Compensation at BanklessDAO

Guidance is the keyword.
Decentralization needs it in order to be in its essence.


Thanks for taking the time to summarize the thought process being done on this. I like the thought of global guidelines combined with local model proposals that the teams can choose. This way we can balance guidelines and a need for flexibility over time.

As you point out there is a lot that needs to be defined. I feel this is a topic that seems particularly complex because it is not purely analytical but has quite a high emotional aspect to it. In my view, we run the risk to overthink the solution to try and cater to as many emotional pitfalls as possible. This is where your moonshot idea comes perfectly into play. We could use the council to calibrate our compensation model over time. A team or individual thinks the global or local rules could be improved? Reach out to the council to evaluate. This requires quite a high level of flexibility from all DAO members because it may mean that the compensation model will be adapted every Season. However, I believe this is precisely the culture we want to foster. Experiment.evaluate.adjust.

As a consequence, I want to encourage us to be brave and only develop the part of the compensation model that we absolutely need right now. Use it for one Season. Plan time to review and adjust at the end of the Season. Repeat. As long as the DAO will keep the culture of listening to the concerns and visibly act on those I am absolutely convinced this approach will deliver the best results and high DAO member satisfaction along the way.


Thats a great model and outlook @grendel I really like this piece!


To add to the conversation we are really paying contributors with our reserves. We are giving people voting power.
However, this in the future should change too to payments in stablecoins when we have enough revenue available, or at least start a mix model paying part in BANK and part in stablecoins.
To put it in perspective, in quarter 3 we only made 15K in profit. This was taking into account a 90% discount for BANK. If you take the current BANK price then we made a loss in quarter 3.
I’m totally fine with distributing BANK to the people that believe in this project and we should do so. But the BANK supply is finite (at least for now) and we should be finding more revenue streams.


I agree with this sentiment

1 Like

Appreciate the direction and the thoughtful research this working group is doing.

Seems like there’s some guidelines brewing of different models of comp (and hopefully their strengths and weaknesses learned so far from our existing experiments with them). Really like that it’s a guide only and sounds like it still allows for localized experimentation. Really appreciate particularly the closing paragraph that considers that if there’s tons of latitude and self-organization relative to comp across the DAO then there’s likely the occasional dispute due to lack of rigid standards.

I will vote in favour of guides/experiments and latitude; so I’m also in favour of an expectation of dispute and a formal method of resolving defined. I don’t think this is isolated to comp though. I think there’s need for an evolution of the ombuds into a proper DAO-wide dispute resolution framework. In the spirit of Ostrom’s Principals #5,6,7 for a Commons ( we need a clear and accessible path to dispute resolution and graduated escalation of sanctions for violation of agreed to norms – outside of that freedom and experimentation should reign imo.

I am not a big fan of part-time vs full-time dichotomy here. A much better estimate would be the value of the work you can offer in my honest opinion. If working “full-time” means showing up for the whole day then yeah very few of us can go full-time BUT we may add that value at, say, night-time. Or in the 3-4 hour window after our day-jobs.


I also think that freelance contributors would be more willing to join us if we paid in stable assets that are listed on major coin exchanges so that they can cash-out. It does not necessarily bind them into the Bankless framework against their will.

1 Like

A full-time job in the DAO does not translate into being at the desk for 8-10 hours a day, but in bringing value, work, support to the DAO, to many of its components and to other members with diligence, continuity and honesty. What matters is always the quality of what is done, whether chasing a bounty or playing a part-time or full-time role.
The difference - in my opinion - is identifiable in the depth and extent of one’s involvement with the DAO, which often transcends the concept of “role” defined today in the guilds, the responsibilities one is willing to take towards the community and - obviously - also in the availability of time that can be granted.

1 Like

Allow me to give my contribution to this point of yours even if you answered Kouros:
The will is to be able to pay both in BANK and in stable / eth. Obviously this depends on the revenues that can be generated by the DAO.
An alternative, now that the BANK token has been bridged on Polygon, could be to use QiDAO to be able to collateralize the BANKS to obtain ETH or stables in exchange, so as not to sell the BANK on the market.

1 Like

Great post. I am not happy with the location being part of the compensation model since we’d be asking people to reveal personal information in order to get compensated. Additionally, VPNs make it difficult to geolocate a user

1 Like

In my understanding “local” means related to guilds, projects or any non DAO-wide compensation model

Thanks for this post. It is essential that we find the right way to compensate people.

Compensation can take many different forms and we should always remind ourselves that this is still a very early stage of the DAO. Basically we have just started it if we think it in terms of years.

The maturity stage of the DAO structure, which has been growing and maturing a lot in the last months should not lead us away from recognizing that from an income-generation point of view we are still in the pretty infancy.

