Haveno frontend development

The operative exchange running Haveno will be for-profit. Meaning the collected fees will go to the operators of the exchange.

The Haveno core team won't run the operative exchange. That will be done by another entity.

TLDR; While I love the concept of Haveno, I don't think Monero community should try to collect such huge value of XMR to build Haveno and then someone else take the product already coded and get a big profit from it.

1564 XMR. Probably one of the highest CCS amount request I've ever seen. (I've been a lurker for many months).

GDPR analysis of Haveno. This is useful for reliably assessing the legal status of Haveno and tweak the protocol where necessary to avoid legal issues. Estimated cost: 10k EUR

Not needed. Remember "The Haveno core team won't run the operative exchange"? Why is a GDPR analysis needed for an exchange that won't be ran by you? This should be assessed with the team that will be transform Haveno into a for-profit. We dont need to pay "legalese" guys.

Developers that will work full time on Haveno in the future will dedicate some of their working hours to Monero-related FOSS projects.

In the future, there's no certainity. How can you be such sure? People will get the money and move on. We don't need frontend developers, better to make sure they REALLY want to contribute to Monero core before signing a contract.

2 experienced frontend developers and a lead dev dedicated to Haveno

Let's do some math. 231000 US dollars for 3 people for 6 months of full work. 38500 per month, 12k (38/3) per each person?! Or probably let's say 50% lead dev, and 25% for the frontend developers. For that price, I want the product tomorrow. Too much, too much. I am aware of freelancing taxes, and additional costs but I would be a freelancer for that price too. Consider to lower the amount.

Continue to sponsor Monero development with bounties and development.

Wouldn't have more sense to have a Monero CCS only for funding Monero developers and maybe implementing Seraphis?

For simplicity, we ask the funds to be sent to us every month for 4 months, with the first reward being sent as soon as our proposal is considered funded.

Read the rules. Remember any failed CCS that wanted the reward being sent as soon as proposal was funded? No exception should be taken. Neither if you are fluffy.

The funds we have left (which as a result of the current market have lost almost half of their value) will be used in almost their totality to pay for bounties (which consist in half of our total funds) and design, so we are forced to ask the community another, last effort to help us making Haveno real.

Crypto goes up and down. :' ( sorry

For my opinion, it's a huge no. Especially when I hear that this CCS funds only frontend |o.0|

Any further comments from other devs people?

Not needed. Remember "The Haveno core team won't run the operative exchange"? Why is a GDPR analysis needed for an exchange that won't be ran by you? This should be assessed with the team that will be transform Haveno into a for-profit. We dont need to pay "legalese" guys.

The GDPR analysis is needed, because we are working on a platform that has to be run. The analysis will allow us to make sure the operators are not required to follow AML rules (like KYC). Haveno will not be "transformed" to for profit. Somebody has to run the exchange and collect the fee to fund development and everything else. Bisq has the DAO, Haveno does not.

In the future, there's no certainity. How can you be such sure? People will get the money and move on

We committed to keep sponsoring Monero development and we will.

Let's do some math. 231000 US dollars for 3 people for 6 months of full work. 38500 per month, 12k (38/3) per each person?! Or probably let's say 50% lead dev, and 25% for the frontend developers. For that price, I want the product tomorrow. Too much, too much. I am aware of freelancing taxes, and additional costs but I would be a freelancer for that price too. Consider to lower the amount.

The team already gave us a discount. We got rates much higher than what we are asking here.

Read the rules. Remember any failed CCS that wanted the reward being sent as soon as proposal was funded? No exception should be taken. Neither if you are fluffy.

This is not a strict rule and there have been various ccs that released part or the entire reward after being funded. The team will start to work soon, we will have to pay them.

Not needed. Remember "The Haveno core team won't run the operative exchange"? Why is a GDPR analysis needed for an exchange that won't be ran by you? This should be assessed with the team that will be transform Haveno into a for-profit. We dont need to pay "legalese" guys.

Just to jump in on this - as far as i understand it, the GDPR/Data Protection analysis is going to be done to ensure that the GDPR does not apply.

