With the grants and bounty program slowly taking shape, I think opening up the site for contributions would make a lot of sense. Is there a reason it isn’t right now?
I think there’d definitely be a lot of good for that, because we could integrate several of the existing dashboards and explorers into the rocketpool.net site (even if just as an iframe or redirect to the other tools).
I think Joe told me that part of the reason it’s not is to prevent scam sites from popping up. Well, looks like it’s not stopping people.
I wouldn’t expect this to be foolproof, but closed source may be preventing the scam site problem from becoming worse. That said, closed source has other downsides, like preventing people from learning about how the protocol works and reducing trust in the security of stake.rocketpool.net.
I’m also in favor of open-sourcing the website because of this.
It would be a shame for anyone to prefer buying rETH on an open source front-end market simply because they can verify the stack all the way down to the contract. If rocketpool.net isn’t open-sourced, someone will come along and create an open-source staking site eventually anyway.
Taking it a step further, can the community simply take ownership of the website? Genuine question and I’d like to make a case for why this is net-positive for the product and team.
- We have a better web property (rocketpool.fi). .net has never been in vogue and lately has been a TLD of choice for copycats and scammers. This is one factor contributing to a “scammy” feel that some users report when visiting the website.
- Better designs (examples below).
- Website could be open-sourced and accepting of community contributions per suggestion above.
- Team could retain ownership of the website via Github and be involved as much or little as they’d like. Ideally this would take some pressure off the team so they can focus on other dev efforts. Win-win.
Community-led branding/website examples:
All in favor of opening up the rocketpool website. It would allow a faster development cycle by allowing the community to directly contribute.
Currently with the website(s) being closed source, we have around 2-3 sinister (scam, phishing, harmful to the brand, fraudulent, etc.) sites per month being reported.
The team would like to open source the website(s) and receive contributions from the community, however we have concerns around the increased risk exposure for sinister sites to be created.
Open sourcing the website(s) would make it extremely easy for sinister sites to be deployed which could:
- increase confusion for new users
- increase the likelihood that users could get scammed or have a bad first experience, damaging the the Rocket Pool brand
- increase the likelihood that sinister websites will be deployed to countries outside legal jurisdictions for take downs
- increase the time spent by the team attempting to get sinister sites taken down
An increased population of clone websites (sinister or not), weakens our legal position when attempting to get sinister websites taken down.
Happy to discuss.
Public web sites can be cloned quite easily without source code.
Can’t legal cloning of the site be prohibited through the chosen license and Rocket Pool trademarks? If so, then you’re only dealing with sinister sites, and I’m not sure it’s a given that open sourcing would result in an increase in sinister sites.