Hi,
Wanting to be adding to this thread because most of the discussion has focused on the present (current liquidity, current audits) or the future (self-sustainability). What hasn't been examined as closely is the past: the previous VSC proposal that paid out 420K HBD over 365 days, plus whatever ran before that. @themarkymark put the cumulative figure at ~$800K. Either way it's not a small number, and I think the community deserves answers about what it actually bought before authorizing another year.
I read the previous VSC proposal alongside this one and several things stand out that aren't addressed here.
Where did the team go?
The previous proposal named five contributors by handle: @vaultec, @geo52rey, @platinium, @manuphotos, and @l337m45732. @lordbutterfly was introduced at the end of that proposal as a brand-new BD hire.
This proposal's named team has @lordbutterfly as project lead, @vaultec moved to a technical/BD role, and five names that didn't appear in the previous proposal at all. Four of the five contributors who received wages from the prior funding cycle aren't on this one. That's near-total team turnover inside a single proposal cycle, framed here as a "leadership transition" rather than what the receipts actually show. What happened to each of those people, and what did their wages produce before they left?
The 560% productivity claim cuts both ways
The proposal volunteers that output rose 560% under new leadership over the last 75 days. If true, the prior period (which the community paid for) was producing at roughly 15 to 18% of current pace. You can't lead with that number and not expect questions about what the previous funding actually delivered.
Things from the old roadmap that are now quietly gone
The previous proposal made specific commitments. Holding them up against today:
- Wrapped BTC: promised August 2025. Never shipped as wrapped BTC. The pivot to TSS native BTC is technically an upgrade, but the community funded one architecture and is being handed a different one with no reconciliation.
- HIVE-HBD pool: promised May 2025, live now (months late).
- Coinbase and Meld.io fiat onramps: promised explicitly, absent here.
- Hive Engine bridge / migration tooling: promised, gone.
- "Mimic Hive replica" testing tool: promised, gone.
- HBD-USDC pool: framed in the prior proposal as transformative for HBD stability, now silent.
- V4V: funded line item at $75/day in the previous proposal. @hallmann79 already asked. Still no answer.
Altera was funded once, then rebuilt
The previous proposal explicitly funded "a revised version of the Altera DeFi app from scratch." This one proudly announces "a complete app rewrite, not a reskin, a whole new application." So the community paid for one Altera rebuild and is being asked to applaud a second on top of it. What was wrong with v1 and what fraction of the previous funding went into it?
The rebrand itself
VSC became Magi and this proposal doesn't explain why. Brand distance from prior performance? Legal? IP? For a project asking the community for another full year of funding, that's something we deserve to be told plainly.
On the AI/security angle
@igormuba71's audit work is exactly the right kind of due diligence, and the response that those bugs were caught May 2nd internally is reasonable. But the corollary question stands: how much of the current codebase is AI-generated, and how does the review pipeline scale to that? Critical bugs in EVM bridge code with real funds on the line are not a place where "trust the speed" is reassuring.
What would change my vote to yes
I'm not asking for the project to be killed. Mainnet is real. TSS native BTC is technically impressive. A leadership change after a slow year can be the right call. But the appropriate response to all of the above isn't "trust the new pace for 12 months at 900 HBD/day." It's tighter terms:
- A public accounting of how the previous funding was spent, including wages to contributors who are no longer on the project
- A written reconciliation against the previous roadmap, item by item: shipped, late, replaced, dropped
- A shorter funding window of 60 to 90 days at a reduced ask, gated on shipping the "Immediate (0 to 60 days)" list this proposal commits to: DASH activation, EVM production, ZK production, Incentive Pendulum, fiat onramp
- Public disclosure of why VSC became Magi
- Status of V4V
As written, this proposal asks the community to underwrite the same execution risk that just produced near-total team replacement, on the strength of 75 days of metrics and a marketing rewrite. That's not a price I'm comfortable paying without these questions answered first.
@lordbutterfly @vaultec, would appreciate direct responses.
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.
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.
Old Altera didnt have any functionality that could support crosschain functionality.
VSC was a generic, forgettable name with poor, bland identity. Its that simple.
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.