottenwheel: Just by verbal commitment?
> midipoet: I guess so. Hadn't really thought about it. Is there usually contracts for CCS?
> sgp: not for CCS, but there are contracts if you expect someone to do something usually
> midipoet: I mean it's essentially the initial 1500euro outlay. At that point, we will have a fair idea if they are gonna run off with that, or start planning.
> midipoet: I am not sure (thinking about it more) what eventuality the contract protects us against. The PMs not fulfilling their duties? What would we do then, sue them?
> midipoet: It wouldn't actually help much, as we would still have to pick up the shortfall in planning
> sgp: at least you can hold someone legally responsible for something, that's the idea of a contract yes
> midipoet: Seems a lot of work for what would be max 5k
> Rucknium[m]: Seems to me that at the minimum their responsibilities should be written clearly so there is no misunderstanding that could cause problems later.
> Rucknium[m]: If you feel that their responsibilities have been made crystal-clear to them, then I think it's fine as it is.
> sgp: agree, MOU isn't necessary but a contract is pretty essential imo, even if it's super basic
> sgp: respectfully midi I don't think you understand the importance of a contract and that's really hard to explain
> Apollo: Contracts protect both parties - it’s a two way street.  Given the structure of this event, I’d also highly advise producing a contract to establish expectations from both parties.
> midipoet Ok. So who should we get to draft this contract?
> midipoet: Or should it be their lawyer and our lawyer that work together to find agreeable language?
> Apollo: Language doesn’t have to be presented by a lawyer - you just need to clearly understand and define your expectations.  Plenty of examples out there.
> Apollo: We could set aside a small meeting to discuss some of those expectations but as Justin said - this is up to the llc/group entering the contract
> Apollo: Example, who is liable if attendees destroy venue?
> Apollo: What if you hired security? Event organizers? Llc?
> Apollo: Any serious event has a contract bro sorry
> Apollo: Again - a contract defines expectations.  These are good so both parties know what requirements are met for a successful partnership

Needless to say, as it stands right now, I do not support this CCS proposal as it stands right now; there should be further discussion, clarification and rectification from midi's end. I consider the lack of a project champion, the wishy washy overage statement with speaker fees, and the lack of acceptance for the need of a binding contract between the organizers and Digital Renegades flabbergasting and ultimately, unacceptable.

I would highly encourage others, beyond sgp, midipoet, Apollo and Ricknium, given that I have posted excerpts from IRC/Matrix/Telegram, let me, and more broadly speaking, everyone, know what their thoughts on this all are.

You all are more than welcome to jump in and actively discuss with us via the aforementioned channels; the more, the merrier.

IRC Libera.chat: #monero-events; Matrix: #monero-events:monero.social; Telegram: https://t.me/monerokon

Thanks for raising these concerns. I'll address each in turn and how I think they can be resolved.

1) Having a vetted champion in Lisbon: I see two options here (both would be even better) Members of the XMR community in Portugal can step in and get involved in the process. Several individuals have expressed interest in doing so in recent weeks. We can try an publicize the issue more widely to those communities to find someone who is interested and available.

The organizers contacted by Midipoet can themselves become "champions". This is effectively what they are charging a fee for. The only nuance is that they are probably not well known to the community, at least at this early stage. However, them having apparently organized several crypto events makes me optimistic that they would do this well. This will become clearer once they are in frequent communication.

2) Potential for two CCS proposals: It has been pointed out that there is precedent for this. Ideally, we can reduce the headline cost (and/or seek sponsorship) so that a second CCS is not necessary at all. In any case, this will not become clear until decisions have been made on the specific expenses which will probably be several weeks away at this point.

3) Contract between organizers and DR: Considering that all event services will be invoiced to DR with associated contracts, any contract with the organizers can only cover their fee. It's not clear to me what scenario would leave the organizers liable to refund their fee, because actual delivery of services will be the responsibility of separate entities (e.g. venue). Overall, it seems to me that clear payout criteria with a final payment for a successful event from an organization standpoint is fine enough. It wouldn't hurt to ask for example agreements signed by the organizers for other events, which could be reviewed and adapted as needed.

@carrington Thank you for not only replying to my comment, but stepping up to the plate and running Monero Community meetings for the past few months; highly appreciated.

We can try an publicize the issue more widely to those communities to find someone who is interested and available.

I definitely agree with this. reset on Matrix has said he would be open to take on the local champion role, however, we have not heard proper commitment to it.

