All for taking care of the people who help the community stay connected and informed. Essential for this project to establish some consistency along its redemption curve.
2 Likes
Only active Mods should be compensated IMO, and this will incentives them to do even better, and also inspire others to work hard to get to a payment level.
1 Like
Tentative yes if checks and balances are implemented. I don’t much care who the moderators are, as long as there is a check on their power. A series of channels dedicated to Mod Accountability are needed: An open (to forum members) channel where bans are listed with a write up with mod reasoning for each one. A strike system. An appeal channel. A grievance channel for the mods (Not just yellow mods, all mods with muting and banning power) where people can write up their issues with a particular mod that all forum members can see. A monthly report with number of bans, overturned bans. A Code of Conduct for the Mods should be written up as well. If this is going to be a Job, we can’t have mods having Not safe for work discussions in general chat and other things like that. Also I’d like to see an official designation for Sifu. He’s helping out and is the co-founder of the project. He probably doesn’t need to be paid but he needs to have an official title and we need to officially address his status in the project. He was unfairly terminated from his position in my opinion, and his presence and knowledge about the project is invaluable.
2 Likes
@isthatlowfat Thanks for bringing this forward and I’ll do my best to clarify these points in the WIP, but until then, here we go.
In principle I agree, but I’d argue a fully fleshed out process would require it’s own proposal and a lot more discussions. For example, @MattMacGyver’s comment make it sounds simple and in theory it could be, but what happens if the DAO says no thanks ? What if it’s only half the team the DAO wants out ? Etc, etc. Anyway, I’m sure you understand why this would required a lot more conversation. I also agree that the feedback is appreciate and will be required when things get moving.
Just to clarify, although I’m sure you realize this, this proposal is not permanent. In fact, I would say it is definitely temporary. As we get more organized, things will evolve, needs will change and the DAO will vote in consequence.
However, until such process can be put in place, we believe it would be the Senior Moderator’s (@AliceInWonderland) responsibility to address these concerns without the need for the DAO to intervene all the time. We should not have to wait the end of the “contract” or a vote if changes are required. We believe a way to provide formal feedback/complaint to the Senior Mod should be enough for to cover these points for now. The Senior Moderator should be able to replace a moderator or provide feedback/guidance directly to the mod when needed. Preferably, if a mods receives too many founded complaints, the Senior Moderator would have the authority to take action or replace them with the “next mod in line”. This would eliminate the need for multiple vote and allow actions to be taken faster without the need to campaign. Obviously, periodic reporting on these things should be put in place to allow transparency and make sure Alice is not on a “Power Trip”. However, should the DAO feel the need to intervene, that will be able to.
@PinkMushroomKing Don’t you think that would make it so the salary would be way to high ? Especially if the price action stays low for a while we could be stacking those wMEMO and once the price goes high or salary could essentially triple based on past allocation, but we still got extra MIM.
@BloodyStools 100% agree, we are already discussing how to implement these so thanks for the ideas!
1 Like
I keep my position with this…
wonderland have bigger issues right now to deal with!
Let’s first find a treasury manager and then let him/her allocate the necessary money to the mods team.
Second, I still don’t understand why mods being paid will improve their communication with the core team…money talks???
I do agree that you guys should be paid for your job but this is not the right time to talk about it…
2 Likes
Well, I respect that.
Us getting paid is not what gives us the line of communication. We are putting it in the proposal so the team has to commit on it as voted by the DAO. Dani wants more structure, that line of communication is a first step towards that.
As an FYI, since it wasn’t broadly stated, Dani is talking with SkyHopper to potential help out with the treasury. You can look up their recent interact in Discord. SkyHopper had an RFC posted a while back in case you want more info:
1 Like
I just voted yes because the proposal is excellent, for the good of the community, but the payment seems a little bit high we are talking about $2,800 per month per moderator (net surely) because they are payments in crypto.
I would like to know what is the CV required for moderator. Is it necessary to know Python? Red Hat? containers? Java? Someone explain to me why a moderator earns so much?
Paying a part in MIM and another in WMEMO seems stupid to me, they can swap it immediately.
Adjust that salary seems very high to me and talking about a bonus for voting twice a year, if they are doing well they earn it, that bonus will be a good incentive.
1 Like
I think a slight misunderstanding in what I mean. As I read it; the proposal currently is roughly 23k a month, which will include 0.5 memo valued at current price.
I would suggest instead a lower value of WMemo by valuing it at the current backing price. This obviously would mean a lower salary initially - so extra extra Mim would be given to cover this until price recovers.