The fact that the front end will be processing personal data (one assumes), and has been created by some 'entity' (whether or not for profit) makes it a grey area, and would need an assessment done to understand the implications, and whether or not all the processing orchestrated by Haveno falls under one of the exemptions/derogations - such as "personal or household activity" - GDPR, Art 2(c). Some more info is here

This links to AML rules (of which there are many) because (as i understand it) if the GDPR/Data Protection analysis does indeed confirm that Haveno is exempt from GDPR, it will provide a starting point in any argument against why it is exempt from AML rules.

The team already gave us a discount. We got rates much higher than what we are asking here.

Because you said you're a profitt company and profit company holds million of dollars. We're not a place for funding random projects, we're a community who seek funding for maintaining the complex Monero project (code, infrastructure).

If people want to give money to Haveno for this, then sure, let's allow them to donate money to Haveno for this. If that's the main determination on whether to move this or not, then move it.

However, I am worried about startups raising donations from the community when in my opinion they should be looking for investors. Haveno is a software startup that needs to raise money, so that they can earn money from trading fees later on. Haveno is like every other Ethereum DEX startup out there. But instead of raising money from investors like everyone else, they're asking for donations.

If people want to donate to this, then fine. I'm sure the Haveno team will thank you for your no-strings-attached, free money

For the rest of the world though, people generally donate money to a for-profit organization with an expected return. They understand it's a risky investment, but they are investing with the hope that Haveno is a success that earns revenue from trade fees.

We can talk in circles forever about how this maybe isn't the typical sort of organization, and how it's a good thing to not be "beholden" to the investors. Still, just like Haveno would be subject to the payout conditions of this Monero CCS proposal, it's normal for people who donate/invest to expect some level of cooperation and communication. Some people may see this as exclusively a bad thing, but I don't. If you have issues with your investors being terrible, you picked the wrong investors. Terrible investors wouldn't be forcibly assigned to Haveno; they could be picky and choose people who care about privacy, for example.

I'm not a big fan of a startup promising to give back to the community later for donations today. This problem is solved with investment: people give money with the hope of getting a return. This is seen time and time again for every Ethereum DeFi startup out there that raised millions from investors. You don't see them raising money from donations, especially if the startup will bring in revenue later on.

What you call a startup is two guys building something with the help and support of the community. Crypto is allowing us to replace the old system, where contacting investors that only care about getting a profit from their investment was the only choice if you wanted to build something. We have the chance of building a grassroot platform, where instead of investors getting back money, there will be Monero getting improvements an continuous support from us. How is that "no string attached"? Unless the only strings we can think of is money.

Let's keep in mind that going with an investor would be the easy way for us, as it would probably increase the funds at our disposal drastically and we would probably get a nice salary too, instead of using our savings to build Haveno. If we are avoiding this choice is to not having to compromise with an entity that it's not involved in the project and only sees it as a good investment. An entity that would have a say in how Haveno is developed and managed.

What you are proposing is to disregard the possibility of using this opportunity to help build Monero and instead have an external company, who is in it only for the profit, receive money for their investment. I don't see how that is a preferable approach.

The business-oriented approach is not the only possible approach.

Since you do not like the external company, it seems to me that you came forward and asked the Monero community for funding in exchange for long-term development support to XMR's upstream code. However, I am of the same vein that future development promises (albeit there have been already PR pushed to Monero) is not enough to meet the impending need of receiving something more valuable, monetarily speaking, for the progress of the overall ecosystem, such as some fixed percentage of number in gains, to be sent to General Fund or CCS proposals, depending on what the community deliberation decides. CCS system is acting like a seed investor for your start-up, you should definitely give some back, be it a company, or a community. In this case, you should feel even more compelled to do so, since it is "us", not a for-profit company that does not care about "us".

When someone else suggested a 50/50 split in gains, you said this. One particular sentence caught my attention:

A classic VC would ask for much less and would provide much more funds, but we could find a common ground on this.

