---
# System prepended metadata

title: Feedback for LM launch

---

# Feedback on LM Launch

## Positive Outlook
### Enhanced Discipline
- The team now exhibits a stronger discipline, which is commendable.
- There's a noticeable improvement in the consistency of work output.

### Improved Interface with Business Requirements
- There's an observable increase in interactions with stakeholders outside of the technical domain.
- The clarity regarding business requirements has seen significant enhancement.

### Utilising better dev tooling
- The process of acquiring tech tools for enhanced delivery has become more streamlined.
- There's a notable reduction in the time required to implement and utilize tooling solutions.

## Negative Outlook
### Lack of Clear Direction
- The overarching vision of what we aimed to build was vague.
- While there was a general understanding at a high level, the finer details were often overlooked.
- Crucial information was often restricted to specific stakeholders.
- Absence of a central repository or platform to consolidate all project details led to confusion.
- Specific elements such as the importance of pool flipping, reward details, and APR specifics were sidelined until the project's later stages.

### Inadequate Testing and Quality Assurance 
- The current testing and QA standards do not match the expectations for a sophisticated DeFi protocol.
- A "move fast and break things" approach might not be suitable, given the limited room for error.
- Regular testing sessions appear to be more ceremonial than functional, often dealing with incomplete products.
- Beyond manual testing, there's an evident need for comprehensive automated tests.
- Vital components, like the rewards system, lacked thorough testing, making their real-world performance unpredictable.

### Risk of Burnout 
- It was evident that the team was facing burnout, especially towards the end of September.
- Better coordination could have distributed efforts more evenly, rather than condensing tasks into the final weeks.
- The continuous "video-on" mandate during meetings, while understood, added to the stress. A flexible approach during high-stress periods would have been appreciated.

### Absence of a Robust Review Process
- There seems to be a lack of a structured review culture. In some instances, content was directly pushed to staging without thorough checks.
- Even crucial areas, like smart contracts, missed out on comprehensive reviews towards the end.

### Overlooking Smart Contracts
- The unique protocol design is a pivotal aspect of Timeswap.
- Regrettably, over the past six weeks, there has been limited emphasis on the protocol and smart contracts.
- This raises concerns, especially considering that there remains limited understanding of the protocol, even after the launch of v2.