I wanted to see about sentiment around paying contributors either solely in Stsblecoins, or 75 percent stablecoins 25 percent BANK, or 100 percent in BANK. Or something in between.
This is not a proposal, this is not a bDIP, as it stands, it has no implications of constitutional movements. I will put a poll below, but only for temperature check purposes.
Voting is great, but Voting with Feedback is better! Here we go!
Do you believe that BanklessDAO should pay contributors in Stablecoins?
Yes - my explanation below
No - my explanation below
0voters
If you have voted “Yes - My Explanation Below” what percentage combination should be considered?
100% Stablecoin
70 - 75% Stablecoin, 25% - 30% BANK
50/50 Stablecoins to BANK
25% - 30% Stablecoins - 70% - 75% BANK
0voters
Feel free to list the caveats that may come up on your head. It would be helpful to see those too. Thanks.
If this go trough i prefer, if i can be the clearest possible to be paid as a possition, because i think that we need to get stronger tokenomics for BANK, so if we are planning to pay a composed token, maybe we can just make a lot of positions and transfer those NFTs. https://opensea.io/es/collection/uniswap-v3-positions or if we can go further, create a composed token as itself
Yup, when you create a liquidity position in the newest protocols of DeFi, like Uniswap, Velodrome o Arrakis, you get and NFT that the represents the position of what you are “Trading”, so if our intentions it’s to pay like in a balanced position of 75-25% or 50-50%, this could be automatically balanced in the pool, because you will need to pay different amounts for every partner contributor, and you can keep those positions to start having compensation for the liquidity that already has been provided, and if the contributor want to sell, just uncouple the position in BANK or USD pegged coin. So we can mint a long position and stop the sell pressure that this represents. Sorry if im too technical.
I suppose that would be a good starting salvo or
Good for rewards.
How would that work for compensation? Unless 1 part os compensation 1 part gets locked up (now we’re getting onto the weeds it seems) but, I think that sounds cool maybe!
You are winning fees, and also the NFT has intrinsic value 168 BANK : 1 USD, so if you are going to pay someone, you have compensate someone with 10 USD - 1680 BANK, you just transfer that NFT and the one that claims can dissolve the NFT with BANK or USD, without hurting the liquidity that we have.
I voted no, and I unfortunately think it is the only option, at least right now.
The challenge here is, the DAO does not yet earn enough to pay contributors in any significant way.
If we did pay in stables, we would quickly distribute the stables we have accumulated over the past 2 years.
The path forward, I believe is to continue to enable the DAO, and create as fun, inviting and interesting a place to work as possible. Although if people are looking for financial viability for working solely at the DAO we currently don’t have it, YET.
We have to get to that point.
Just like any startup, it takes years for viability to come together.
The DAO is definitely different than most startups, and is an experiment on decentralized organizing. So it is faster in somethings, and slower in others.
Lots of groups are focused very hard on how to bring value back to the DAO, and I think we need to continue to focus our efforts there.
At some point we should revisit how we are compensating ourselves, but at the peak of a bear market, with really hard macro sentiment, is really tough timing.
What I would love to look at is, what has this conversation coming up?
I’m hoping that if we look at some of that, we can find a way forward that is inclusive as possible.
Thank you, for this response. Iced. It’s good to see and I’m really greatful, because you’ve been around for so long.
I’m also so happy to get an understanding on why it wouldn’t be a good idea. I really thank you for that.
This conversation now, when times are hard is likely the best time to discuss this. So people who may be afraid to talk about it, can feel heard.
I would be concerned to see a situation where a conversation is frowned upon no matter what time of the year we are in. But I’m comfortable discussing this, and I want everyone to be comfortable with discussing this because community opens the door to have that comfortable feeling.
There are many people, who have no choice but to consider the viability of doing what they love. They love being here, they love being in the DAO. But if they can’t afford to continue here, as a community, I would hope that people would want to look at how to support them.
A part of this conversation, a part of the compensation conversation would also include revenue. As it should.
There are people who have come here who have made this their income. We don’t have that yet. We can get there, but not if we don’t talk about it. Not if we don’t discuss the elephant in the room.
This conversation is a start.
So if we have accumulated stables, yet have not found a way to make a sustainable revenue a continued focus, then that’s another issue that we can discuss. We may have flooded out Bank like it was a faucet at first, but perhaps we can investigate paying a portion in stables to help the growing number of contributors who could (potentially) be losing hope in working in a DAO.
