[GRANT REQUEST] ZeroEx Pathways (ZRX PATH)

[nikita]

[GRANT REQUEST] ZeroEx Pathways (ZRX PATH)

Basic Details

Project name:
ZeroEx Pathways (ZRX PATH)

Point of contact:
Nikita#4377, 0xSHA2#5156

Team background:
Nikita and SHA are seasoned community members who have contributed to the improvement and adoption of 0x Protocol consistently for several years, including developing frontend applications; operating staking pools; moderating Discord, Snapshot, and the governance & research forum; creating and curating various types of content; providing staking, developer, and integration support; serving as bootstrap delegates; shepherding experiments and initiatives; incubating a grant program; and helping to evolve governance. Our experience and learnings from these activities inform this proposal, which aims to decentralize core protocol development with the goal of making the protocol more performant, innovative, and sustainable.

Other sources of funding and approximate amounts (grants, VC, etc.):
NA - This will be a new project

Project Details

Describe the problem being solved:

The 0x Protocol is modern software that enables the ubiquitous exchange of tokenized value. The protocol’s open-source contracts are designed to be extensible. In theory, one of the benefits of open-source extensibility is a flourishing of developer contributions. However, after six years, there have been no ecosystem-based developer contributions to the core protocol contracts.

We believe that the lack of contributions from independent developers representing diverse needs and priorities puts the protocol’s future viability at risk, making it the protocol’s most critical unmet need. We also believe it is fair to deduce that protocol capabilities have already been effectively constrained by this condition, negatively impacting usage, adoption and innovation.

As real-world examples, there have been consistent inquiries from application developers regarding various features that existed in previous versions of the protocol that are not available in the current version. Specifically, the ability to trade bundles (multi-asset swaps) for both ERC20s and NFTs is highly sought after by application developers looking to build novel, customer-facing products. NFT-to-NFT trades, advanced trading features, and more types of signature support (such as EIP1271 support for ERC20s), are also in high demand, as are new features that would differentiate the protocol and the products built on it via innovation. Some projects have chosen to build on other protocols due to capabilities not being available or well-documented.

Compounding the problem, independent developers generally don’t have the knowledge and experience with the core protocol contracts to work on them on their own, nor has there been a reliable pathway for collaboration or coordination with 0x, so opportunities to improve the protocol have stalled or fizzled out. Many of the researchers and engineers who worked on the core protocol contracts are no longer involved, reducing the availability of and access to historical knowledge regarding design, logic, architecture, and functionality. Protocol documentation has become stale and confusing to navigate, hindering its usefulness.

While there has been significant success related to adoption at the 0x API level, meaning that many applications have integrated and are using the 0x APIs, this success has not extended to the core protocol level, meaning that the 0x APIs remain the main integration point to the protocol, and 0x is the only protocol developer.

We believe this is an urgent and growing problem that must be addressed. Access to grant money alone is an insufficient catalyst to motivate and drive meaningfully positive outcomes.

Recently, 0x announced several initiatives aimed at decentralizing key components of the protocol and its governance. Resourcing a community-led tiger team to establish pathways for core protocol development is critical to jumpstarting and de-risking ecosystem-based contributions.

Explain how the funding will be used:

Our hypothesis is that formalizing structures and pathways to enable core protocol contributors will generate more developer interest, engagement, and confidence than would otherwise happen organically, leading to positive outcomes with measurable benefits to the protocol. In contrast, continuing the status quo will result in increasing risk to the protocol and negative outcomes, including the slowing of innovation and deterioration of technical relevance in a rapidly changing and competitive developer mindshare environment.

Our primary priority will be to develop enabling structures and actionable pathways that empower and de-risk independent contributors building core protocol capabilities (such as features, functions, methods, libraries, and transformers), with a secondary priority to do the same for capabilities that interact directly with the core protocol contracts (such as APIs and SDKs).

