I debated between writing a comprehensive post recapping many of my points from the General Discussion that I still believe to be incredibly important for the DAO.
Instead, rather than entering into another deep discussion, I’ll approach this from another angle.
I would be open to the idea of this mod team getting the 25k/month and seeing how it goes on the condition that there is a contract expiration date set 3 months from the date the DAO vote concludes.
This should work in the interest of both parties:
The mod team gets the compensation they feel is fair today.
The DAO is not committing to paying this same group of 8 in perpetuity, the contract end-date is set in stone.
The process to renew or extend the contract should be straightforward - but will still require another DAO vote.
The mod team is incentivized to deliver on their commitments and show progression, proving that the value they want to bring is aligned with what the DAO needs.
The DAO does not need to campaign or mobilize in order to force a vote on Mod team performance. It’s automatic based on the contract end-date.
The possibility for the community to provide formal feedback for adjustments to the structure, team, or activities related to the mod team can happen during the process of contract renewal.
@NalX, I would love to hear whether your team would be comfortable with having it set this way.
I think this is an adequate compromise for many of those who may feel unhappy about this proposal. We need the solid and structured communication right now, we need this structure in the mod team to ensure we have a supported team at the discord to help our community around the clock.
It’s difficult for some in the community to accept the value in this proposal, I think a continuous revisit to this arrangement is both a solid middle ground as well as a responsible way to handle things. It would be great to have a predetermined evaluation period between cycles of mod structures.
I think your suggestion does a great job at maintaining our progress toward getting this done and by suggesting that it’s just roll-over each time and simply needs another vote, allows this process to not get too chaotic with each evaluation period.
I appreciate your thoroughness as well as your desire to make sure everything we do in the community is efficient and effective. I know your questioning may appear as pushback or negativity, but I recognize that you truly want what’s best for the community and your effort to achieve that is admirable. I’m grateful to your willingness to suggest this kind of compromise to keep us moving in the right direction.
I get what you are saying. Perhaps market performance may not be the best way, as you’ve said they’re not devs. But then also consider it like this: why should devs be the only person(s) responsible for a project’s success? Customer services, marketing, community engagement (i.e. mods) fulfill a vital role that directly impacts the success of a project just as well as any dev can, I think of mods like brand ambassadors.
I like the idea of an allocated budget, rather than the number of mods being important. Though I would argue the initial amounts proposed were likely arrived at based on the number of mods put forward, so at this stage it may not be possible to separate these.
I will echo what a few folks have said before, accountability and proof of value should be paramount in these kind of decisions. Firstly, I’d like to us to see a plan of the role responsibilities and how the mods plan to measure the success of these. A bit like a job interview, the mods team should share what their role function/structure is to be. Then this coupled with a fixed term release of funds, followed by renewal and extension/reduction should allow the DAO to make sure the funds are being put to good use and are as expected.
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.
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.
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.
@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!
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…
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glad to see someone else with a similar mindset though!