Yes. There are groups that are focused on bringing in revenue. We would need to now put some of that focus to work. With actionable steps. With projects that no longer (not immediately) receive funding without showing tangible steps towards self sufficiency.
As of right now… I don’t know if the way that bank are being distributed is the correct way to help the most people, but to see this conversation, and to even see people tell me their reasoning for why we shouldn’t , why we should, gives me a lot of hope!
This is currently a no for me considering we are BANK rich and stables poor. If we had stables, it would be a resounding yes. Let’s focus on continuing to build a DAO that people want to invest in (time, money, other). Currently we have a lot of people investing time, but not many willing to invest money. That’s because the return on investment is weighted towards governance, community, vibes, and access to work / other high value contributors. People who invest money typically want profits in return, and that’s something we haven’t been able to consistently deliver.
We seem the be in the trough of sorrow right now (see image attached), seeking product market fit and trying hard to make things work. People (some people) are unhappy, but most of us are willing to experiment and pivot. We’re even willing to forgive each other’s human flaws because we know we’re here for the right reasons. The mission is bigger than any single one of us.
The good news is things are starting to come together. We have promising services and educational programs that are sustainable and actually DO pay stables. Over time we’ll use those to build up a treasury of stables. We’ll start to scale and that’s when investors will take notice again.
I appreciate where you’re going with your temp check. It’s a reality check for us all to keep building and when it clicks we will be off to the races.
I also feel the need to point out that not much has been done in relation to this post Compensation at BanklessDAO
Or expecting anyone to complete anything without a clear knowledge of what they would be compensated. Coordinape doesn’t cut it. We learned that from the DAO wide Coordinape and the last 2 seasons in the Treasury Dept.
Just a couple examples of where I think the DAO itself has failed.
@homie while I do support this, I think that there would need to be a step before this that would be needed. Not all work is created equal, just as IRL it isn’t.
There should be a tier system of sorts in terms of amount of compensation (I will use an example that someone else made: someone who retweets a shouldn’t be paid the same as a dev)
Then we would also need to set criteria (in a bounty - criteria that has to be met in order to receive payment) that would have to be met.
Say friend, thanks for this! You make great points. Even though at face value it’s a “disagreement”, it feels helpful in understanding what I need to know to consider this conversation further.
Some points speak to me!
What’s the way to bring the focus towards economic prosperity? I noticed your spot where you stated that the return on investment is weighted towards governance, community and vibes (part of your statement)
In your opinion, is that something that may have held us back from revenue drivers in past? However, one is the considered missions of “bankless”
Is freedom from financial institutions (or freedom from the tyranny, however you want to state it) I wonder if the fact that it may have been some time since this conversation has been addressed, could be one of the ( not the only) reason why we have seen some conversations around compensation?
I believe that you are more versed in stables management than I am, I believe @Icedcool is also. What would you forsee as a good target to reach in order to be no longer stables poor?
I hope so. I’d be interested in seeing if we can find out whether people feel happy, sad, angry, or joyful. Personally. I feel content. I have had to move on to an extent to make ends meet, which makes it easier for me to spend time here considering things.
Would I be less of a contributor, if I had to leave because my IRL job promoted me to where I could make ends meet?
I might be the only person who thinks that we need to have the conversation about being able to afford to continue contributing. I don’t know, but I do find this conversation interesting!
I think you’d have to see what value is currently coming into the DAO. What value do contributors in the DAO bring.
It’s very important, to have this conversation. To again give a voice to everyone. From the guest passers who can’t afford to be L1, to the L2s that are considering stepping down, leaving, or simply no longer being active.
However! Growth, strength, and resilience means having hard conversations. I’m hopeful that we can move forward. I’m hopeful that we are moving forward.
Yes, I agree with areas and contributors having to add value.
The problem is that GC is forced to fund everything. (automatic guild funding)
Value isn’t determined just by what kicks back a %. How do we determine value, who decides what is valuable?
I think the DAO deciding priorities would be important also.
GC tried to do this by asking for poles with proposals for Season 8. We know how that turned out. The backlash was felt hard.
I think the DAO needs to get it’s priorities in order along with who is carrying out those priorities.
Now I am not saying that the DAO should shut down or anything, but I do think that funding should only be what is necessary until the DAOs priorities are in order.
I don’t know the right thing, but I do know funding everything isn’t it and won’t help.
That being said, why is everyone so adverse to polls? It seems like they would just be afraid of a “No” vote
