An idea to improve contributors reward through Coordinape
Author: Paulito
co-author: anointingthompson1.eth
Date posted: 11/10/2022
Background
The Coordinape is a reward system used by the DAO to distribute 4.5M BANK a season to active contributors. Contributors sign up for the coordinape round monthly and allocate GIVE to their fellow contributors. The purpose of coordinape is to pay contributors for their labor from the prior month. To put it another way, the purpose of coordinape is to inspire contributors to participate more.
The Problems
Members of the DAO that do not actively contribute to the development and sustenance of the DAO are getting more remuneration in coordinape than members who are actively contributing and building.
Suggested Solution
The Discord handles, membership status, and wallet addresses of the active members should be submitted by the coordinators and project managers of the different guilds, departments, and projects of the DAO for the DAO-wide coordinape rounds instead of using the general sign-up forms.
The Benefits
This will ensure that BANK gets into the hands of those who have enough skin in the game.
This will ensure that active contributors are well remunerated.
This will encourage more members to actively contribute to the development and sustenance of the DAO.
This will reduce gaming of coordinape by non-active members who see coordinape as a means of getting free payment for doing nothing.
This will improve engagement in DAO activities.
Action Points
Get a list of all the active projects in the DAO.
Work with the coordinape workstream of the Ops guild to see if implementation is possible.
Obtain agreement via a forum post, and if we do, submit it to Snapshot.
Implement the proposal for the next coordinape round.
What do you think?
I would love your feedback!
I love this proposal lets implement it right away
i don’t like it and i will tell you why in the comments
I like it but I think there can be more modification which I will leave in the comments below
I appreciate the sentiment in this proposal, but I believe it is up to the individual to decide how to allocate their GIVE in a Coordinape round, and that placing an additional admin burden on coordinators is unecessary and possibly error-prone.
If people would take the time to fill out the description of what they have contributed, it would be easy to identify where the work has been done, without the need to add a hierarchical layer of red tape.
Also, your assertion about the purpose of Coordinape is not necessarily correct, or at least accurate. You have stated that the purpose is “to pay contributors for their labor from the prior month” but people allocate GIVE for a variety of reasons, not always as payment for obvious transactional tasks. It could be for intangible aspects such as a welcoming attitude, positive comment, or encouragement to keep participating.
I don’t disagree that perhaps some people benefit from the DAO-wide Coordinape when they have not contributed, but in my opinion that’s a sign we should scrap the large group Coordinape rounds and spend that BANK elsewhere. I think Coordinape is much more appropriate for smaller groups where people know each other and the activities and tasks people have completed are understood.
I like the spirit of this proposal and encourage you to pursue this further. My general suggestion is to use some system like thrivecoin/+source cred to quantify contributor involvement and allow them to distribute GIVE, proportional to their quantified contribution.
@Trewkat Thank you so much for your feedback. I don’t intend to tell anyone how to distribute their gives at all. The intention behind this proposal is to ensure that coordinape rewards active participation at all levels, and although my choice of words for the definition of coordinape was off, using pay instead of reward or compensate, I will look into that. Although I know that coordinape is a reward or appreciation system and not a payment system, we can’t scrap DAO-wide coordinape because a lot of contributions, like governance participation, and upcoming projects without funds don’t have means of rewarding themselves, so the DAO-wide coordinape is a good fix for sure cases.
From what I can deduce from your statement, your motion is to reduce the amount allocated to DAO-wide coordinape and channel it to other projects. Am I correct?
Yes first thing and should be mandatory to reduce the amount, or scrap it alltogheter as the tools is not achiving its purpose anymore due to no guidelines and easily ,potentially, can be gamed.
well if a coordinator decides if who is going to be in the coordinape, then the person(s) who wants to be in the coordinape will be playing to the coordinator instead of the DAO itself.
The truth is that a lot of systems can be gamed, and the idea of improvement is to reduce the chances of it being gamed. To claim that we can develop a system that will completely eliminate gaming is both unrealistic and unattainable.
Determining active contributors is not up to the coordinators alone, and at the moment, there are guilds and departments that have already defined what it means to be active contributors. There is already a forum post that can further determine what the active contributions in guilds, departments, and projects are. So I used coordinators as a reference because they will be the ones to champion the process. We are in a decentralized community; nothing is left for just one person alone.
Does this help?
Can you provide a data for this for us to see? Who is getting more remuneration in coordinape that is not supporting the development of this DAO? Would be interesting to know.
More overhead problems. Also starting to get really centralized. Everything will now be on the hands of PMs and Guild Coordinators. Is this really the vibe that we’re aiming to have?
Overall, this suggestion cannot have my vote and this is why:
I believe that our L1 and L2 contributors are distributing their GIVES in an intentional and empowered state. Our contributors are smart and are highly-respected. People are allocating to others because they see their value by just BEING here, bringing vibes, and contributing their skills and energy even in a bear market. Controlling how people can allocate to others isn’t the way. Also, I wouldn’t worry about coordinape being gamed anymore as we have people tracking these from Ops and have successfully stopped a contributor during the past season from doing this.
The only thing that might have my agreement here is reducing the amount of BANK being disbursed for coordinape so we can see and keep this DAO through the bear.
I agree with you on the fact that we have respectable and smart contributors. With all due respect, we cannot deny that there are those who are not. I am not suggesting a centralized system in any way, just so we are clear. The active list is a function of the guild, project members as a whole, which will be coordinated by the guild coordinators or project managers.
i am amazed that despite the overwhelming evidence that folks are undereducated in how to appropriately use coordinape that no one ever proposes an educational solution. So that folks understand and can agree on how to use it.
For example if you look at what folks generally report as activity that they want GIVE for, you will notice that most folks put down the work that they are already paid to do. So they are double dipping. Of course folks don’t want to address this cause they have been double dipping for a year, slowly bleeding the supply of the bank token.
If the coordinape incentives are for the Ad Hoc work that folks are not already paid to do then i few folks would use the coordinape app differently and would allocate accordingly.
Also many folks don’t self report, I don’t Give Them Give cause that means they haven’t done anything to get give. And i don’t give GIVE to folks that are already getting paid for their work,