Aspirationally, these pathways will form the basis of an innovation pipeline that not only improves the protocol’s sustainability, but also serves to manifest and harden the protocol’s autonomous, permissionless, and censorship-resistant properties.

Broadly, we aim to improve the core contributor experience and enable protocol improvements. This will require cross-disciplinary expertise and experimentation including the following:

• strategy development and execution
• experimentation and innovation
• software development and maintenance
• product management
• developer advocacy and support
• content generation and curation

More specifically, to deliver the outcomes identified above, we may perform activities such as:

• improving core protocol documentation
• providing timely developer support
• experimenting with GPT and AI tools
• prioritizing needs and resources
• researching emerging standards and network/chain-specific opportunities
• capturing best practices and lessons learned
• helping protocol contributors obtain grant funding
• coordinating with auditing organizations
• triaging technical issues
• refreshing the ZEIP framework and assisting with ZEIPs

Keeping in mind that quality and impact are more important than quantity, some metrics for tracking success could be:

• [#] of new core protocol contributors
• [#] and type of Github pull requests and commits
• [#] of new protocol features, functions, transformers, libraries, APIs, and SDKs implemented
• [#] of ZEIPs submitted, approved, and deployed
• [#] and type of new ecosystem integrations
• contributor surveys
• developer-focused analytics

Our high-level execution plan provides enough time and runway to 1) build the baseline components; 2) conduct experiments; 3) assess, iterate, and refactor; and 4) recommend and initiate appropriate future actions based on evidence, data, and learnings.

Indicate whether your solution/product will integrate directly with the 0x Protocol contracts (such as the 0x Exchange Proxy) or via APIs. If APIs, please list them (if known):
This effort will drive improvement of the core 0x Protocol contracts, including, but not limited to, the 0x Exchange Proxy and associated smart contracts.

List any critical milestones and dependencies (if applicable):
See execution plan, above.

Describe how the solution/product benefits the 0x Protocol Ecosystem:
As described above, improvements at the protocol level benefit the entire ecosystem.

Do you agree to tag your solution/product for visibility in [0x Explorer]:
NA

What are the actual and/or target usage metrics (such as users and volume) for your solution/product:
See execution plan, above.

Provide links to any of the following for the project (if available):
Demo: NA
Website: TBD
Twitter: TBD
Discord/Discourse/Community: TBD
Other: NA

Funding Request

Grant amount requested (in fiat):
In exchange for delivering the capabilities and outcomes described in this proposal, we request funding of $270k from the treasury.

The rate is comparable to similar protocol DAO core contributors with similar expertise and experience; delivering capabilities of similar complexity, criticality and impact; and in similar situations, i.e., no benefits, equity, or employment contracts, along with the risks of price volatility associated with crypto assets in a bear market and a hostile regulatory environment. The conversion rate from USD to ZRX will be determined using the 30-day EMA from Trading View (Coinbase) as of [date of submission for vote]. Funding will be deposited into LlamaPay escrow contracts to distribute monthly payments.

References for contributor comparables:

1. Rook ($325k/yr)
2. Aave ($150/hr, 30 hr/wk)
3. Uniswap ($150/hr, 30 hr/wk)

Grant amount by token (ratio of tokens):
100% in ZRX

Receiving address and chain:
TBD

Conclusion
We have identified a problem and proposed a solution. There is significant risk if the problem is not addressed and mitigated. The cost is reasonable, and there is minimal risk associated with our ability and motivation to execute the plan we propose. The benefits for the protocol are positive and measurable.

[Koppany]

I fully support the proposal.

Having worked closely with both 0x Labs and 0x DAO for over a year, I strongly believe that this proposal effectively addresses crucial issues that have been missing from the 0x ecosystem. It paves the way for bringing back the most innovative and longstanding decentralized exchange infrastructure player to its rightful position.

What stands out the most in this proposal, in my opinion, is the focus on improving the core protocol itself, which is an unmet need.