The organizers contacted by Midipoet can themselves become "champions". This is effectively what they are charging a fee for. The only nuance is that they are probably not well known to the community, at least at this early stage. However, them having apparently organized several crypto events makes me optimistic that they would do this well. This will become clearer once they are in frequent communication.

I do not think local champion and organizers could be equaled one to the other in this case. That can be a conflict of interest because the former are getting paid for what they are doing; they can say everything is going well as it directly benefits them. A local champion should be a community-vetted individual or group of individuals that are not doing the ground work. In a nutshell, someone whose interests are actively involved with Monero's initiatives success and possibly, working to advance us as a project.

Regarding the doing one CCS proposal or two, I agree, might be too early to keep deliberating on this; plus, @bobbieweirder voiced their two cents on it recently here.

To the best of my knowledge midipoet and ajs are hashing it all out with organizers to come up with a contract, taking advantage of previously signed documents by them. As per our discussions in monero-events, the contract is useful to specify expectations between signees, leave a written precedent so each party involved can hold the other accountable during the partnership or job to be completed.

@rottenwheel I will try and respond to your comments.

Midipoet does not deem necessary the existence of a conference champion that has boots on the ground (in Lisbon,) that is somewhat known, trusted and vetted, familiar with Monero's community and ethos. @sgp and I have vocally linked him to an image that goes over what a project champion is.

I have asked specifically the whole group about wether we think we need a person on the ground in Lisbon. It was discussed at a meeting last week. There seemed to be consensus that it wasn't a distinct requirement (though of course nice to have). We had asked Lisbon Monero community members (albeit not really known to me - but perhaps well known to others) to join meetings, but they had not as yet. I don't know what else i (personally) can do about this.

If the project champion needs to be local, then that is a distinct requirement - that we will have to fill. Personally, I don't think it is a distinct requirement, to be honest - especially if the PMs are willing to do that role (when needed).

For all intents and purposes, i have been acting as project champion for the last few weeks. I don't feel the need for that role to be "officially designated" to someone - especially as there seems a team of known members working to achieve the goal of MoneroKon 2022 - regardless.

other than it rubs me off the wrong way to run a first CCS proposal leaving the chance for a second one to cover speakers' costs

Running two separate CCS's (one for direct event costs one for travel/speakers/volunteers) has precedent in Monero. It was done for the last DefCon - as far as i remember, and also for C3 events in Europe.

If we are to combine all the speaker costs now - we would need an agenda, as well as a full understanding of all travel, speaker, and volunteer related costs. We don't have that.

Also, i think it's fair to say postponing the travel cost request from the community for a few months is actually a better way of doing things, as the covid situation may develop and cause travel issues. What would we do with all that travel money then? Not to mention that splitting the CCS lessens the immediate burden on the community (as travel request is deferred for a month or two or three).

Midi does not get why there has to be a signed contract between Digital Renegades and the organizers, claiming it is 'too much work'. Even though it is completely logic to put such paper in place. Logs below:

For the record, i never said it was "too much work". if you can point to that quote in the logs, it would be appreciated.

What i did say was that it seemed a lot of work (and probably requiring a lawyer) to ensure we are protected against being sued, and having a line of legal recourse should we want to sue.

For the record (which you also left out) was that this morning there was this exchange:

22:04 <carrington[m]> @carrington:monero.social https://cryptpad.sethforprivacy.com/kanban/#/2/kanban/edit/rwA2SvWZH1p-jnHwHUUK2jx8/

22:04 ^ should be working with this link

22:05 Instead of tying ourselves into knots about what kind of contract to give these guys, why not simply ask them "do you have a contract from previous events which we could review and adapt?"

22:06 rotten that's a good idea.

22:06 link is working here. fixed.

22:20 → kicoo__ joined ⇐ kico quit kic0 popped in
Wednesday, December 8th, 2021

00:17 → Lyza and •luigi1112 (opped) joined ⇐ kicoo__, LyzaL, •luigi1111w and echi quit mfoolb, msvb-lab and muhkey nipped out

08:39 midipoet: carrington[m]: i can certainly ask them that. though, if i am honest, i am not sure they have contracted out their PM before to do an event. i.e it was always them that were doing the event.

08:39 midipoet: for the record, i told them the outcome may be the requirement of a contract - and they have no issue with it.