For some things such as building Haveno CLI and then a GUI, for which you are now publishing your proposal, you seem to pursue Monero's path deploying everything. For some others, like negotiating an agreed upon, fixed percentage off of gains, you do not, or at least not yet. You compare a CCS proposal with venture capital when we are talking about Monero and its several community-driven communities.

I appreciate the idea behind Haveno, understand its importance and do certainly hope it gets pulled off one way or the other; but using funds to make a compliance check should be a no-go, for starters. Then we get into the whole splitting gains to give back discussion.

We haven't even discussed how we are supposed to cover costs for more than $240k to hire a third-party company and deploy a brand-new UI/UX when there is Bisq, even though you mention it is slow and old. If it were for back-end work, I could most likely see the appealing factor in this, but for UI? Not really. Speaking for myself here, of course.

We might as well hit this comment of yours in Reddit.

I understand that this not as simple as it should be and we would also love for things to be simpler, but to make sure Haveno stays alive, we decided to separate the code from the actual running exchange and two different entities take care of each. That makes sure the Haveno core team has no liability and can keep working on the code, no matter what.

The operators of the exchange will not be random people, but trusted people of this community that have the complete trust of the Haveno core team, which will not be involved as an entity, but members of it could be involved. We hope people will understand the situation.

Not sure if everyone will understand the situation, quite frankly. I think there should be some level of transparency, especially if the community is going to allocate funds for the second largest CCS proposal ever.

Not sure if everyone will understand the situation, quite frankly. I think there should be some level of transparency, especially if the community is going to allocate funds for the second largest CCS proposal ever.

To make things easier, people can see ErCiccione as the future operator of the exchange. This should resolve the uncertainty about who the entity is going to be. We'll edit the proposal.

like negotiating an agreed upon, fixed percentage off of gains, you do not, or at least not yet.

We totally see this as a possibility. We thought the community would have been more interested in seeing assured Monero and monero-related development than a monetary donation, which will be used according to Moenro's core team preference, but if people would prefer a recurrent donation, sure that would be actually easier for us.

First off just want to say that Haveno excites me as another on-ramp to Monero and has a high potential of attracting users of different crypto projects to Monero that aspire to transact more privately etc. Existing users have the ability to benefit from Haveno as well, especially with its promises to have a professional, fast, and seamless interface. Increasing the decentralized options that the crypto community has is a forward step that will make it a more normalized to not transact on centralized exchanges, which can be quite restrictive and even hold user wallets hostage in times of supply illiquidity. That being said, I do have some constructive comments.

Since this is a for-profit venture being 100% funded by the community (still appreciative of the work this entails at or lower than fair market value), why not make the community a direct shareholder in the venture? I think it would be very interesting to see a 50/50 profit sharing, with half going into the Monero General Fund for future CCS proposal fundings, Monero conferences, etc as a recurring way to incentivize more Monero awareness/outreach.
If this 50/50 profit sharing was implemented, I feel that it would be an amazing marketing strategy for Haveno since projects such as Cake Wallet, LocalMonero, etc do not ask for funding for their core services and are known to sponsor/donate back to the project. While I understand that this CCS states that any left over funds will go back into the General Fund, I would like to see more of a recurring revenue stream as opposed to a one-time occurrence.

Thanks and look forward to this possibility.

Thanks for your feedback!

Making the community a the-facto stakeholder is exactly what we are proposing. We thought directly funding development of Monero would be preferable to a monetary donation, but if people prefer that way instead, sure, let's talk about it. 50/50 is way too excessive. A classic VC would ask for much less and would provide much more funds, but we could find a common ground on this.

Keep in mind that sponsoring is a great marketing strategy and both localmonero and cake wallet are very different from Haveno. Cake has a big amount of funds at their disposal already and LocalMonero is a proprietary, non FOSS platform.

I would like to see more of a recurring revenue stream as opposed to a one-time occurrence.

Just to make sure we are on the same page here. We are not proposing a one-time contribution back to Monero. We are committing to a continuous long term support.

