ALL HANDS ON DECK: Compensation and PLM Working Groups

Hey everyone! This season we need to really key in on two topics:

  • Compensation: It’s no secret that compensation has been all over the place. We barely have any standards or guidance in place. The best we have a suggested hourly rate, but it’s not sustainable or sensical in many cases. We have a number of levers to use: Salary, bounties, KPIs, revenue share, and more. How do we best leverage these? What are the best practices we can use? How should we track and improve on these processes?

  • Project Lifecycle Management: We have a decent project proposal workflow, but once projects are launched… what then? How do we track success? How do we increase visibility and map talent to needs? How do we know to continue funding or drop?

These are not new problems, but they are challenges we need to apply in a way that aligns with how DAOs operate. We’re already running into problems and we will not be able to scale until we tackle this set of challenges.

As such, I want to create two working groups to tackle these two problem space (though there will be some overlap). This is what I will be spending more of my time on this season. I’d like for you to be involved.

To start, we can hold weekly meetings on both topics and go from there.
Please fill out the following LettuceMeet links to add your availability. Notes will always be taken and we’ll do our best to manage async communications.
:warning: Please put in times you can make on a weekly basis to the best of your ability

See you there. Let’s get this :bread:


Thanks for sharing. For future reference - I think it would be healthy for the DAO to create lettucemeets which are timezone agnostic - ie the default setting is not for 90% of the slots to be in the middle of the night for APAC. If most ppl who join are from the US, the meeting will happen during your daytime anyways, but at least give the option not to. This has been a recurring feedback picked up on this forum.


Any recommendations on what I should have done differently? It’s a 12 hour time frame. I thought that was pretty fair.

with an 8/24 normal sleep cycle, 16 hours of selectability covers the widest range of possibilities without going to a full 24 hour format

1 Like

I appreciate that. Though if I’m in Singapore and I open the invite, the 12 hr time frame is 10pm - 10am. That’s implicitly telling me the DAO doesn’t care about people in my region participating. It’s as much about appearances of being a global DAO when it comes to DAO-wide top-level discussions than the logistics of me wanting to join this particular call. I’m saying that on behalf of others I’ve seen giving similar feedback on here.

My suggestion was to use the 24hr time frame (only one that’s unbiased). We will organically converge on a time that is in a time zone where most ppl are.

That said, the issue runs deeper - the call will converge on 3am my time anyways, so eventually I will just go ‘what’s the point?’ I’m not sure what’s the answer but this is an issue to keep tabs on going forward, if the DAO wants to be a global one (thinking aloud here).


As far as compensation goes what service DAOs should we look at to see what they’ve done? I don’t think we should necessarily copy anyone - we should blaze a new path - but I’m sure a lot of lessons have already been learned.

1 Like

What about something like team-set-salaries?

We could have an assigned budget for each project and people working on that project would vote on a fair split of that budget between participants.

1 Like

@mgoesdistance - Best solution I have here is creating different working groups. Splitting tasks and responsibilities between time zones and coordinating between, but I haven’t tried that.

@brianl - Yes, certainly no need to reinvent the wheel here.

@volky - I’ve heard of something like this, but not the algo presented in the paper. Will read it detail later, thank you for posting.

This is really interesting to me. It’s basically Coordinape, but with railings. Percival is $1/user/mo and is not Web3 native :confused:

Yeah, we would probably have to build something custom for it. That’s the DAO way on this normie world right now :joy:

Could probably hit Coordinape up with a feature request :eyes:

1 Like

love it. This is a very important topic and one that will eventually prove if DAO’s really are the future of work or not. I will follow it closely and try to contribute as much as I can.

I am going to join the compensation working group call today. I am sharing some of my thoughts and concerns about the current state of role holders vs non role holders and compensation. Would love to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Currently there is a large disparity between role holders and non role holders within the dao in regards to compensation. Many roles are far too loosely defined to the point that there is no meaningful way to determine if a role holder is fulfilling their obligations. Often it is unclear what if any obligations they have in order to receive their weekly compensation. Being critical of or simply asking the question if role holders are living up to their responsibility can seriously damage a members reputation within the dao which will effect their ability to earn bank. This is very concerning to me.

We have created a situation where it is highly profitable to gain as many roles in as many guilds as you possibly can. Potentially even committing to more hours than would be possible in a given week. A lot of the time spent is in meetings discussing how things should be done with very little actually being accomplished.

We need a way to hold role holders accountable not only to their guilds but to the dao as a whole. I believe we need a master list of role holders with included compensation. This would allow us to see who is taking on too many roles and possibly we need to cap the amount of roles a member can hold at one time or cap the weekly hourly commitment as each role will differ in hours.

Currently each guild presumably has a list of their role holders the master list would show each member and all the associated roles perhaps this would be easiest to do with discord tags require guild role holder tags and then show a list of each member with all associated roles that wouldn’t show the total compensation for the roles but it’s a decent start.

Should role holders be eligible for coordinape rounds either dao wide or guild specific? Coordinape is a popularity contest, name recognition alone will earn you some give tokens regardless of contributions. Role holders naturally have a larger presence within the dao as a whole and in their perspective guilds. Being a high profile name within the dao and speaking up often is beneficial for coordinape rounds. This skews compensation even more towards role holders and away from non role holding contributors.

I think it would help if we created a process of critique for roles and their responsibilities this would allow people to voice their issues without it being seen as personal attacks. Currently you can’t critique a role without offending the role holder. I think we should set the expectation that all roles should regularly be scrutinized and amended to make sure they are still needed and what is expected is being accomplished by the role holders.

Critiquing role holders potentially means effecting their livelihoods. Without processes in place to handle these issues this will continue to get more dangerous as we grow as a dao.


How did this conversation go?