Sustaining the longevity of a product requires continuous innovation and the ability to attract top talent. However, these factors alone are not sufficient. Direction and effective execution of plans are equally essential. Currently, I feel that the 0x ecosystem lacks these latter aspects, and this proposal directly addresses the missing link of connecting and supporting developer teams to the protocol.

I am particularly in agreement with the detailed steps and goals outlined in the proposal, as they provide a clear roadmap for progress. Furthermore, the evaluation criteria are realistic and easily measurable.

However, the greatest strength of the proposal lies in the team responsible for its execution.

Nikita and Sha are among the longest-serving community members, and they possess a pragmatic understanding of the critical success factors in play here and are proposing a practical solution. Additionally, they exhibit remarkable project management skills, leadership qualities, technical adeptness, and industry knowledge.

As a side note, I also believe that innovation at the core protocol level has the potential to significantly enhance sentiment about the protocol’s product/market fit.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support this proposal because it addresses real issues, offers a path for substantial innovation at the core protocol level, creates a competitive edge for 0x, and is executed by an exceptional team.

[Aishwary92]

Thanks @nikita for putting out the proposal. After an extensive discussion, I believe that the objective of the proposal is absolutely bang on where we can clearly see there is a lack of core protocol contribution from independent developers which may result in putting the viability of protocol at risk.

However, I believe that the solution proposed is not going to address the problem at hand. From my personal perspective there are a few things which I would need more clarity on because that would be mission critical to talk about the problem at hand.

1. Understanding how the core looks at this proposal and how will they contribute as the directing light for these pathways. We can build the best buildings but if there are no roads to access it, the buildings are worthless. So the core has to commit on providing directions on which these pathways will function. Else, since both are separate entity, 0x and DAO, there will always be divided pathway as to what needs to be achieved.

2. Currently, if I look at the treasury which is available to be used in this has 1.6M ZRX, and hence if we allocate the $270K budget here, out of the $350K budget, how will we be able to fund these pathways going forward because it almost drenches the treasury? Please note all other ZRX is either tied to Polygon or Celo so that cannot be used for the general development. Do you have fresh sources from where the mechanisms will route the incentives once you have these pathways?

My take is that we might not need these pathways but two things, and I am drawing this from my experiences working with Polygon as a protocol, connecting with multiple protocols like Uniswap, AAVE etc so this comes from my over all experience:

1. Getting commitment from the core to be able to guide. I am not asking to get them to work with us. I know they are very busy. But unless that commitment is there, no pathways will work. The problem statements must emerge from core and the DAO should evaluate if they are worth asking the community to build it.

2. Use the existing funds, on putting them to use for the problems that need solution. Engaging the community for docs, ai, support etc. I am happy to bring some benefits from Polygon Village where we have various incentives provided. I can also work on putting a proposal from the side of Polygon, to use a portion of that earmarked fund for the funding.

But as for this proposal, I am not convinced that it is a going to solve the problem you have discussed.

[JoaoCampos89]

I am against this proposal as is currently presented. So my vote direction will be against it. I think 270K is a big amount to spend despite the merits of the proposal.

I will be in favour if we be more concrete on doing some update on core and give grant amount to document the whole process on how to do it. 0x V4 at current stage has a lot of flexibility in implementing updates, but there was no innovation besides what 0x Labs needs for their core products.

For instance, porting NFT bundles support from V3 to V4, I personally don’t need this feature, but looking at past conversations on forums, there is a demand for this feature. So we could use this as implementation example and create a docs website where all the path to doing this is documented.

Additionally, adding a new chain to ZRX stack without the involvement of ZRX labs, there are good candidate chains to do this, for instance: Base or ZKEVM. Adding a chain should be well documented at 0xprotocol website and could be an additional source of grants value to the protocol when applying for others EVM chains.

[nikita]

@Aishwary92 Thanks for sharing your point of view and suggestions. It appears we agree on the problem, but disagree fundamentally on the solution.

Simply stated, while you believe that the right course of action is to defer to or rely on 0x for “direction" and “guidance,” we believe the right course of action is to become self-sufficient.

Such deference and reliance is a large contributing factor to our current situation. In other words, we tried that approach, and it is fair to say that it failed.

Compounding the problem, independent developers generally don’t have the knowledge and experience with the core protocol contracts to work on them on their own, nor has there been a reliable pathway for collaboration or coordination with 0x, so opportunities to improve the protocol have stalled or fizzled out.

As quoted above, we included this in our problem statement and feel, based on empirical evidence, that it would be a strategic error to double down on part of the problem by making it a critical element of the solution.

The future of the protocol cannot be reliant on a single entity, even if it is the founding protocol team, because it becomes a single point of failure and an existential risk. The longer the reliance continues, and the more entrenched it becomes, the more difficult and disruptive it is to escape. Labs has signaled implicitly and explicitly through their actions that their original, primary role has already shifted and will soon shift even more with the governance and treasury contract migrations. Now is the time to prepare and adjust to ensure that the protocol is ready and resilient.

Regarding your specific concerns and suggestions:

1. Understanding how the core looks at this proposal and how will they contribute as the directing light for these pathways. We can build the best buildings but if there are no roads to access it, the buildings are worthless. So the core has to commit on providing directions on which these pathways will function.

Our proposal describes both the structures and pathways (or, in your analogy, the buildings and the roads to access them), hence the term “Pathways.” And, as described above, relying on direction or guidance from 0x confuses the problem with the solution.

2. …how will we be able to fund these pathways going forward

Ideally, our solution is largely a one-time cost that creates conducive conditions for developers to contribute, which may or may not be associated with future costs related to those contributions, but in any case provides a lasting benefit to the protocol by delivering a sustainable and valuable capability that doesn’t exist today. In our opinion, there is nothing more important at this inflection point.

1. Getting commitment from the core to be able to guide….unless that commitment is there, no pathways will work. The problem statements must emerge from core and the DAO should evaluate if they are worth asking the community to build it.

As described above, we disagree and add that this type of model reduces the sovereignty of the community and tokenholders to act with agency.

2. Use the existing funds, on putting them to use for the problems that need solution.

We considered the treasury value and came to the conclusion that the likelihood of strategic or long-standing impact is much higher for a capability that enables developers to contribute than would be derived from anecdotal development efforts that may provide limited lasting benefit to the protocol.

However, to mitigate this concern, we will amend our proposal to add:

We request that 0x allocate an additional $270k in ZRX to the treasury from the Ext Dev Pool, having the effect that the net cost to the treasury will be $0.

In summary, we are reminded of the saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Building self-sufficiency, and acting with agency, is the way.

---

@JoaoCampos89 Thanks for sharing your point of view and suggestions.

Regarding your specific concerns and suggestions:

more concrete on doing some update on core and… document the whole process on how to do it

We can’t commit at this time to specifically what it will be due to several variables in flux, but we are confident that we can shepherd a feature/upgrade through to deployment, including documenting the process, lessons learned, etc.

Adding a chain should be well documented…

This will be complex, but is definitely something we plan to work on and feel fairly confident that there will be natural incentives for 0x to participate/assist.

[acilia]

Hi all

Thank you both for creating this proposal. Acilia would love to approve this proposal, and here is my reason why:

First of all, I value Nikita’s and SHA’s contributions to the 0x community, and I agree that their involvement forms a solid foundation for the ZeroEx Pathways project. They have proven to be the bedrock of this community, and I know their intentions are to enrich the ecosystem.

Secondly, I do share the concerns about the need to revitalize the protocol and attract more developers. However, I also understand the necessity of a well-detailed process that ensures this project does not impact the daily operations of companies such as ZeroEx Inc (and others alike) which, of course, are consumers of the 0x Protocol. I believe the ZeroEx Pathways project should work closely with these companies, ensuring the necessary audits for key features like limit orders or FlashWallet upgrades. There must be a well defined protocol between all parties for this upgrade to be successful.