08:40 midipoet: but didn't ask them if they had one we can repurpose

09:28 <carrington[m]> @carrington:monero.social To be 100% clear, is the plan that they will do the legwork for a fee and said fee will be paid by DR AND that DR will directly pay all the other costs after they have done the legwork? I.e. all invoices will be to DR (Digital Renegades)

09:30 midipoet: carrington[m]: yes

09:31 midipoet: they invoice DR for the legwork and coordinate all invoices to be sent to DR

09:31 midipoet: i.e the only money they handle is their fee received from DR

09:32 <carrington[m]> @carrington:monero.social Very good. So stuff like liability for venue damage is not really a problem? It would just be covered by whatever terms are given by the venue to DR

09:32 midipoet: and that fee will be paid out in stages/milestones - which we can agree and set

09:33 midipoet: carrington[m]: i would think so, yes. DR will definitely have to sign some contracts

09:33 midipoet: venue, food, bar service, erc

09:33 midipoet: *etc

09:33 midipoet: the question is just whether there needs to be a contract between PMs and DR

09:36 <carrington[m]> @carrington:monero.social In that case payout milestones to the PMs seems fine to me. I don't see a scenario where they should be liable to repay the fee, given that it gets paid in increments for work completed

09:41 <carrington[m]> @carrington:monero.social The milestones and payouts would need to be defined, and the final payout should be the bulk of the fee and paid upon everything falling into place reasonably well on the day

10:06 @rottenwheel:halogen.city Just posted a comment on the GitLab merge request. Everyone's welcome to chime in. !276 (comment 14127)

edit - apologies for crap markdown on above - i think it is clear enough.

@midipoet I already explained in the original message why a local champion is pretty much a must to have; I will not keep repeating myself because you purposely choose to ignore the information you are given. As stated in OP, you continue to double down on your understandings and not giving a chance to the other side of the coin. I am sorry that is the case, but I won't waste my time on it anymore.

What would we do with all that travel money then? Not to mention that splitting the CCS lessens the immediate burden on the community (as travel request is deferred for a month or two or three).

That is what milestones in a CCS proposal are there for: make the travel monies be a secondary or third milestone to be disbursed once the line-up has been all hashed out, not when the required allocation of money is needed at hand, to secure venue, organizers and all other items.

For the record, i never said it was "too much work". if you can point to that quote in the logs, it would be appreciated.

What i did say was that it seemed a lot of work (and probably requiring a lawyer) to ensure we are protected against being sued, and having a line of legal recourse should we want to sue.

Perhaps you did not textually type too much work, but you did say it was a lot of work for what would be max 5k. I think it is pretty similar to having said it is too much work, just typed with a couple of different words. :)

> midipoet: Seems a lot of work for what would be max 5k

That is what milestones in a CCS proposal are there for: make the travel monies be a secondary or third milestone to be disbursed once the line-up has been all hashed out, not when the required allocation of money is needed at hand, to secure venue, organizers and all other items.

I am sorry @rottenwheel, but i fundamentally do not agree with this strategy as you have written it. Perhaps you are misunderstanding how i have organised this CCS.

CCS 1 is for all event expenses, except for speaker and volunteer travel and accommodation.

The funds left over from CCS 1 (as we get closer to the event and know how much we have spent/saved) will be used to reduce CCS 2.

CCS 2 will be for speaker and volunteer travel and accommodation (post a CFP/CFS)

In an ongoing pandemic situation it makes very little logical sense to me to ask the community to fund all travel expenses upfront (with difficulty in reimbursing donators), when we have no idea how much will be needed (apart from an approximate).

We don't know where people will be travelling from, what restrictions will be required, how many speakers or volunteers there will be - what the accommodation and flights requirements will be, etc.

We don't even know how many will want a CCS to fund their expenses.

Separating the two will allow us more time to organise all event requirements, do a CFP/CFS, and approximate costings. By that time (Feb/March/April) we will also know more about how much from the initial 55k can be recycled directly back into those speaker/travel related costs.

Not to mention, separating out speaker, travel, and volunteer expenses from event costs has precedent and has been done on a number of occasions before - including a CCS that you have been a part of (as far as i remember).

In an ongoing pandemic situation it makes very little logical sense to me to ask the community to fund all travel expenses upfront (with difficulty in reimbursing donators), when we have no idea how much will be needed (apart from an approximate).

That is what a buffer of 15% or so is there for as well (up to your judgement and our ongoing discussion to settle on a specific percentage,) to help mitigate volatility with market price rate between when CCS proposals get moved to funding stage and when they are actually disbursed to the person who initially submitted the CCS proposal, to then relay such funds amongst the different array of due payments...

Milestones are completed, and funds are dispersed upon their completion.