A classic VC would ask for much less and would provide much more funds, but we could find a common ground on this.

A VC is going to ask for entirely different arrangement than this CSS proposal for crowdfunding, so I don't think it'll be helpful to compare terms.

A VC won't demand any percentage of income. They'll just want to know how the funding you're asking for is worth the equity you're selling in your company, your pitch for how your team plans to deliver them at least 10x ROI within 3 years, and that the owners will sign contracts with their terms. That kind of funding typically means your business plan should first have the network running live without the fancy frontend so you can get the company valuation based on increasing numbers of monthly user and transactions. If things go really well you can find a way to get a better UI without selling equity.

I think the difficulty with your proposal is that building frontends for for-profit companies isn't what this kind of crowdfunding is for, but I think what you're doing is great and I want to see you succeed with it. I think others may feel similar about wanting you to be successful, and are trying to be flexible in considering an arrangement that could get you the funding you seek, but I highly doubt it would be anything resembling any "typical VC" arrangement.

The reason for this difficulty is that you can successfully complete everything in the proposal, and receive all funding, and yet that by itself doesn't do anything for monero, so how can the general fund justify the cost? how could they deny anyone else with a monero project who wants a better UI funded?

What a joke!

154k and 231k USD for 4-6 months of work.

That is 38.5k / month!

The Grin lead dev who is cryptographer and not just a Javascript kiddy charges 8k/month.

And then the intransparency reagrading the for-profit operators collecting the fruits built by the community funds. Who are those operators? Why is it for-profit? Don't you see the huge conflict asking a community for donations but then later when money flows stuffing it into the pockets of some "operators". Go and ask the "operators" for the money.

And great that at that stage you are considering legal counsel. What do you do if it turns out that its not possible to run that DEX without KYC? Just add KYC and f**k the XMR community once again?

Just FYI and for what it is worth, HavenoDEX handle on Reddit wrote a few sentences re: who are those operators? question in your comment above.

I understand that this not as simple as it should be and we would also love for things to be simpler, but to make sure Haveno stays alive, we decided to separate the code from the actual running exchange and two different entities take care of each. That makes sure the Haveno core team has no liability and can keep working on the code, no matter what.

The operators of the exchange will not be random people, but trusted people of this community that have the complete trust of the Haveno core team, which will not be involved as an entity, but members of it could be involved. We hope people will understand the situation.

@BB

Why is it for-profit?

Because somebody has to pay for stuff. If Haveno wouldn't generate any income, it would close the day after being launched.

Don't you see the huge conflict asking a community for donations but then later when money flows stuffing it into the pockets of some "operators"

No. Because we are not asking for a blank check. We are committing to give back the value the community will provide us in the form of continuous support of Monero development. Take a look at how bitcoin is losing developers because they don't have a way to pay them. this a good opportunity for the Monero community.

Because somebody has to pay for stuff. If Haveno wouldn't generate any income, it would close the day after being launched.

Then why you don't release Haveno and then collect some funds from your profit? Who can guarantee the project will not be dead as Kovri? By putting more money in? That recalls a Ponzi scheme....

changed the description

Since there are concerns about the identity of the future operators, we edited the disclaimer, adding:

"ErCiccione of the Haveno Core team should be assumed to be the operator of the future exchange, for simplicity."

This may be a dumb question but I'm new to the space and want to make sure I understand. What does an "operator of the exchange" entail? My understanding is that Haveno will be a decentralized, p2p exchange. Why would an exchange operator be needed? Thanks for any clarifications.

The operators will be the entity that will actually run the exchange. They will provide arbitration, seednodes and will fund development.

"ErCiccione of the Haveno Core team should be assumed to be the operator of the future exchange" Ok, than why isn't he funding the expenses?

"We are committing to give back the value the community will provide us in the form of continuous support of Monero development." That could be said by Coinbase as well.

"The operators will be the entity that will actually run the exchange." Is this then really a DEX? What makes it different to HodlHodl which don't label themself as DEX but as non-custodial?

