This is a comprehensive summary, with added reference links, of the Monero Community Workgroup meeting1 from November 11th 2023, 1500 UTC.
The raw, unedited, full log file for this meeting:
231111-community.log (361 lines)
Note: it is possible that some relevant information may be missing from this summary; read the full log file for the complete, unedited discussion.
Participants: 17 (plowsof2, binaryFate3, sneedlewoods_xmr4, ofrnxmr5, rbrunner76, ctrej7, spackle_xmr8, rucknium9, btclovera10, hinto.janaiyo11, nioc12, tuxsudo13, v1docq4714, selsta15, luigi111116, lordx3nu17, midipoet18)
Focus: The future of the CCS after the recent incident19
plowsof recommended skipping the CCS ideas list20: The agenda/goal of this meeting should be to help clarify where Core and the community are at in terms of short / long term solutions for a path forward, whilsts disrupting Moneros development as little as possible
ofrnxmr was keen to get [the] ball rolling in the short term and focus on setting up the infrastructure for funds moving forward in the long term (2-4 weeks)
plowsof noted that the Monerokon events team went their own way for funding21 and are planning to return to the CCS in spring~ depending on how things are resolved
Rucknium reminded everyone that the MAGIC Monero Fund22 was unaffected by the CCS wallet theft
plowsof hinted at the fact that Monero multisig is still experimental23
Rucknium was against security through obscurity in the eventuality that the CCS would end up using escrow again: the process to create and manage the wallet should be documented publicly
plowsof was wondering if binaryFate would agree to create a seperate [secure] ccs wallet and send funds from this new wallet on to luigi (for payouts);
ofrnxmr was opposed to the idea, hinting at the fact that binaryFate already has too much responsibility as he is also holding the keys to the General Fund wallet;
binaryFate asked the community if there would be support for delegating full responsibility for the wallet to luigi1111;
ofrnxmr was against the idea, unless luigi would be a multisig signer: not solo. Worst opsec.;
Rucknium pointed out to the probable lack of trust in luigi from the perspective of potential donors;
nioc noted that they would be fine with luigi in charge;
tuxsudo and btclovera both objected and mentioned the OPSEC failure;
rbrunner7 noted that no one knows how luigi was targeted and that could be reason enough to choose somebody else for the time being;
ctrej was wondering if it would be possible to temporarily use a ledger or trezor until the community figures out multisig proper;
Rucknium floated the idea of direct funding to workers’ XMR wallets as a short term solution;
ctrej was looking for a guide or a link collection for hardening a PC (removing intelME24 etc.);
selsta suggested a potential workflow/setup: luigi can for example use a hardware wallet for a hot wallet to payout devs while the cold wallet that gets the actual funds are in someone else’s hands
hinto.janaiyo was wondering who would be trusted enough to hold funds long term, before suggesting plowsof as a temporary custodian;
ofrnxmr voted for plowsof to handle the new wallet, but wanted multisig for the long term;
btclovera nominated both binaryFate and plowsof and suggested RINO26 or some multisig schema and then also recommended Vik from cake wallet;
sneedlewoods_xmr thought that plowsof is trustworthy for the new short term wallet;
rbrunner7 wondered if plowsof would agree to take the responsibility
binaryFate stated that he is not comfortable piggybacking on different wallet when we have different requirements on how frequently to access funds in response to rbrunner7’s suggestion to use the GF security setup to create a new wallet
Rucknium was looking for a direct answer from plowsof to the obvious question: do you want this responsibility?;
Rucknium recommended going with the direct funding with no escrow option as there is (currently) no arrangement that satisfies all groups - donors, workers, people that vet proposals, and the escrower;
hinto.janaiyo wanted to know if proposers would directly receive funds even before milestones are complete;
ofrnxmr nominated selsta as a potential candidate;
nioc indirectly suggested Rucknium
plowsof assured everyone that the work in progress proposals are covered by the general fund / have already been paid out
Rucknium mentioned that binaryFate is probably already escrowing the bounties.monero.social27 funds;
binaryFate confirmed: I escrow the bounties wallet and perform payouts as directed to me (usually by plowsof);
ofrnxmr thought that was too much for 1 person
midipoet proposed using a custodial account at somewhere like Kraken as a short term solution: This will solve the immediate Opsec issue and also provide us some time to organise properly;
selsta noted a risk of Kraken locking the account due to large inflow / outflow of funds, probably get flagged by some algorithm;
midipoet also suggested LocalMonero, in order to benefit from the wallet’s view key;
selsta favored a solution that doesn’t involve a third party service
rbrunner7 tried to redirect the discussions back to the most immediate bottleneck: finding trustworthy users that are ready to take the responsibility
binaryFate posted his final comment of the meeting: I don’t think you should expect a magical solution from Core. In that context core and core members at most can be tools for the community to use, not much more.
hinto.janaiyo proposed to temporarily hold future community meetings every week
plowsof noted that consensus was reached to merge/retrofund the monero-core/seraphis devs proposals
selsta was more interested in using the CCS instead of direct funding
rbrunner7 thought that the CCS is an important cornerstone of our “culture”, of our “identity”. More than a simple tool to pay people.
Let me know if you found this report helpful.
Feedback, suggestions and edits always welcome @/about/.
[TBD] @nioc (IRC) ↩
License: CC BY 4.0, no changes were made to the article.