Take a look at the CCS rules here. That is where that quote above comes from. I would suggest you to create a couple milestones, one for the organizers and the other for miscellaneous speakers, volunteers expenses. You are free to run two, one now and one a month or two after; friendly reminder: that is up to loose consensus from the community, which way is the chosen one. I am simply giving you an alternative and showing you how it would work out, as per outlined in the rules.

Furthermore, you say, I quote, 'with difficulty in reimbursing donators.' Please read the CCS rule 2 and 3 below. CCS donations reimbursements are extraordinarily rare. Such thing is pretty unlikely to occur.

In the event that a proposal is overfunded, unable to be completed, or otherwise put in a state where donated money will not be dispersed to the intended recipient, the default is that the remaining XMR will be put in the Monero General Fund.

Refunds are extraordinarily rare. Donate accordingly.

At any rate, it seems to me that we are getting ahead of time here. I will hold off until someone else different than you and I, chimes in, because this is a two individuals discussion and that is not ideal, we need more brain power to hash this out; otherwise we will keep talking in circles, especially when you refuse to take opinions into consideration that differ even slightly from your own, at least those that are mine.

@midipoet I respectfully ask you to read one more time my initial comment to your CCS proposal and possibly work on tackling the three (3) outstanding issues I consider glaringly worrisome and unnaceptable. What I mean by this is, let's simmer down until others post their thoughts in this thread, shall we? Thanks.

You are free to run two, one now and one a month or two after; friendly reminder: that is up to loose consensus from the community, which way is the chosen one. I am simply giving you an alternative and showing you how it would work out, as per outlined in the rules.

I am aware of this, hence why i proposed the two CCS model.

I respectfully ask you to read one more time my initial comment to your CCS proposal and possibly work on tackling the three (3) outstanding issues I consider glaringly worrisome and unnaceptable.

1. Has been on the meeting Agenda last week, and added again this week. I am not sure why you believe i am not trying to incorporate/solve this? I personally can think a "local project champion" is not required. Indeed loose consensus at the last meeting was that it was not a requirement, but a nice to have.

2. The solution for this is two CCSs - which you have stated is fine to propose. I am not sure what else i am supposed to do?

3. It was pretty much agreed (re the chat this morning that you were present for, but failed to quote in your original message) that we need to decide (as a community) whether a contract is required between DR and the events company. I do not think it is - but that doesn't mean i am correct. We have also discussed who should draft this, whether we will need a lawyer to review it, whether this was done for the last time there was a hired PM for MoneroKon 2019, or whether clear milestones would mitigate concerns. It is an ongoing discussion, that i have been part of. I have never stated that a contract was not an option. You seem to suggest (twice now) that i have said it's completely off the table.

Keep in mind that MoneroKon 2019 was great (or so I've heard), but it also damaged the Monero Project in some ways. Surae was its "champion", but there is evidence that it was a contributor to his burnout, which has led to him not working on Monero at the moment. Let's try to prevent something like that from happening. (I don't know how to be sure to avoid such an outcome, however.) Just something to keep in mind.

It's an excellent point @Rucknium , that you try to help the project but damage it in very unexpected ways.

Some of us are limiting output for this reason and redistributing extra help to the one doing the most, which are (at least partially effective) strategies to help avoid burnout.

I generally agree with @rottenwheel above. On how to handle CCS for this project, I do not favor having two separate CCS requests even if there is precedent for it. In evaluating whether or not to support the project, the community should have as much information in front of them as possible to determine whether the project is worthwhile to support, and I would want to see how the funding is being specifically earmarked through a detailed budget. I understand not wanting to overburden the community with a big ask right off the bat, but if that's how much the event is going to cost, that's how much the event is going to cost. What I hope we can avoid is to have the community contribute $55k, just to feel like they have to see it through and contribute more in the subsequent speaker expense CCS than they are really comfortable with just because of the already sunken cost.

The contract issue seems to have been opened and shut now if I understand correctly. Midipoet indicated in Events that he is working with the service provider on a form. This is to be reviewed by the community when available.

Perhaps the bigger issue that I am still trying to get comfortable with is who the community chooses to PM the event. There have been some discussions on whether the organizing should be put in the hands of a community member. That would certainly be most ideal obviously. If we are having a hard time finding dedicated community members in the Lisbon-surrounding area, I worry that from planning to executing to attendance it will be extremely challenging. Having professional help is a good thought, but I think it will be important for the event to be "Monero" and not just some other corporate conference they may be used to organizing. Berlin was a location that really made sense but for COVID, and I sometimes worry that we are bending over backwards to do the event in Lisbon just because we don't think we have a choice. Would like to have a way to gauge the temperature/interest level from our European friends to set a better expectation on headcount.