The issue isn't that Haveno will make money. That's good; we have a passionate Monero ecosystem member who wants to make something that expects to generate value. That's exactly how Cake Wallet works. Clearly people want to use Haveno and will find it useful.

I would like Haveno create a specific proposal for how much of the revenue will be given back. Ideally this would be written as a contract, but the risk of someone running afoul of this is relatively small. But it would help protect in the case of another investor buying the assets. In this case however, I imagine people would be so outraged that another arbitrator/operator would step up.

We can come to agreement as well on how they could be given back. Examples that people here may find agreeable include the Monero General Fund, Monero CCS proposals, Monero Bounties, and the MAGIC Monero Fund. Leaving some reasonable discretion there seems appropriate so long as it isn't misappropriated.

Example: 25% of revenue, paid at least quarterly, to Monero CCS proposals or the MAGIC Monero Fund.

This simulates equity payouts without a typical VC setup.

I would like Haveno create a specific proposal for how much of the revenue will be given back. Ideally this would be written as a contract, but the risk of someone running afoul of this is relatively small

It's absolutely reasonable that given the amount requested and the structure of Haveno, the community is asking for some guarantees, even if i hope our reputation in the Monero community will attest the genuinity of my and Haveno's intention.

That said, let's work out some more specific terms. I've been thinking about it and that's what i would propose:

15% of the monthly revenue of the live platform would be donated back to the community, by either:

Sponsoring Monero development through our bounty system
Sponsoring CCS proposal the Haveno community and team will deem interesting
Sponsoring developers for work on Monero related projects
Donating directly to the Monero general fund
Donating to Monero bounties
Donating to MAGIC fund

This assumed that the amount collected in this ccs will be 100% of what Haveno is requesting. Since there is a time limit, would be appropriate to reduce the amount of funds given back to the communtiy according to how much this proposal will be funded. Example:

CCS funded at 100%: 15% of revenue will be donated back to the community in the ways described above
CCS funded at only 70%: 10.5% of revenue will be donated back to the community in the ways described above
CCS funded at only 50%: 7.5% of revenue will be donated back to the community in the ways described above

It's important to keep in mind that Haveno will be fully open source, so even if the operators would disappear, the community would have still funded a fully operative exchange ready to be launched by another entity. This is not a minor detail, because assures the community that what they are paying for won't be nullified by a malicious operator.

I'd be happy to gpg sign a statement where i vouch to respect these terms, but i won't do anything that compromise my anonimity. I think this is a fair compromise, as a gpg signed document can still be legally enforced.

Let's work out the details and after we will edit the proposal for the final review.

you would gpg sign a statement agreeing to terms from an anonymous pseudonym speaking for a legally founded company that you aren't in control of or managing? What could be legally bound by doing so?

I don't think it's a matter of compromising at this point, but rather a matter finding a way to solidify an agreement with sufficient clarity.

For starters, why not involve and get an agreement from the people with the authority to make such an agreement on behalf of the company running the network? Divvying up their revenue to pay for open source frontend UI sounds like something they need to be part of.

@erciccione I first want to thank you for your hard work on @HavenoDEX thus far. In order to grow Monero, it is extremely important to see more pick and shovel infrastructure built around the main protocol. While I understand some of the earlier sentiments against UI/UX spending, I personally find it to be quite crucial in order to make privacy more accessible to the general public.

That being said, the above concerns regarding the funding model resonate with me. This CCS ticket at its core is akin to a conventional solicitation of angel investments. A 50/50 split may indeed be too high-- I want people to feel like they can enjoy the fruits of their labor and be incentivized to continue supporting Monero. After all, there is considerable opportunity cost to devs for opting to contribute to the Monero ecosystem in an environment where we are drowning in opportunities and capital is plentiful. But ultimately, it doesn't quite sit well with me to place the capital burden on the community without adequate reassurance that the community will have a meaningful stake or quantifiable returns in the long run, especially because the profit potential for Haveno is so asymmetrical to the community's cost of providing the seed capital. While the venture capital model is not the only conceivable one that works, it does have a way of aligning some financial interests. Novel means of capital-raising of course have not been sufficiently tried and tested, but we are increasingly seeing more experiments with DAO structures that allow a certain level of pseudonymity in similar types of community organizing. We may not have quite the infrastructure to support that yet without thinking a bit outside of the box, but this could be an opportune moment for the community to at least begin thinking about utilizing available tools as we scale to catch up with the times, for this CCS ticket or for future projects.

