Q. We should have about 30 eligible projects to be voted on per track for this season. In S1, community members can vote up to 3 favorite projects per track, how many votes per track do you think we should have this time? • Just 1 vote per track, • 3 votes per track like last time, or • 5 votes per track. Please state your reason too.
I prefer that each person can vote five votes. There are indeed many good projects in Hackathon competition. Only when everyone votes on multiple projects can scientific statistics be achieved, I hope that each person can vote five votes
Q1. I agree with the previous answers. It’s always better to judge a project on what it has accomplished rather than on what it’s promising.
Q2. I would like a system where we can rank the projects we like from 1 to 3 or 1 to 5.
That way if we have 5 votes, our favourite project will get 5 points, the second will have 4 points and so on until 1 point for the 5th we have chosen. But the season one system was good too
I like the format for S2 better as it is about accomplished projects rather then dreams. However the improvement I would suggest is to have a deadline for project entry and then a seperate deadline for project completion with status updates.
This would have the advantage that the community and judges can see the project evolve, it would support projects who actually build rather then projects who take a product from the shelve and apply.
Right now it feels a bit static in the Hackathon with a lot of last minute entries. In my view a hackathon is a process rather then a time snapshot.
Concerning voting, weighted votes would be best, where you can give like 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points to chosen projects per categorie.
I have a counter question regarding this topic. Participants from last season came here. At least I saw 3 participants. They had enough time to collect their audience. How fair will their participation in the voting forum. Already now I notice how the same people flood in some projects.
The second point is that these projects, winners from last season, already had funding and they could boldly step forward and improve their work. How fair is this for new members who have 2 months to submit a finished project?
A1: S2 format, because progression and a (half/decent) working project is better to value than just an ‘idea’.
A2: 3 or 5 votes per track (certainly not 1 vote/track), because it’s sometimes easier to choose more projects that look promising without making compromises.
Q. We should have about 30 eligible projects to be voted on per track for this season. In S1, community members can vote up to 3 favorite projects per track, how many votes per track do you think we should have this time? • Just 1 vote per track, • 3 votes per track like last time, or • 5 votes per track. Please state your reason too.
I think 5 votes per track will be better,some people have more chioce
I personally prefer Hackathon S2 format
My reason:- the value of their project will be seen, achieve, or nearly achieve
Thus make it ideal for not paying for null project
We definetely liked the devpost inclusion for S2, this brings lots more attention and talent to our community, however the S1 had this milestone component which made it fun and as the community involvement was kind of mandatory we got more involved with the TRON / BTTC community and heard their feedback, etc. S2 format could carry on the possibility of having more money grabbers and just copy/paste/adapt an already existing product in another chain and port it to TRON or BTTC which is not intrinsically bad, however community involvement Is also important for the projects to be well known and trusted.
I find some projects which had participated in this S2 Tron Hackathon are not value contributing to the front ecosystem rather aim to profiteer it seems. Why a project should submit for grant from the foundation if it aims to reduce the burn of trx. The hodlers are already there to hodl. Why a foundation would fund to a project which works to reduce the usage of its core fuel and profiteer on their personal agenda. On the other hand had seen some interesting projects, deeply evaluating those. #tron-hackathon#TronStrong
I understand your point of view, energy lending platforms/bots reduce the burn of the trx. I know that it is counterintuitive but those platforms actually have a positive impact on the Network imo and here is why:
Gas fees increased a lot on Tron last year. It drove away a certain amount of users and projects teams who don’t have the necessary ressources to freeze and get enough free transactions. Gas fees on Tron are not as cheap as it used to be when you have to burn your trx.
Energy lending platforms might help those users to make transactions on Tron and bring new users. Projects also need a lot of energy and might find those platforms useful.
More users and more projects on Tron means more liquidity pools = more TVL, more frozen trx and a bigger volume of transactions. A rich and diversified ecosystem will also attract more users and projects. So it’s a virtuous cycle that will eventually increase the burn of trx.
The gas fees in Tron is still much cheaper than it’s peers with much more advantage and lesser failed transactions. The gas price in Tron had been slightly increased with a purpose and it would be a double standard of the foundation to support such initiatives which minimized the trx burn. Then better to pass a proposal to rollback the trx deflation and reduce the burn fees. Do we want to keep the trx price at 0.07 for the next decade?
On the other hand I am more supportive on some of the gamefi projects which has the most burn or trx utilisation by the users.
Energy lending is totally private profiteering initiative & should be avoided by all whales as capital gains gets restricted. Whales should be able to see the long term big gains & avoid getting tempted with short term petty gains.
Change of mindset is required if we all want to see the Tron 2.0
I think we have two very different visions. You invested in a coin and want its price to fly up to make gains. I’ve invested in an ideology which is financial freedom for all. Don’t get me wrong. I also want to make gains and I’m happy when the chart is green. I won’t be hypocritical. But I usually stay away from charts and the “we want trx at $1” argument doesn’t move me a bit. Cause I place the evolution of the ecosystem above it.
Financial freedom for all is not possible if the gas fees are prohibitive for a big part of the humanity. And believe it or not, $2-3 is a big amount for a lot people. Imo, more trx gets expensive, smaller should be the amount of trx needed for a transaction. And it doesn’t mean especially that trx will be inflationary again.
If you look at this hackathon you can see the amount of projects that are interested to join the ecosystem. Cheaper fees could mean more transactions and potentially more burns. More LP also means less trx in circulation.
So I think trondao is right when it wants to be as inclusive as possible and accept all the initiatives that can grow the ecosystem and start that positive dynamic.
That’s my own opinion and you don’t have to share it but I hope you can understand it
I do get your point but I think you didn’t get my point. I have problem with zero gas fees. These energy lending projects will burn zero energy from a massive user base it creates and they will earn the fees in trx but they won’t burn these or sent it to a black hole address.
Cheaper fees is already into Tron, we don’t need to promote zero fees to bring in users. Those users usually don’t add any value in business as well. People don’t care when it’s free.
How can Trondao or rather hodlers support this. Hope you are getting my point.