I would want to see how the funding is being specifically earmarked through a detailed budget.

Do you want a more detailed budget than the one already provided in the CCS?

What I hope we can avoid is to have the community contribute $55k, just to feel like they have to see it through and contribute more in the subsequent speaker expense CCS than they are really comfortable with just because of the already sunken cost.

If the consensus is to include all costs, including the volunteer and speaker travel and accommodation, then so be it.

To do it that way, in my opinion, will mean we end up with a large surplus at the end of the event.

The split CCS that i propose is (i think) a fairer way of raising the funds - especially as we have been very clear that the total cost will be [CCS 1 + CCS 2]. If you like, we could probably give a total maximum amount for CCS 2 - so the community is aware. If the consensus is to include ALL costs in 1 CCS, then we can of course do that - approximating the travel and accommodation.

The contract issue seems to have been opened and shut now if I understand correctly. Midipoet indicated in Events that he is working with the service provider on a form.

It is not shut - but a contract draft has been provided, and being reviewed and amended on by us and them. However, DR has yet to be involved in this - and they will need to review, as it will be them signing it (i would imagine).

Berlin was a location that really made sense but for COVID, and I sometimes worry that we are bending over backwards to do the event in Lisbon just because we don't think we have a choice. Would like to have a way to gauge the temperature/interest level from our European friends to set a better expectation on headcount.

This has been discussed already. Do you want location/cancellation to be added to the agenda again for discussion?

@rottenwheel @bobbieweirder

I have amended the CCS as discussed to include a more transparent description of the two CCS plan.

I have also included a note about the contract issue.

Do let me know if you feel anything else is required.

changed the description

@midipoet Thanks for modifying the description of the proposal.

including known and trusted members of the community such as msvb, ajs, carrington, kico, and reset

You mention reset as someone who is overseeing and participating in the planning of MoneroKon 2022. However, that was the only person with boots on the ground that so far, to this date, has not yet committed to the local champion role. You may want to take off that nickname.

You had a meeting recently with @msvblab, kico and the organizers. No local champion has been found and as I said here, it cannot be the same people the Monero community will be paying since that is a clear conflict of interest.

I have nudged reset, charuto, and MalMen with nioc in #monero-pt, but to no avail. We have been trying to see if any of them would be willing to be the XMR community member that can keep a handle on what the organizers do and how things are in Lisbon — ideally with two feet in Portugal, not somewhere else — which is where most of us happen to be.

You can't be such local champion because you are also not in Portugal. The organizers can't be the champion because they are getting paid to do what the champion would be supervising for us. Kico does not live in Portugal nowadays. As highlighted in prior comments, no local champion means I will not support this CCS proposal. To provide you with examples: a) Monero Konferenco 2019 had Surae Noether, b) & c) both DEFCON and CCC had Diego 'rehrar' Salazar as their champion (while his position with Monero Core Team lasted.) Diego ran the CCS proposals, traveled, and took care of all loose ends — before, during and after these events. As it stands right now, MoneroKon 2022 does not have such a role filled, which will undoubtedly prove problematic.

The two CCS idea is mainly for two reasons:

1. To protect the community in the event of travel restrictions being imposed/or in the event that the event may be cancelled. The cost of travel is delayed until things are clearer/more certain.
2. Two CCSs reduces the immediate burden on the community, by splitting the request into two smaller amounts.

Point one mentions travel restrictions and talks about the chance of the event getting canceled as a consequence. Respectfully, we should not be pressing to organize this conference to begin with. There are lots of factors that will potentially undermine both the likelihood and ability of attendees/speakers to make it out. Be it an uptick in COVID-19 cases, travel restrictions, vaccination passports or PCR tests.

I appreciate all your efforts and motivation, but I fail to see why we should be funding a 55k proposal when there is a massive amount of uncertainty around the pandemic situation. I am the first one to miss and pine over in-person conventions. While I would love for Europe to have its respective version of Monero Konferenco, unfortunately the world has decided to take drastic curves of late.

Point two from the quote above explains why you'd rather to split the expenses to be covered in two (2) CCS initiatives; however, that has been already explained to you before. This is precisely what milestones are there for. For instance: first milestone for 55k, second milestone for 20-25k. Deverick, @bobbieweirder, myself and a couple other people have told you this in the past. Furthermore, if price fluctuation is your concern, that is why a buffer exists and has been used in multiple prior CCS proposals before. You can put 55k and 20-25k as rough estimated costs along with the use of a 15-20% buffer below market rate exchange right before it gets moved to funding.

