FWIW, I asked ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Llama to estimate development and operations costs and pasted in the top part of the project description. I'm leaving out the detailed cost breakdowns, and Llama was all over the place with implausible numbers and bad math, so I'm leaving it out completely. Here are the bottom-line numbers from the others:
ChatGPT
Estimate Type Development Cost (One-Time) Annual Operation Cost Total (5 Years) Low $120,000 $10,000 $170,000 Medium $200,000 $20,000 $300,000 High $300,000 $40,000 $500,000
Claude:
Estimate Level Development Cost Monthly Operation Cost 5-Year Total Low $88,000 $3,500 $298,000 Medium $110,000 $5,000 $410,000 High $130,000 $7,000 $550,000
Grok
Estimate Development Cost Ongoing Operation Cost (per year) Total Cost Over 5 Years Low $30,000 $2,000 $40,000 Medium $65,000 $7,000 $100,000 High $100,000 $12,000 $160,000
So, at $100 per day for five years ($182K), this would be near or below the low-end estimates for ChatGPT and Claude, and near the high-end for Grok.
100 SBD per day is the amount we first proposed.
There are several reasons for setting this price, the biggest one being that STEEM blockchain users are very cautious when it comes to using STEEM DAO funds.
Therefore, we set it as the minimum amount and we hope that the community will approve it and start developing.
After that, we plan to make several achievements and make additional proposals accordingly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is different than an outside contractor coming in doing a job and then leaving. These guys also will benefit from this and would also benefit from an increasing price of steem. Things should be built by stake holders on the platform simply to increase the value of their holdings. That being said I do think they should be paid for their development work, however, I am definitely against 100 SBD per day forever as the cost. A one time development cost and then a minimal maintenance cost seem much appropriate to me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not even sure about funding the development cost out of the SPS. If I had enough stake to influence the proposal acceptance, I would probably want to see more details around time frames, deliverables, and quantification of expected burn estimates.
Also, as I mentioned in my reply to the top-level post, I'm thinking that the best way to handle this might be by revisiting liquidity rewards from the blockchain. Apparently, there were issues with the first iteration and liquidity rewards were "temporarily" disabled, but if the SPS is going to pay for development to enhance liquidity, I think that might be a better approach(?).
I think the team does have a good track record, but (IMO) some level of due diligence is needed before supporting a proposal of this size, and I'm concerned about permanent dependency on any specific team for this purpose.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Personally I'm growing increasingly skeptical after not getting straightforward answers to some of my questions. And aside from whether development costs should be paid for, I suspect that having a centralized bot slurping up all the arbitrage opportunities would probably be a bad thing for the ecosystem.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yep I agree as well. I think the free market should and probably will take care of this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit