First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their participation in this discussion. While this is an incredibly difficult topic, I truly hope that we are able to use this as an opportunity to come together as an ecosystem and find a path forward that honors previous commitments as well as expedites a transition so that we can all get back to the task of building.
@uxui did a great job of describing how we got here. The integrations team was tasked to work on an innovative high value project, managed pools. The project did not work out, resulting in the bulk of the effort never making it to production. We exist in an industry that is constantly evolving, and Balancer tech is on the cutting edge of innovation in DeFi. Innovation is the process of failing constantly in pursuit of something special. This is not to say that we cannot reflect on this process and learn from it, but in my personal opinion it is short sighted to simply marginalize the effort. Alongside managed pools, the integrations team invested a significant amount of energy into the read reentrancy vulnerability. They were tasked with tracking down any possible integration that could be at risk, supporting the teams to implement fixes and getting those fixes deployed. All of this work was completed under extreme secrecy and with unreasonable time constraints. It is largely due to this quiet effort that the mitigation of the vulnerability was so successful. While I do believe that there is an opportunity to refocus the integrations team moving forward, they are a team of competent engineers that have always acted with the best interest of Balancer protocol in mind.
There seems to be a general sentiment in this and the other thread that a transition process would be as simple as reshuffling contributors to various existing and/or new SPs, reapplying for funding, and getting back to work. In reality, it will be far from simple. Such a transition, if it is to occur, will take time, not weeks, but likely a few months. Pushing to expedite this process for the sake of saving 1-2 months of funding seems shortsighted if we lose several talented contributors along the way. As @rabmarut points out here, orb is an entity that currently employs its contributors, providing them with standard employee benefits. These benefits are likely to not be maintained as contributors transition into contractor roles with other SPs, something that each person will need time to consider from both a financial and legal perspective.
@solarcurve is well intentioned in his goal to ensure that all existing orb contributors that wish to continue will be supported in finding a new home in either an existing or new SP, but I believe this perspective overlooks the operational complexity described above as well the various social dynamics at play. There is a team of engineers who feel that they are under personal attack, and that they may get completely defunded in a matter of days. They have had less than one week to process this, and are receiving conflicting messages from all sides. Several of the orb engineers are new contributors to this ecosystem, do not fully understand the political landscape of Balancer and have deferred to their leadership for guidance. As @joaobrunoah very astutely described, sourcing, hiring, and onboarding new talent is a slow and expensive process, especially for a protocol as complex as Balancer. Purely from a financial cost/benefit analysis, it is in our best interest to preserve productive talent that has already gone through this process.
BeethovenX contributors have and will continue to support Orb contributors throughout this period of change. For anyone that I have not already talked to personally, please feel free to reach out to me anytime.
I understand that the entire Orb Collective are operating in extremely difficult conditions, but in an effort to diffuse tension and reduce misunderstandings, I would urge @immutbl to refrain from short off the cuff replies to this and any related discussion. Instead, please provide a plan for a path forward for Orb Collective. Your detailed perspective is incredibly important to this discussion.