Honestly tho I don’t mind the current proposal as I think the mods should be compensated well - frog nation is about looking after each other after all. Just didn’t agree with the valuation of memo if the intention was to match the value of the original proposal.
1 Like
Yeah, I figure it might require more discussions if we really wanted to go deep into some of the specifics, though I would argue that this isn’t necessary at this stage. Having a simple agreed upon end date with the DAO ensures everyone is on the same page.
The easiest way that I can see this implemented is simply to transfer the budget for the entire 3 months up front. Then, in order to access the funds required to continue these operations, the renewal vote would need to take place and pass. I would even go a step further and ask the Senior Moderator to initiate the RFC on the contract renewal in the 2 weeks leading up to the end date, with any proposed adjustments/changes to the budget.
This also allows formal discussion to take place between the community and mod team, with the potential of implementing definitive changes the DAO wants to see. A few hypothetical examples for the next round: grow social media presence on Twitter, invest in SEO, bring on a full time member with dev skillsets for X plan we have.
I’m not sure that’s clear from the proposal… at least, I certainly didn’t pick up on anything that would indicate that the intention to pay the mods would not be permanent. Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this?
Also, just want to give some credit to @LarryFisherman who essentially wrote out what I was suggesting before I did:
I swear I didn’t steal your idea 
Glad to see someone else with a similar mindset though!
2 Likes
if the mods are involved in any other projects then that would be a no-go for them because it would be a conflict of interest.
sifu needs to get away as far as possible from the project. there should be absolutely zero affiliation with that criminal in any way, shape or form. he needs tor be blocked from discord and blacklisted from the project.
Not sure about that.
Lots of mods are involved in many different projects and it’s beneficial for WL to have mods who are experienced and can bring skillsets they’ve developed over time.
I can see where you’re coming from, but I think the risk remains relatively low unless there’s real evidence to support foul play.
1 Like
I see what you mean, but I don’t think we are there yet.
For example, we are thinking the lump sum would be given every month. This reduce the risk of losing money in case of a security issue, but also makes it so people the don’t trust us yet will be less worried if we run away with 25k instead of 75k.
Starting this renewal process two weeks (might have been just an example) before isnt long enough in my opinion. Since the point of this proposal is to provide some kind of structure, we don’t want that structure to fall appart because we didn’t plan as fail safe for when the DAO couldnt agree on a revised salary for example.
So adding a clause like that without properly discussing it could be shooting ourselves in the foot. I’d rather we pass this and start working on a better process right away that could be voted in 3 months (or less) than rushing something in last minute. It also avoids the potential FUD of “this wasn’t in the proposal, why are we voting this”.
That said, this is what I meant by temporary. Nothing prevents the DAO from going back on a decision (Sifu as TM is a good example) or build on top of it. If we report on issues periodicly, the DAO can act in consequence. Need for more/less mod, need for more comm people, need for more governance people, etc. Sub DAOs are an idea that floats around. Once we have a foundation, the DAO can branch out and cut/allocate as required.
2 Likes
I am not against this, but having given people who want to exit the opportunity to Rage Quit and now seemingly offer to compensate the moderators, has anyone given any thought to the long term holders who continue to hold and are just seeing their positions become more and more untenable?
I most certainly do not want to derail this or go too far off piste, however, I can’t be the only one frustrated here that what we are seeing is giving value to all groups except the one that gave value to TIME in the first place.
3 Likes
While this is only being voted on now, this discussion started in January. Daniele ask for the proposal to be posted now that RQ was over and it was time to move forward. That being said, I understand your sentiment and can’t really disagree with it.
However, I can correct what I believe are assumptions or misunderstanding on your part in January,.
Yes. We had considered including a budget for community events/giveaway to help other community members, but figured it should be it’s own proposal. That being said, moderators have also been here for a while and are part of those long term holders who continue to hold and are seeing their positions go lower and lower. So while this proposal does not reward all of them, it does reward some of them. This brings me to your second point.
Moderators provide enormous value to the protocol. Whether by helping reducing FUD, educating members on the protocol and crypto in general, putting safeguards in place to limited the amount of prays scammers, etc. We can disagree on compensation or the amount of value being provided, but I believe saying no value is being provided is simply untrue. The current moderators have been around for months and have been contributing ever since.
A big NO for me as the price of wmemo is going down everyday we should be focusing on building value building revenue not spending money to pay mods. I’m sure people invested would do it for free I would. We want to build value mods do add value but not revenue. If in case we were to pay the mods we would not pay over 3k per mod each month that’s just crazy. First build revenue add value to the investors get a treasury manager then we can talk about hiring a marketing team not mods. We need professionals lets hire a professional marketing team to turn things and take care of communications as well as the socials. Mods have been volunteering for weeks I’m sure more people would fill those mods spots if they left due to no pay. 25k is too much for mods a Professional marketing team would be a lot cheaper and save us money.
