Good idea but coverage needs to be split up by geo... e.g., US based startups should be represented by a US based law firm, etc.
@Amforc Appreciate the additional clarity and thoughtful approach here 👍
This is a great idea, but in my opinion, it needs to be polished further. Here are my comments:
Lawyers as Curators: Since you’ll be curating legal work, having lawyers is essential. This should be non-negotiable to ensure the credibility and quality of the curation.
Payout Calculation: The pricing mechanism seems a bit tricky. To make it more efficient, I suggest exploring packages specifically designed for team collaborations (not by hour) and without locked dot.
From your proposal, I can see that you have the necessary knowledge to drive this forward. However, this still seems like a grey area with some uncertainties. What’s your opinion on this discussion?
Dear @wario, thank you for your appreciated feedback.
Curators: We agree on the lawyers as curators point for ensuring the highest standard. Hence, how we structured the current suggested curator set which we are happy to extend with good fits on that side and appreciate any suggestions there.
Payout Calculation: Good point. The proposal states for example that a company formation will cost around USD 1,700 excluding third-party costs. Legal health check packages will also be offered for teams and projects in the Polkadot ecosystem. These shall cover various topics, such as corporate law (shareholders' agreement etc.), trademark/IP law (IP strategies, strengths and weaknesses, IP protection and monitoring, to dos etc.), data protection and possibly even a general regulatory and tax check. Each component in a standard version will be around USD 1,000 to 2,000. However, fees may vary depending on the jurisdiction and special requests. It is therefore difficult to estimate a fixed fee for all possible enquiries, and we will provide fee quotes if an enquiry is beyond the usual range.
Locked DOT: We are strongly committed to the Polkadot ecosystem and wanted to emphasize this by making part of the fee dependent on the development of the DOT price. The proposal aims to boost the Polkadot ecosystem by making it more attractive and to strengthen the projects and teams in the Polkadot ecosystem.
Good idea but coverage needs to be split up by geo... e.g., US based startups should be represented by a US based law firm, etc.
Dear @Flez Thank you for your comment.
We agree with you. It is crucial that each team and each project gets the appropriate lawyer. A US case will be advised by a US lawyer. However, the bounty wants to achieve more and can offer several benefits, particularly within and for the benefit of the Polkadot ecosystem:
- Cost Efficiency: By addressing legal questions centrally, repeated legal fees for similar or identical issues can be avoided. Instead of each team paying a lawyer individually, standardized answers and solutions for common questions could be provided centrally.
- Time Savings: The bounty can support teams more quickly with answers and resources, as it is already familiar with recurring problems and can provide tested solutions.
- Consistency: Centralized legal advice ensures that teams can rely on consistent and reliable information, which is particularly beneficial for areas such as taxation, data protection, regulatory law, labor law, or corporate law.
- Knowledge Transfer: The legal bounty shall act as a knowledge pool, drawing on the experiences of other teams and projects (and still guarantee confidentiality and attorney-client privilege). This makes it easier to share best practices and legal strategies.
- Focus on Innovation: By reducing the administrative and legal burden on teams, especially startups, they can focus more on their core innovations.
This is a great idea, but in my opinion, it needs to be polished further. Here are my comments:
Lawyers as Curators: Since you’ll be curating legal work, having lawyers is essential. This should be non-negotiable to ensure the credibility and quality of the curation.
Payout Calculation: The pricing mechanism seems a bit tricky. To make it more efficient, I suggest exploring packages specifically designed for team collaborations (not by hour) and without locked dot.
From your proposal, I can see that you have the necessary knowledge to drive this forward. However, this still seems like a grey area with some uncertainties. What’s your opinion on this discussion?
Interesting initiative, it would also be an excellent bridge between any initiative requiring legal advice and any contracts to be submitted to the PCF.
Powered by Subsocial