If we do decide to proceed with this CCS, I would hope to see Haveno granting the Monero community some legally enforceable rights, with the General Fund, Magic Fund, bounty pool all being good (but non-exhaustive) options as beneficiaries. I understand the community's overarching desire to be agnostic to the legal system, but in this instance, given that Haveno is already availing itself to the protection of the law by virtue of having a conventional legal structure, I have no objection to the Monero community meeting Haveno there. These issues are only going to keep emerging, and as the wider crypto community matures, I think our time of expecting devs or community members to altruistically contribute primarily for the greater good will soon lapse. CCS continues to be a great way for the community to come together and chip in for the main cause, but imho we ought to be a lot more nimble to scale and promote adoption.

Thanks for the feedback. What you are asking is absolutely reasonable. A clarification first:

given that Haveno is already availing itself to the protection of the law by virtue of having a conventional legal structure

This is not correct. Haveno will not have any conventional legal structure. The live platform will. This is a crucial difference, because Haveno is opening the proposal and collecting the funds, but the operators will collect the fees of the live exchange, so they will be responsible for respecting the terms of this CCS.

Beside that, what you and @sgp are suggesting is understandable and we will be happy to provide a more structured commitment. Because of the structure of Haveno, we won't be running the exchange, so these terms should be discussed with ErCiccione, who is probably going to be the operator: !284 (comment 14772)

First to say Hello to everyone and to show MajesticBank's support for any Monero related project.

Heaveno or any Dex based on Monero is a big project for this community and would strengthen up Monero position as coin and make it more resilient to de-listing on exchanges and outside factors and that will appear more and more in future. Having exchange run on top of Monero would also increase volume of monero trade and make price more stable which works good for everyone of us.

We pointed 4 key points that need to be addresses before any further discussion

1- Analysis on impact of Heaveno or any Monero based DEX on size of blockchain and flood of network performed by Monero Reserach Lab team or at least their opinion about it. As We all know Monero network is created to perform reasonably private transactions between users, what impact DEX will have on network considering future updates and network forks can be only correctly answered by MRL. Monero for years avoided to implement anything else then transacting privately so MRL opinion should be respected.

2- Re-considering operation mode of this exchange in terms of technology used specially frontend technologies. This CSS proposal is to develop frontend GUI based of javascript meaning DEX will use website to be accessible to general users that makes Heaveno use centralized point of entry prone to seizures and enforcing possible legal restrictions ( possibly KYC ) on the Exchange that should be decentralized. Seems a little contradict to require javascript to use Tor based exchange powered by Monero, We believe those 3 shouldn't go together. What would be nice is cross-platform robust C++ application that would run on both Linux/Windows/Mac that would work fast with low latency and provide decentralized access to the DEX that would be really hard to censor. C/C++ languages should be first pick for Monero related projects because large portion of Monero Core developers code in those two and Community would easier be able to maintain / contribute those projects.

3- Since Heaveno is fork of Bisq exchange the creators of the project should reconsider using as much as possible code / applications from Bisq to lunch this project and make it usable and then from collecting fees to fund further development. From what I've seen on Bisq downloads page they have frontend already available for most OS. Our proposition is better small but with working DEX and collect fees from that then putting bar too high and failing in the end. Raising 250,000 USD dollars is not impossible for this kind of healthy and strong community but putting this kind of money into failed project will deter community from funding any future DEX attempt and make us a lot far away from dream to have Monero based DEX.

