ShapeShift has an opportunity to provide a delightful user experience for all Tendermint/Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) chains.
With the work near completed on the Osmosis integration, staking (including re-delegation), send and receive integration for additional IBC chains should be a reasonable engineering lift.
Trading of additional IBC tokens should be enabled on Osmosis soon, so additional trading functionality is not required for this bounty.
I do not think these efforts should detract from the core engineering roadmap, so I am proposing a FOX bounty to integrate additional IBC chains outside of the regular engineering roadmap. This could be a good funnel to attract new engineers to the ShapeShift DAO via Dework or via other methods.
Priority should be higher for chains that already have a ShapeShift DAO Validator: Juno, UMEE, Terra.
ShapeShift can work with these other IBC communities to try to sponsor matching or similar bounties from their governance process or community funds.
I would like to see an additional, bonus bounty for a GitHub template, notion page or medium article for how to add new IBC chains to unchained and the ShapeShift web app to help outside developers integrate future IBC chains.
The poll below has 3 tiers of bounty for each IBC chain.
Original Forum Post (note this has been changed from LUNA to all IBC chains): [SCP-TBD ]- Luna2 bounty to integrate into app.ShapeShift.com - #5 by willy
love this idea , especially coupled with matching bounties from the respective communities. I bet Cosmos would be happy to help us promote this too.
would it be up to product workstream to decide which chains beyond the first 3 to prioritize as well as how many total bounties to offer? or how do you envision that working?
I’m curious what thinks a reasonable bounty amount would be as well as whether docs can/should be bountied or should be done in house.
looking forward to integrating all the zones! 1f680
I feel like it would make the most sense for the docs to be done in house as we have the context as to what needs to be done and where. We have an outdated coin additions checklist that we can leverage to outline the scope and provide the necessary touch points for the stated work to be completed.
I voted in current alignment with the 100k FOX as a safe, but still enticing incentive. I would be curious that if it is wildly out of line in either direction, would or should an amendment be made to better align the bounty amount with the resulting body of work as we see it fulfilled?
Thanks for the feedback. Maybe $XXX in FOX is better way to frame it? Like $10,000 of FOX at time of completion.
I am not currently up to date on the expected or competitive bounty rates for work of this nature that can take x amount of hours or for creating IBC integrations (I would have to research) before voting. That said I do see value in both having additional IBC integrations and the ability to bounty out this work effectively.
I was more so implying that if the amount of work required ended up being significantly less or more than how the bounty was currently priced, if it could easily be amended to more accurately reflect the work required.
Essentially, I am thinking that the first integration may be a little more work than the following ones just to iron out any missing info/edge cases in the coin addition checklist, but ideally if someone were to be able to add an IBC chain within 3-5 days, the 100k FOX/$7k USD might be a bit much ultimately (especially considering the current financial state).