My personal 5c on where you can focus your efforts:

• Experimentation: Since it’s still unclear what the market needs from 0x protocol today, I recognize the importance of focusing on new emerging trends (crypto and non) like in AI, and try to use that distribution to funnel into 0x Protocol. I would try to do calculated experiments, measure them, report outcomes.
• Prioritize DEXes as customers: I also suggest shifting focus from developing for retail customers to how the 0x protocol can better serve DEXes. The idea of developing a generalized DEX adapter and tooling for other DEXes is instrumental in making the 0x protocol more relevant and valuable in the current DeFi landscape.

Good Luck

[Aishwary92]

Thanks @nitika.

The future of the protocol cannot be reliant on a single entity, even if it is the founding protocol team, because it becomes a single point of failure and an existential risk.

Just trying to understand this: Are you saying that you are planning to outgrow the core and objective is to grow with or without them or take their direction to move forward?

Next,

Our proposal describes both the structures and pathways (or, in your analogy, the buildings and the roads to access them), hence the term “Pathways.” And, as described above, relying on direction or guidance from 0x confuses the problem with the solution.

Unless the core is there to guide, this has Zero value. The core is not confusing but guiding. If you see their guidance having zero value then what are we even doing here?

our solution is largely a one-time cost that creates conducive conditions for developers to contribute, which may or may not be associated with future costs related to those contributions, but in any case provides a lasting benefit to the protocol by delivering a sustainable and valuable capability that doesn’t exist today. In our opinion, there is nothing more important at this inflection point.

Yes, you are free to ask 0x for more funds, but using existing funds will just make it useless for the DAO to fund the pathways.

[nikita]

Are you saying that you are planning to outgrow the core and objective is to grow with or without them or take their direction to move forward?

We wouldn’t use that framing. Instead, we would say that taking direction from a single entity, and making future actions dependent on that direction, impedes and delays progress.

Unless the core is there to guide, this has Zero value. The core is not confusing but guiding. If you see their guidance having zero value then what are we even doing here?

We didn’t say that guidance from 0x “has zero value.” What we said is that we see reliance on 0x as part of the problem, not the linchpin of the solution. In other words, it is confusing the problem with the solution.

Progress shouldn’t come to a halt because 0x is unable or unwilling to support something associated with the core protocol. Similarly, we shouldn’t be passively waiting for 0x to direct or guide or implement. There should be multiple entities actively and independently contributing to the core protocol contracts. We believe that 0x will continue to play a leading role, but should not be the only one.

[gabririgo]

I strongly support this proposal. An open platform for innovation requires developers, and expanding the horizon of contributors is definitely a good way of onboarding them. In fact, while 0x Labs has its own constraints in terms of hiring, deliverables, and priorities, they will often not be aligned with the market demand. Imo a private company develops where they see big demand. Especially as a project grows, so does its complexity. In this context, a private company will “lose ground” on experimenting on the bleeding edge side, which is something independent developers are not reluctant to. Imo this proposal has many benefits for making the 0x protocol even more relevant.

This could be a great first step toward researching deeper into token economics,
i.e. first onboard independent developers, who might, on top of building parts of 0x protocol, help us better shape protocol incentives that align the interests of the stakeholders and at the same time do not add significant cost to transactions.

I have worked alongside @nikita and @0xSHA within the 0xEVE project and have found impeccable work ethic. Furthermore, they have long been advocating for greater emphasis on the protocol.

More development at the core of the protocol from independent developers will help research new funnels for value capture at a protocol level, which has been advocated for by the community for a very long time.

To conclude, I believe this is definitely a good step towards keeping 0x innovative, through an unbiased set of contributions. I find the cost reasonable even when compared to the size of the overall treasury (even without a direct contribution from the 0x Ext Dev Pool, which would be appropriate as this allows 0x Labs to outsource some research work which definitely creates value for the community), as its impact is definitely going to be big if/when successful.