The fact there have been two CCS proposals — one for event expenses and the other for volunteers' and speakers' expenditures — does not mean this has to be always the way they get rolled out, especially when there are viable and arguably more efficient alternatives.

Checking out Covid fallback text, I cannot help but keep noticing the entire text has a lot of unknown externalities due to COVID-19... externalities that could prevent the conference from even taking place. As per the CCS rules brought up in one of my previous comments, there are no avenues to issue refunds. The only way MoneroKon 2022 monies would be preserved by Digital Renegades for MoneroKon 2023, would be if this CCS proposal is moved to funding stage and it is fully funded. The whole 345 XMR.

Last but not least, I appreciate you working with ajs, Digital Renegades and the organizers on the contract to be signed between DR and G+H. Nonetheless, the issue of a local champion has still not been tackled and it looks like it will not be mitigated. While the 2 CCS note is great, I still do not see the need for it when the rough costs may be split into 2 milestones within a single CCS proposal.

We should err on the side of caution and professionalism whenever possible — especially when countries like Australia, Austria, Germany and The Netherlands (just to name a few) are imposing draconian policies around international travel. Although the current target of attendees might be 200, there will be a lot of people who just won't be able to get to Portugal because of these draconian measures imposed by governments all over the world. We ought to be on the defensive and have a feasible back up plan for a MoneroKon once the dust has settled a little more and there is more assurances for people coming in from other jurisdictions.

Quality over quantity. Under these circumstances, I do not see how we can put up a successful event the level of what Konferenco 2019 set the precedent for future MoneroKon gatherings.

If it was ok for Core to pay Diego to champion other Monero events, why is it not ok for organizers to be paid via a CCS proposal? If anything the situation seems like an improvement and is more transparent.

I think it would be reasonable to include a condition that if the CCS is underfunded or impossible due to COVID, it gets rolled over into a fund for Monerokon 2023 (or maybe late 2022?).

@carrington Just to clarify here a bit. Diego was Monero Core Team's assistant since ~2017. G+H are organizers @midipoet recommended and vouched for due to their experience with planning FOSS-like events in Portugal, or at least that is my understanding. We are comparing a single individual that happened to be tightly involved with Core Team, not to mention employed in a full-time fashion by Core itself, with a for-profit, private company, with its own set of interests. It might be an improvement for you, not necessarily for me: they are two different things, one is a company, the other an employee of Core; although I will concede it could potentially be more "transparent", as long as there is a contract between G+H and Digital Renegades; someone who can hold them accountable to what the community has been invoiced for, before, during and post-event would be a great add-on (local champion, or any other form we all can agree upon after our planning meetings and dissertations in here.)

If it is underfunded, funds are sent to General Fund. That is how these particular cases are treated as per outlined in CCS rules (Rule #2 for donors.) Midipoet modified the description to state that if the event were to be canceled, funds would be held by Digital Renegades to cover costs for MoneroKon 2023. Being that said, I have yet to understand why should we move this CCS proposal to funding stage when there are so many unknown factors re: COVID-19 that can substantially impact the head count for attendance, undermine the quality of speakers, or the likelihood of long-standing community members and even volunteers, to get to Portugal.

You mention reset as someone who is overseeing and participating in the planning of MoneroKon 2022. However, that was the only person with boots on the ground that so far, to this date, has not yet committed to the local champion role. You may want to take off that nickname.

@rottenwheel, reset (while not being that present in meetings) has expressed their desire to me over IRC (DM) to support the project on the ground. As such, i will leave their name on the list. One other individual has also expressed their support (and is in Lisbon - afaiu). they wish to maintain their privacy - and i will respect that. They are known to the community and they have stated i can call on them if required to do tasks in the city (if possible whilst maintaining relative anonymity).

no local champion means I will not support this CCS proposal.

That is completely up to you. The only event have had that had a local champion in the six plus years Monero has existed, was MoneroKon 2019. All other events had no local champion. And not only was there a local champion - there was also a hired PM (from outside the Monero community). For the record, while rehrar was instrumental to the success of previous events - he was not based in either Nevada (DefCon) or Europe (C3).

Respectfully, we should not be pressing to organize this conference to begin with.

So your position now is that we should cancel? If so - why not just say that, and hold that position?

As per the CCS rules brought up in one of my previous comments, there are no avenues to issue refunds. The only way MoneroKon 2022 monies would be preserved by Digital Renegades for MoneroKon 2023, would be if this CCS proposal is moved to funding stage and it is fully funded. The whole 345 XMR.

