A few points...
If the funding comes from the team and not the community, we wouldn't be having a community discussion to decide who does it, or how it is done, or how much it will cost.
Team would choose who completes the integration, and how much it will cost.
Team would have to implement and interview, hire, coordinate, which will take more time since they are focused on 2.0, and core architecture. We don't know how long it will take before this can be handled. I suspect this is perhaps why the community has been asked to handle it.
If Moshe wants the work, and team is to pay for it, Moshe should submit a formal proposal to the team including his price (25k) and a timeline for completion.
3rd party audit is probably a good idea--let's assume that we asked for team funds to handle this too, what kind of time/cost is added with this in play? I am for 3rd party audits, however as you pointed out, Ledger support is something we need immediately, we cant afford to wait 9 months for completion. An outside dev is expedient, simply because we have found a few that have completed multiple integrations, including recently Lisk and Rise integrations and will take less than 6 weeks for completion as opposed to 3-4 months by Moshe alone. Bear in mind, the audits will take weeks (another month) and then Ledger still has it's own process of review and approval (another potential 3-4 months). This means the team pays 25k to Moshe, plus a 3rd party audit cost (another 2-5k) and the cost has moved to around 30k now, extending the total life of the task from 3 months into one that takes over 6 months to complete. This is paying more AND waiting more while also pulling him off of other projects we desperately need completed, which he is already working on in his free time now, to say nothing of the work that he is paid by the team to do.
The best possible scenario is to task a dev with ample Ledger experience to complete part of the integration, and split the bounty with Moshe, so that he can complete the other part--one he is best suited for. It saves alot of time no matter if team or community funds are used. There are three steps to Ledger Integration:
- The hardware wallet code.
- The consumable library to interact with 1.
- The coin wallet integration that uses 2, which uses 1.
Remember the devs we are interviewing right now (Andreas and his partner) have done this integration multiple times over to include voting, staking and other features and can save a great deal of time completing portions of the project, while Moshe completes the final step 3. which is best suited to him given the work he has already done.
This is the fastest way to get it done, and provide high quality code. We are in negotiations right now.
So before we turn this conversation into months of debate (it's already been a week) let's consider what kind of time we can save IF we do plan to pay more than the initial bounty amount. Why should we pay more for it to take even longer when we can pay more--get it right--and get it done in half the time?
I want Moshe to work on this for a few reasons myself.
He is well-suited for step 3. in the process and I don't think anyone could do it better.
Alot of the personal work he has been doing is not commissioned by his node or role as community developer. I believe he deserves to be offered the bounty--however he is not entitled to it if it means increase in both cost and development time. Time is a major factor here as you pointed out, because so many people do not want to mess with the current wallet(s), especially if there are issues.
3rd party audits may not be needed if we use devs who have completed several integrations already. The cost of audits is not just money but time. If we decide to pay these costs (and I am good with this)--we need to make up that time elsewhere.