In order to attract talent, retain it, expand its usage the focus should all be onto revenue generation. I am not saying profit (even if that is what will be making the difference in the long run) but, at this current stage, the focus should be on growing the revenue streams. Double down on what is currently giving us oxygen at first and looking from frameworks that incentivize revenue generation projects.

If we have a strong revenue flow than we can have a stronger retribution system.

BANK has been “printed” out of nowhere, its value is only in part being represented by the community behind it. If we want to grow it, and survive a bear market stage (perhaps next year somewhen?) then we need a revenue stream that we can rely upon.

Deep down it is my conviction that “work” in the DAO can be divided and personally I also find the PoolTogether article referenced above by @Grendel inspiring.

People going full-time should have a “role”. A precise one requiring a person to be there full time. The role itself will be enough to keep the person fully occupied hence only people having the ability to go full time will be able to apply. If you do not have that time and you apply the disconnection will be self-evident.

People going part-time can be easily subdivided into doing “recurring tasks” (on-going) and “single sprints” (tasks). The on-going find a perfect system with coordinape, you know who you are continously working with on a weekly/daily base and you can reward them. The sprinters, working toward a single project should apply for a grant. This will give them the oxygen/motivation to complete the project with that budget.

I also invite people to read that, but also to think much more about the revenues. We need the latter to keep the right people doing the right work.

Love the idea of the “Compensation Council”

We could even have the ability to appeal the council by bring a case to coin vote (coin vote might be like the supreme court).

Maybe we have elections for the council positions.

This is kind of how democratic nations states work.

Great post thank you for breaking that down for us. Assigning full time and part time roles in my opinion will better help with accountability as it relates to the scope of work. I’m excited to see which way we go and continue to experiment.

The way I see it the value proposition of BANK at the moment is new members acquiring BANK, and the growth of the treasury.

I believe that Bankless DAO, unlike yearn or Pooltogether that have well defined functions, is more of a social DAO or a DAO of DAO’s. While yes, our mission states that we want to onboard 1B people in to the ecosystem the infrastructure to be able to do so is nascent and it is necessary to be building new primitives all around the new interactive DAO ecosystem that is coming in to existence.

Thus, I believe the maintenance of the core structure of bDAO that is onboarding, welcoming, supporting and nourishing new talent entering in to the space (aka the guild structure) should be looking to define and fill in its roles with full time “employees”of the DAO that get payed in a rate that is defined in a non pegged stablecoin some of which they must receive in BANK and the rest of which they can recieve in the currency of their choice (among those that are available in the treasury).

The Projects that spin out of the Guilds should be asking for Grants with detailed proposals and concrete goals that can be evaluated by the individual guilds, and funded by the guilds treasury pools (or batch requestested by the guild coordinators from the main pool). Proposed projects should keep in mind that in the long term they will be needing to onboard users or generate income as it will be possible to ask for multiple grants but not steady funding from the Gild or bDAO treasury.

Another important factor I would start thinking about is the “taxation” model that we are going to be setting up. And how to incentivize adherence to that model. The way I see it the value proposition of BANK at the moment is new members acquiring BANK, and the growth of the treasury. The growth of the treasury through the income generated by Projects under a guild should be giving an part of the income generated to the Guild treasury and DAO treasury. Furthermore when Projects become their own DAO’s there should be a system in place to incentivize and maintain this “taxation”.

I really want to see this become a reality.
Please highlight if this is being worked upon or if a soft-consensus is required for this. Thanks!

1 Like

We had a first conversation with QiDAO. Once we will be able to go on with it, a proposal will be presented in the forum to get the DAO feedback.

1 Like

I think you’re pretty socially oriented, and that’s great. I also want to note the need to compensate employees’ medical expenses. Very often recently, there are situations when people get sick due to the increased complexity of working conditions. But everyone has the right to receive compensation until they are ready to go to work; according to an article from the site, people have such a right So, in any case, you will have to pay the compensation voluntarily or in a judicial order.

First time commenter here, or anywhere really. Please forgive me if I break any customs. As someone who is new to working in a DAO, I’m excited to be here.

I 100% think that experimenting is the way, but is there a way we try to take out a lot of the emotional pitfalls? As an idea. Could there be a way around salaries that is based on programming, that analyzes data from the output produced by the worker.

There are bounties, that anyone can do, each bounty has a monetary value assigned to it. A new contributor starts by doing a few bounties, and get some money in return. After a few months of making what they want to make by working bounties there will be an average monthly income. We can use that becomes a works salary. They would choose to opt in, that would allow workers to take periods of time off but still maintain an income.

Rules could be made to tweak the average to be fair to both the worker and the DAO.