I am happy to change this text to ensure that any XMR that is raised will go into MoneroKon 2022 or (if cancelled/not funded) MoneroKon 2023 - would that suffice?

While the 2 CCS note is great, I still do not see the need for it when the rough costs may be split into 2 milestones within a single CCS proposal.

I have addressed this a few times now - and it has been discussed at meetings (both -community and -events). Due to the externalities, i think it is prudent to maintain the two CCS model. If you feel it necessary - we can discuss this again at the meetings happening today, here and here.

We should err on the side of caution and professionalism whenever possible — especially when countries like Australia, Austria, Germany and The Netherlands (just to name a few) are imposing draconian policies around international travel.

I am not sure how we have not been professional?

I understand your own risk aversion, but having discussed this with numerous people both in meetings and outside, i think trying for an event in six/seven months time is worth the risk - especially as it seems that Omicron is not as serious/debilitating.

Both G+H and kico have intimated they do not think that Portugal will change their risk tolerance level, as they wish for business to continue. This is one of the main reasons we chose Lisbon to begin with.

We ought to be on the defensive and have a feasible back up plan for a MoneroKon once the dust has settled a little more and there is more assurances for people coming in from other jurisdictions.

If MoneroKon 2022 cannot go ahead, then the funds and effort can move to MoneroKon 2023. I have stated this quite clearly.

@midipoet.

So your position now is that we should cancel? If so - why not just say that, and hold that position?

My lack of support for this CCS proposal is not new, your 'now' word throws me off a bit. It has been voiced since the very first comment I posted in here; the reason keeps iterating (thankfully you listen and act on errors or oddities,) but the sentiment remains unmoved. If you need me to 'just say that' and perhaps a more succint statement might help you sleep at night, then here you are: I do not support this CCS proposal, no funding should be allocated for MoneroKon 2023 given worldwide circumstances, travel restrictions and infection rates in Portugal and elsewhere. Let that be the main reason I ultimately do not support it.

Nested reply:

I am happy to change this text to ensure that any XMR that is raised will go into MoneroKon 2022 or (if cancelled/not funded) MoneroKon 2023 - would that suffice?

Merge request description:

edit2 - As @rottenwheel has stated, the CCS does not afford refunds to be paid to donors. To this effect, if the CCS is funded and the event has to be cancelled/postponed all XMR will be directed towards MoneroKon 2023. If the CCS is only partially funded - all raised XMR will be directed to the MoneroKon 2023 fund

Both in your nested reply and the modification of the CCS description, you repeat the same mistake of thinking a partially funded CCS proposal could relay such monies to a MoneroKon 2023 pot. It is either fully funded, or it gets sent to Monero General Fund as outlined in rule #2 that I originally referenced in my comment.

For Donors.

2. In the event that a proposal is overfunded, unable to be completed, or otherwise put in a state where donated money will not be dispersed to the intended recipient, the default is that the remaining XMR will be put in the Monero General Fund. There are some exceptions, but they are rare, and these decisions rest with the Core Team.

It is not worth to move it to funding stage because it has to be fully funded (345 XMR) in order for you to either use them for MoneroKon 2022, or have them allocated for MoneroKon 2023. That is my opinion, of course. Partially funded would translate to such moneroj be deposited into General Fund; no refunds or future Konferenco pot would receive that money.

---

I am not sure how we have not been professional?

I understand your own risk aversion, but having discussed this with numerous people both in meetings and outside, i think trying for an event in six/seven months time is worth the risk - especially as it seems that Omicron is not as serious/debilitating.

Both G+H and kico have intimated they do not think that Portugal will change their risk tolerance level, as they wish for business to continue. This is one of the main reasons we chose Lisbon to begin with.

Just for clarification purposes, I am not judging you, any of the time and great effort you have invested into launching this, midi; if anything, I am cognizant and grateful for it. When I say it is unprofessional to put together a convention under these circumstances I refer to travel and health conflicts with COVID-19. It will make a dent on speakers, head count and all other correlated logistics in between. I believe I have said this many times by now; no need to keep repeating ourselves and chat in circles over and over again.

As for Portugal, it would be helpful to take a look at the link posted by @FlamingAtlas with regards to how they are handling visitors. Find the comment and link here.

Nobody can predict the future, but it is certainly not looking great. Regardless of what side you stand on, plenty of people, to this day, cannot get out of their countries, states or cities; curfews, lockdowns and travel measures are rampant, not because Omicron is as strong as other variants, but because it spreads faster; hence infection rates are picking steam yet again. That's why most countries canceled New Year's celebrations, for instance.