4- Heaveno as community project would be a major thing in terms of sharing profit from DEX directly with Monero commununity. By Monero commununity directly meaning only Monero General Fund for future CCS proposals funding. The exchange would need to be setup in multi-signature wallet with Trusted Monero Core Members so that in mathematical way Monero community have stake in the exchange and earn profits. Any coin that's underlying a DEX gain in value so Monero would benefit the price and Heaveno would benefit big promotion from every Monero coin holder or privacy advocate. Percentage is negotiable thing but there should be a consensus do Monero Core Team want to get into this kind of partnership and of course previous 3 points are fulfilled.

Let the privacy win

Disagree. No decision is necessary.
This sadly isn't really actionable, at least within reason.
It's infeasible to simply copy and drop in the Bisq GUI. They're simply too different. Plus the Bisq UI is terrible.
Strongly disagree. We shouldn't centralize around the Core Team for no good reason. There are other ways of addressing this.

Hi @MajesticBank and thanks for the detailed feedback.

We don't think such research is needed, but we intend to audit the trade protocol of Haveno
As @sgp says, that's not really actionable. It would require a redesign of the entire platform.
One of the main reasons to fork Bisq is because their user interface is horrible, keeping it is not an option and would result in duplicate and wasted efforts, without considering the bad user experience.
We too agree that the centralization around the Monero core team is not necessary.

you're asking us to fund a crazy amount for some one else's for-profit business venture?

are you fucking kidding me?

Thanks everyone for the feedback (socketpuppet and troll accounts included ;)). We understand the need for a more formal commitment. We cannot provide that, because the Haveno core team won't run the platform, but the future operators can. See ErCiccione's proposal: !284 (comment 14772)

Haveno should be self-financing. At first, Haveno should reduce his costs to the maximum and increase them based on his profits obtained from the fees paid by its users.

The weak point of any market on the Internet is the people who run the servers. Monero Core Team should dissociate itself as much as possible from these people.

this comment makes the most sense.

Hey all,

First off, just wanted to say thanks to @erciccione and @HavenoDEX for the work that has been done so far on Haveno, for the bounties offered to help drive Monero development forward, and for filling in a much needed gap in the Monero ecosystem -- a fiat on/off-ramp for Monero that is decentralized, p2p, and free of KYC.

That said, I do have a few comments for the proposal.

GDPR analysis of Haveno. This is useful for reliably assessing the legal status of Haveno and tweak the protocol where necessary to avoid legal issues. Estimated cost: 10k EUR

After reading through all of the comments and chatting with others, I don't really see how this is necessary or a good use of funds. Gettin a lawyer to sign-off on GDPR compliance for Haveno is only applicable in the EU, and technical compliance has done very little to help Monero avoid regulatory pressure in the past.

Spending 10k EUR for this analysis, IMO, would be much better spent building in tools to the code and architecture of Haveno that would make it resilient in spite of regulatory pressure (that will inevitably come), instead of attempting to get a seal of approval that will likely have no benefit.

The other piece of this I don't understand is how GDPR would even be applicable -- it's a FOSS project and a p2p exchange, no personal information is ever collected or stored by Haveno AFAICT, and should not be ever. We don't need another KYC exchange (even if p2p), and you've made it clear that's not what you want either.

$231,000

Thank you for clarifying the ways that we can potentially directly give the Monero community return on investment in the future, as this sum is extremely high and will put quite a burden on the community via donations.

I'm torn because I absolutely want to see Haveno not only launched but done so with a fast and flexible back-end and an extremely user-friendly front-end, and understand that hiring people to do that work costs a lot of money.

I do definitely agree with the discussions above that there should be some sort of direct donations back to Monero (or an actively maintained bounty program) as a direct ROI for the communities donations as this is a for-profit venture that will be directly benefitting others.

My top two choices mentioned:

Sponsoring Monero development through our bounty system (start with this)
Sponsoring CCS proposal the Haveno community and team will deem interesting (use excess funds for this)

I don't have any feedback on the specific % split, so I won't comment there.

If Haveno wouldn't generate any income, it would close the day after being launched.

