Hi @HAL.xyz , nice to see the success of your product, and so many users from Aave using it!
Some aspects to comment from my side:
- I obviously think that the proposal is beneficial for the community, basically continuing to improve what you already created in the first Aave integration of HAL, and making it a bit more “native” to the ecosystem.
- Even if roughly I consider that the numbers (budget, duration) could be fine, I think it is important to go a bit “deeper” on the understanding of this type of collaboration. At the moment, as a data monitoring/automation service/product, HAL kind of enters into the category of tooling in what respects to Aave: a tool which the community can use to get better real-time assurances on their Aave positions.
Taking that into account, I differentiate 2 main costs (in all senses) for a platform like HAL regarding Aave:- Cost of expertise and effort to develop a solution adapting to the needs of Aave. This is what the past grant covered for the initial version, and what a certain budget should cover for any further improvement like the one proposed.
-
Maintainance cost for the infrastructure of running continuously a service like this for Aave users. In a case like this, where HAL basically builds and maintains a let’s say “white-labelled” solution for Aave, the cost should be transferred directly and transparently to the DAO. Basically, something like “the cost of running and maintaining the infrastructure for Aave is 5’000 USD a month, we want Aave to cover it month-per-month”. On this side, Aave should understand how dedicated is the infrastructure to their users, especially because if the Aave brand is used on the notifications center, the reputation of Aave is on the line if the service would have degradation.
So from my perspective, it would be clearer to define the scope that way: price and duration for the development/improvement, cost or running the service on behalf of Aave during X time.
- More on the operational side, how will the support to users will be managed? Probably could be a good option to create a discord channel for this on which HAL personnel could take care of.
- In terms of UX, giving the “white-labelled” nature of the development, it is mandatory that the interface is in line in design with the current Aave application. If the proposal for the Aave <> BGD Labs passes, we can help on that, and other contributors like the Aave companies can definetly participate on this I think.
- Regarding the sub-group for community notifications and grants, I don’t really think it is needed at the moment, so I don’t support that part. Of course, within the scope of the Aave Grants DAO applications, this direction will kept being incentivise, but an specific subgroup doesn’t make sense in my opinion, as it is not exactly the same as something like security initiatives.
- Last thing to consider, as important reflection for the Aave community. Apart from a customer, what is Aave to HAL? It is one of the biggest user-acquisition channels for HAL. I don’t think the budget and conditions of the collaboration are not considering this point, but I think it is important to keep it always present for the Aave community; its self-value.