Edit: Doing some research online, I found this quote in The Netherlands' government website.

An EU entry ban is in effect for people from countries outside the European Union/Schengen area.

Since I mentioned Australia, Austria, Germany and The Netherlands, just leaving few links as hyperlinks contained in each country. Such links might be of interest for others to go over when assessing whether they wish to support or not having the very own Monero, research-focused MoneroKon convention in 2023.

@rottenwheel

Thanks for the information and the continued recommendations.

I have tried to address the CCS specific aspects in the latest edit - the predominant change being that if this CCS is not fully funded by mid-Feb 2022, the raised funds will roll into a MoneroKon 2023 fund, that will be maintained by Core until efforts begin for that event (as discussed in meeting and -community channel).

I also appreciate your concern over Covid and travel restrictions. However, as far as i am aware travel for work related reasons is allowed both into and out of Europe - so for most intents and purposes this would cover any speaker and volunteer related travel.

I am also fairly certain that all inter-European travel will be allowed - regardless of the state of Omicron in June.

The only risk i see (though real), is the risk of audience members being unable to travel into Europe in June for non-essential (non-work related) travel. However, i am not sure how much probability there is of this happening (and indeed cannot predict this). Currently there is no restrictions from the US into Portugal, as per the info provided here, copied below.

Country Specific Information: Portugal Non-essential travel to Portugal is PERMITTED. Non-essential travel (i.e., tourist travel) from the United States to Portugal is currently permitted. See “Entry and Exit Requirements” below for testing details.

it does seem testing is required for entry, but entry is allowed.

I can’t support this proposal.

It’s self-evident you don’t know anything about the situation in Lisboa with regards to the SARS-CoV-2 crisis.

Nobody here except @Nacho_Monster even speaks a word in Portuguese.

I think I am the only one here who could get to Lisboa without a police control with a ‘CoViD passport’ application. Masks are mandatory everywhere and the cancellation of events is an ordinary drama. I’ll never buy a ticket for an event in this awful context.

The only reasonable alternative is an online event or other jurisdiction with a non-crazy totalitarian environment like Portugal.

Are you saying that events are being cancelled there currently, or that you think events in June will be cancelled? I think it is difficult to predict what will be happening in June regardless of which country you look at.

Another possible option is going to Mexico or El Salvador.

Mexico never closed during the pandemic, still open. I'm on the ground here and there is no plan whatsoever to close. My top 3 recommendations would be: Mazatlan, Hidden Port or Mayan Riviera (Cancun).

Just Picture it:

• MMM2022 (MoneroKon Mexico Mayan Edition).
• MoneroKon Hidden Port Edition

There is also of course El Salvador, they just said 70% of the population is already vaccinated so they don't see any reason for lockdowns. They are open. They seem open to crypto in general. Most of the ATM's take other cryptos apart from Bitcoin.

@librehodl Thanks for joining the discussion. Out of curiosity, should we explore either of the two countries you suggest, would you be open to taking on the role of project champion? You can check out its responsibilities here.

If you want reliable and up-to-date information in English you can find it at the following link:

https://pt.usembassy.gov/covid-19-information/

Currently the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Portugal is the highest of the crisis despite the massive vaccination campaign.

It is reasonable to expect the situation not to improve or even worsen in the coming months.

Mexico is an unrestricted country and El Salvador is known for having bitcoin as legal tender. These are two reasonable alternatives.

It’s self-evident you don’t know anything about the situation in Lisboa with regards to the SARS-CoV-2 crisis.

With all due respect, @FlamingAtlas the proposed event organisers are located in Portugal (Azures). Kico is also from Portugal originally (afaiu). Both expressed their opinion in the last meeting that they did not expect restrictions to tighten - and especially not all the way till June.

or other jurisdiction with a non-crazy totalitarian environment like Portugal.

So you are now saying that Portugal is totalitarian?

My top 3 recommendations would be: Mazatlan, Hidden Port or Mayan Riviera (Cancun).

@librehodl You obviously missed the number of meetings where Europe was the proposed choice.

Both expressed their opinion

Opinions are like -you know-; everybody has one. I predict that it is very likely that the minimum necessary conditions to celebrate an event in Lisbon on that date will not exist. I base this prediction on the knowledge of the current situation. I provide the link of the US embassy in Portugal as evidence.

So you are now saying that Portugal is totalitarian?

This question demonstrates your ignorance about the current situation in Portugal. One more reason not to support this proposal.