Regarding the IFP....

I've read a number of blog posts from various devs in the space regarding the IFP proposal to give ABC and loyal projects 5% of the coinbase reward. So I figure I should chime in here...

Lots of discussion around the technicalities of it. But we need to bring something to the forefront, in my mind, that hasn't been adequately considered.

ABC is inefficient. Amaury is a poor team leader and he demoralizes his underlings constantly (and that's what they are, really). You can ask any number of former devs about the "mood" there.

PR's go unreviewed for days or weeks sometimes -- feedback is often missing, incomplete, or downright mean.

He's a terrible leader and project manager.

He believes the key to open source projects is having a staff of 5 loyal devs that do his bidding, and for that he is willing to pay them a full-time salary.

That's one model, but it's not the way Open Source traditionally has worked. Take a lesson from the history books. One of the most successful open source projects in history, the Linux kernel, has had 10,000 contributors over the span of 30 years. In the beginning especially they were all volunteers. Linus Torvalds managed to squeeze free work out of the world. That's quite an accomplishment.

Wait -- but I heard Linus was also an asshole? Yes. Sometimes. Being an asshole where appropriate is required. It's like cooking with salt or pepper -- too much spoils the dish. But the difference between Linus and Amaury is Linus knew how to argue his case -- he was an effective communicator and he enjoyed debate. Amaury sees any debate or even any request for clarification as a potential "threat" and he begins to insult people and shut down all discussion.

Amaury Sechet is psychologically incapable of explaining himself to people. He speaks in axioms that he repeats like a mantra. When asked to clarify what he means there is always a high probability he will just begin to insult you. This is not how you run anything.

So... What you need: You need 1 or 2 or 3 devs.. MAYBE, to "vet" PRs. You can then try and create a bit of community around your project and GET PEOPLE CONTRIBUTING FOR FREE.

I have done this to a limited extent with Electron Cash.

The key is to develop a positive culture -- but to not be TOO permissive. At the end of the day you want 1 or 2 experts vetting everything, guiding new submissions, and generally setting the tone and direction.

Amaury is very inefficient, if downright incompetent with all of this.

His solution is to pay a staff of 5 or whatever full-time so he can abuse them.

This is not how Open Source works ideally.

So where does that leave the IFP? If implemented market forces will be taken out of the equation 100%. Hard-coded in the protocol, is ABC as king of BCH for life. This creates even less incentive towards efficiency. Instead, ABC will just grow fat and lazier and less efficient than they already are. And believe me, I've been in the software business 22 years now. ABC is inefficient if you want to be nice.

ABC, or at least Amaury Sechet should be fired, and they should be restructured towards greater efficiency.

I believe if the culture (and leadership) of ABC changes, the funding problem will solve itself.

1. ABC will become more efficient (read: cheaper to run)

2. Positive culture and positive vibes will lead to productive code and good relations with key community members

3. As a result of (1) and (2) above, it will be far easier to raise funds via donations or grants.

Yes.. GRANTS.

Put together a proposal and a plan and get it funded. People in the academic world do this all the time. And also this leads to some accountability.

But Amaury being Amaury -- he does not like to discuss or explain himself. It's offensive to his ego, and he sees any discussion as a potential threat.

So instead, he's asking the community to subsidize his shortcomings as a leader, without accountability (he hates that) so he may have enough money to pay generous salaries to subservient devs he can abuse.

And.. here we are.