Open-Sourcing AVM Email: Joining Encrypted Communications with Defi: 3524536010

I would like to start by thanking you for the comments and asking that my responses be interpreted in the least hostile way possible. My goal here is simply to clarify a few points and respond based on aspects I may not have fully understood from the arguments presented.

Regarding the adjustment in the proposal value: it was made both based on analyzing other projects and on the need to restructure our own scope. Unlike some of the examples mentioned, our project involves not only smart contracts but also a responsive frontend, which significantly increases both complexity and effort.

Initially, when we presented a broader proposal (including Algofun, Gainify, and AVM Email), there was an intention to make the overall package more cost-effective. However, we agreed with the feedback that the scope was too broad and not well defined. As a result, we decided to focus on the main product (AVM Email), better define the scope, and also add a testing layer covering all operations. With this change, the implicit ā€œbundle discountā€ no longer applies, which directly impacts the final cost.Regarding the concerns about the increased ask, I believe many of the arguments presented have been somewhat superficial. We all know that pricing a software product is complex and subjective. So far, only uhudo has provided a more structured argument explaining their perspective. While I don’t fully agree with the comparison made, I do appreciate the effort to provide a clear rationale.

For example, a random number generator library supporting four languages was mentioned. However, this is more about variations/dialects within ecosystems like Python and TypeScript, rather than four entirely distinct languages. Additionally, comparing a library/feature with a complete product (SaaS + smart contracts + interface) does not seem equivalent.

Another important point is that the impact of a library supporting multiple languages is very different from that of a SaaS product. Adoption for a library may increase with additional language support, but this does not apply in the same way to a product. For example, it is unlikely that someone would stop using a SaaS simply because it was built with Vue instead of React.

I would like to reiterate the point: if you believe the requested amount is too high, please explain it with a clear basis (if possible), ideally using proposals that are more comparable to ours.

Although I know the proposal is near a polling phase and I was not expecting a comment from Allan, I consistently check on this thread. I would humbly ask to hear out Allan’s thoughts here, as he does have some reasonable points. The most impactful of them I feel is that building the front-end on his and Ulrik’s side was no easy feat either— a reminder of the complexity we faced in putting AVM Email together, and the original ā€œbundledā€ proposal we had for the 3 separate platforms.

There were a lot of intricacies in balancing the different kinds of accounts and content history, as well as encrypting/decrypting content—not only from a smart contract perspective (7 contracts specifically, as we mention) but also from a front-end perspective. Rendering everything, from the interfaces for preparing and sending emails to the option of crawling through email history with the least user friction possible, was incredibly tedious.

We essentially built and delivered a fully decentralized and end-to-end encrypted emailing platform on Algorand, we had no example implementations to build off of and had significant blockers along the way as the entire blockchain itself does not traditionally support encryption foundationally.

We threw in a commission system, tokenomics, and ā€œprivateā€ (server-gated) staking pools on top of that just to spice things up. There are very few developers exploring this category of work, even fewer that are not AF employees, either implementing or standardizing these encryption methods. As far as I know we are the first to fully build out something like this that is not just conceptual.

As always we are grateful for everyone’s contributions in reviewing our proposal.

ā€œif you believe the requested amount is too high, please explain it with a clear basis (if possible)ā€

Simple. No one uses it…

You guys keep asking for funding through pity and its sad.

ā€œThis was really hardā€ ā€œIt took a lot of timeā€

I always find it crazy how disconnected old school devs are from the actual world and their understanding for how people interpret things…

We have lowered the ask to 150,000 as per discussions:

Open-Sourcing AVM Email: Fully Decentralized, Encrypted Communications & Defi | xGov