This is absolutely true, and I see the necessity of the exchange being profitable/earning income after launch. I would urge clarifying that this will be the only CCS request for Haveno (or not!) to help people see that this is essentially seed-funding to get Haveno launched, and Haveno will then not only be self-sustaining but will give back to the community in tangible and transparent ways.

There is obviously not a way for you to earn income before the exchange is launched, so some funding to kick-start things makes sense, but I understand if people are wary of large sums like this being paid out as there have been some large CCSs in the past that have been... less than satisfactory or complete failures.

https://github.com/haveno-dex/haveno#sponsors

Have any sponsors committed funds to this CCS request or work? If not, could they be surveyed to see if they'd be open to committing to funding a portion of this?

To sum it up:

We have a deep need for a permissionless, p2p, fiat on/off-ramp for Monero, and I truly believe Haveno can be that. I want to see a request like this funded, but a lot of details should be clarified before it is opened for funding. I'm extremely excited for what Haveno can become, and hope we can all work together to help drive it there.

The other piece of this I don't understand is how GDPR would even be applicable -- it's a FOSS project and a p2p exchange, no personal information is ever collected or stored by Haveno AFAICT, and should not be ever.

There a good overview here: https://dataprivacymanager.net/the-extraterritorial-scope-of-the-gdpr-applicability-enforcement-extraterritoriality/

which also links to (who does GDPR apply to) https://dataprivacymanager.net/who-does-the-eu-gdpr-apply-to/

The rationale for doing the analysis (as i understand it), is to determine whether an exemption/derogation applies (i.e personal or household exemption). If the personal/household exemption applies, then it's the basis for an argument for why the DEX does not need to adhere to AML/KYC regs.

Please note the fact that there is profit being purported to being made by this DEX, by the operators - this will have serious ramifications for both GDPR and AML (as i understand them). This is why i would advise that all profit from the DEX goes back to the community - preferably to some fund of which there is no legal entity responsible for. Or there is no profit made by the DEX, and the community shoulders the upkeep burden through CCSs. going to ping both @erciccione @sgp on this as well.

This is why i would advise that all profit from the DEX goes back to the community - preferably to some fund of which there is no legal entity responsible for. Or there is no profit made by the DEX, and the community shoulders the upkeep burden through CCSs

This could actually be a good solution @midipoet. Personally i don't care of running the platform, i would be much happier with a solution that involves the community in the operation of the platform. Also, my idea at the very beginning was to use Haveno as a "community exchange", where the incomes are used to fund Monero development. This solution (sending the collected fees to the geneal fund or ccs fund) would get us closer to that. Of course, anyone working on the platform should be compensated for their efforts (core team, developers, arbitrators), but ccs proposals could be open for that scope.

We have to discuss this option internally.

What about exceeding funds? there will be still funds left, they will be donated to CCS proposals, worthy Monero projects (like P2Pool, Randomx and others, according to input from the Monero and Haveno communities) and the Monero general fund.

I would highly recommend simplifying this by making the only plan for excess funds in this proposal to be donating back all of it to the Monero General Fund.

You'll be able to submit other proposals separately and they can each be considered for funding regardless of excess funding returned on other projects.

The feedback from the community gave us some good ideas about how to improve Haveno in a way that makes it more decentralized and that doesn't need to rely on a third party running the operative platform. We are discussing things internally at the moment, but soon we will ask feedback to the Haveno community at large.

We'll open another ccs once the new structure will be decided. Thanks everyone for the inputs :)

closed

mentioned in merge request !295 (merged)

Haveno frontend development

Who

How much and for what

What will Haveno give in exchange

What about exceeding funds?

Milestones and terms

Disclaimers

Closed by Haveno 3 years ago (Feb 6, 2022 9:56am UTC) 3 years ago

Activity

Haveno frontend development

Who

How much and for what

What will Haveno give in exchange

What about exceeding funds?

Milestones and terms

Disclaimers

Merge request reports

Closed by Haveno 3 years ago (Feb 6, 2022 9:56am UTC) 3 years ago

Activity