Where did the team go?
Team changed over the years. Many were hired as contractors and they got other jobs, moved on. Most of those you listed there have left before I even joined or early when I joined the team. What they produced is on Github, their work didnt disappear because they left.
The 560% productivity claim cuts both ways
You could say that maybe, but thats just how good we got. 😉
I also did an analysis across all DHF proposals and compared output and efficiency, and then compared it to market standards to see how Magi was doing. Old Magi ran just about middle of the pack, new Magi is outpacing everything.
Altera was funded once, then rebuilt
Old Altera didnt have any functionality that could support crosschain functionality.
The rebrand itself
VSC was a generic, forgettable name with poor, bland identity. Its that simple.
Critical bugs in EVM bridge code with real funds on the line are not a place where "trust the speed" is reassuring.
Its not trust the speed. Nothing goes live until thoroughly tested. The speed is us working around the clock and delivering high impact technology. Bug hunts and tests all fall under "speed" as well.
Thanks for engaging directly. A few of the answers landed, a few raised follow-ups I'd still like to see resolved.
On team turnover
You said most of those listed left "before I even joined or early when I joined." You were introduced in the previous proposal as a brand-new BD hire, so that timing places the departures either inside the previous funding cycle or before the proposal that listed them was even published. Both versions are concerning in different ways. Could you confirm: of the contributors named in the previous proposal, who was actively paid during that funding year, and roughly what percentage of the 420K HBD went to contributors who have since left? "Their work is on GitHub" is fair on the technical side, but the question is the financial one.
On the 560%
"That's just how good we got" plus "old Magi ran middle of the pack on DHF efficiency" is essentially agreeing the prior cycle was not optimal use of community funds. If you have done the cross-DHF benchmarking analysis, would you publish it? That would actually be useful input to the broader DHF discussion, not just for evaluating Magi.
On Altera
Saying old Altera "didn't have any functionality that could support crosschain functionality" opens a new question. The previous proposal explicitly committed to cross-chain features. So either the team knew v1 wouldn't fit that roadmap and built it anyway, or the requirements changed mid-cycle. Which was it, and was the community informed at the time?
On the rebrand
Fair enough, accepted as answered. The only follow-up worth a line is whether there were any direct costs (domain, design, marketing assets) tied to the rebrand. Not a sticking point for me otherwise.
On AI and security
The question was sidestepped. "Nothing goes live until tested" addresses something else. The question was: roughly what percentage of recent commits involved AI-assisted code, and what does the human review process look like scaled to that volume? @igormuba71's audit found three real issues in EVM bridge code, which is exactly why a clear answer here matters, rather than a deflection of the concern.
Appreciate the engagement. The unresolved pieces are worth pinning down before votes close.
I answered this. The question is neither of technical nor of financial matter. People leave, people join.
I wont publish it, no. This was done to assure our team we are going in the right direction, not to start more drama. You can do it yourself, its all public.
Yes, and it delivered that inside the proposal time.
Igors audit was Claude doing it, you are aware of that, right? Nothing was deflected, it was clearly stated that all that Igor found has been found already and it wasnt live, its on testnet.
Everything we do is Ai assisted. All our team members have Claude subscriptions.
Appreciate the engagement. The financial accounting question and the published benchmarking analysis remain unresolved on the record, and the contradiction between Altera v1 not supporting cross-chain and Altera v1 delivering cross-chain inside the proposal can be read either way. Voters can weigh the rest.