2 Likes
Why is this being voted on here? when all voting happens snapshot.org and no communication was published on twitter seems the mods are being sneaky trying to push this forward.
1 Like
No mod is trying to be sneaky. This is an informal vote. Polls are included in the RFC template, which is the last step before moving to WIP and being voted on snapshot.
I encourage you to become more familiar with the current Governance Framework:
https://medium.com/the-defi-wonderland/wonderland-governance-framework-25b8792ecc8
As for Twitter, we do not have the ability to post on Twitter. The General Discussion was posted there a few days ago, and the official vote should be too.
You raise a fair point, and on my side, the 2 weeks was roughly the time box I figured would be necessary in order to pass a renewal budget in this context. I would assume this initial budget proposal on mod compensation would be the longest one to get approval for - as typically renewals are much more straightforward in practice.
I firmly believe that it’s in the best interest of the DAO to have end dates set for any roles the DAO decides to pay for (Mod team, TM, etc.). This gives the DAO an opportunity to negotiate some finer details come the time to renew. This should typically be expected in any situation where you’re working with a service provider. This is effectively what should be happening now that the current mod team will be transitioning from voluntary support to paid service providers.
The way this relationship will work going forward is complicated, as in a traditional business setup there’s an authorized individual who is permitted to negotiate with the service providers (typically a vendor manager of sorts), whereas with the DAO, there are 1000’s of voices who are involved in this process. Naturally, the democratic structure of the DAO is great and facilitates healthy debate on a slew of ideas that your typical investor will never have visibility on. The counter-point to this is that there’s a strong bias towards inertia in this structure (example being the number of proposals making it to RFC, WIP and DAO Vote). Change and evolution require effort, debate, and alignment, but maintaining the status quo requires none of the above.
To oblige the community to be an active participant in this process (as in - sharing feedback and commenting on the renewal budgets as we approach contractual end dates), to me, is the only way to avoid the default preference to maintaining the status quo. Alternatively, the community could elect a representative to act on their behalf in negotiations, as well as other operational activities in WL, but that’s a discussion for another day.
This need could be seen as even more important considering the mods have strong relationships within the community. Many members of this community will be voting yes and no for emotional reasons, which is the wrong way to approach business decisions. People are less likely to vote against people they care about, just as much as they will vote against something they don’t believe brings value without looking at the facts.
I was under the impression that we’re in the process of ironing out the finer details prior to evolving this to the WIP, isn’t part of the purpose of the RFC for gathering community feedback to improve the idea?
Respectfully, I must disagree with the above statement. If we’re running with a proposal and have the intention of starting to work on a better one to address the gaps of an existing proposal - I would argue that pushing forward the current proposal is in fact the definition of rushing it. The DAO isn’t commenting on this proposal from the standpoint that this offer has an expiration date (if that’s not right, please let me know). If we need to continue discussing some of the points to get it right the first time, that’s what should be done here. (This would be different if we were already in the DAO vote stage, but there are still steps before that point.)
I think we can all agree that the Sifu removal vote was quite an extreme case. It’s unlikely something similar should transpire relating to the mod team. (For the sake of WL, I hope not lol).
1 Like
The way I see it, some of the points you raise are convincing me not to put an end date 
Your arguments about inertia and how much effort is required for change vs status quo means that the amount of work required once that deadline comes to discuss, debate and plan may be too much work to be able to meet the deadline when the time comes. Or, people won’t care enough and pass it because they prefer status quo. This was essentially what I meant by two weeks is not enough and shooting ourselves in the foot by going on that route right away.
While I do essentially agree that it is like hiring a service provider, I see this proposal more like hiring your family member help your new buisiness get off the ground. You hire them to do basic stuff at first, and you adjust while your business grows.
Wonderland’s DAO has essentially been a ship without a captain. Riding the waves of the port, but not really going anywhere. Telling it when it needs to be back before even knowing where it’s going or how it’s going to get there is poor navigation.
Engaging the DAO to be active participants is exactly what we are trying to do. We don’t need an end date to gather the DAO’s feedback on the work we do or how we could do things better. With regular reporting we can see what works, what doesn’t and work from there.
That’s what I meant by, passing the proposal and start another one. I didn’t mean literally right after passing this one have a new one to make this one better, but rather push this structure through, evaluate what works what doesn’t, have the mod adapt what they can and vote things that should be voted on. This DAO is far from being dormant. We simply don’t have anyone to open the flood gates, yet.