[mintcloud]

Thank you @nikita and @0xSHA for stepping up and advancing this proposal. I support you and the project, in a personal capacity but I believe I’m speaking on behalf of many other ZRX holders at 0x Labs.

I am aware we have progressively slowed down the investment on making 0x Protocol ‘more open’ in the last couple of years. Admittedly, we prioritized the early PMF signals coming from the products we are building.
In addition to that, we focused on creating the avenues for others to take (co)charge of the 0x Protocol future, by making progress on the decentralization of the protocol governance for those who haven’t go vote on the live proposal to fund boardroom! All the work led by @ericwong in the last 9-12 months (together with @elenag and Duncan) was directed at that, and I frankly don’t recall a time when this forum was this active.

Having said so, big yes to this

@nikita

Resourcing a community-led tiger team to establish pathways for core protocol development is critical to jumpstarting and de-risking ecosystem-based contributions.

I expect this project not be an easy. There are several challenges, in no particular order these are the ones that come to mind:

• hiring contributors
• onboarding contributors
• identifying and removing dependency points that exists between 0x Labs (it’s not only the upgrade multi-sig, but it’s much more engrained, @elenag spent some time documenting that)
• identifying and prioritizing use cases to support
• advertising the program and its deliverables

Many already raised similar and different valid points, and you’re addressing them equally well. The reality is that this project isn’t smooth sailing but trudging through muck. I am convinced there’s no-one better positioned than you to do that.

You can expect some level of attention from 0x Labs. While we aren’t in a position to commit, we are here. 0x labs is still made of the 0x Protocol inventors and founders, and many early employees like me that care about the future of the protocol that is not in the hands of any single entity, but an open internet good.

[nikita]

Snapshot temperature check is live and will run for 5 days. SHA and I will be voting ABSTAIN.

[Patrick]

At this time I would like to voice my support for Nikita’s and 0xsha2’s project proposal. After much deliberation and Q&A support from 0xsha2 and Nikita I have concluded to support their efforts to build out pathways, frameworks and support systems that will better help support the onboarding of development teams that will be poised to expand protocol core development with anticipated feature sets that are highly critical towards the success of the protocol and cementing itself within its rightful top tier position.

I believe that Nikita and 0xsha2 are the correct candidates to lead such a systems buildout due to their senior involvement positions with the protocol / community which has afforded them experience with time to craft the needed vantage point perspective to assemble the needed components that will drive the protocol growth towards the needed direction of self sustainment.

Based on the feedback from individuals that have directly worked with Nikita and 0xsha2, I believe that these two candidates have the organizational and analytical skill sets required to deduce the best pathways/frameworks/systems forward and will work diligently executing tasks to bring quality value from the treasury funds being invested to support their efforts.

In closing I am eager in anticipation to observe the wonderful progress and development that @nikita and @0xSHA will deliver to the protocol through their exciting project proposal. This project proposal is a large, complex, and important undertaking and I believe that Nikita and 0xSha2 will make the community proud.

[mintcloud]

For those who didn’t notice, the final on-chain vote is live!
Will end in about 48 hours, don’t wait

https://governance.0xprotocol.org/vote/proposal/6

[Aron]

Love the proposal.

A couple related queries.

Can anyone comment on why there seems to have been such a shift from the 0x Labs team in terms of refocusing on their own business interests as opposed to truly supporting the 0x protocol in becoming sustainable for the long term? Previously they were clear in their long term plans to support value accrual to $ZRX itself which would thus help to support long term sustainability. But with their diverging interests, they have independent fee capture through products like their API, but none of the value flows to the 0x Protocol itself. The underlying concern therefore is whether there is any way to recapitalize the 0x Protocol Treasury on an ongoing basis and how does the community sustain the protocol/ governance by creating sustainable value creation for $ZRX and thus the protocol itself?