Days since we blamed the community: 0
2 Likes
Hi @matei ,
It’s great to see that you listened to the community opinions regarding the compensation of the SFC.
However, may I ask why this came directly as a Snapshot proposal and not as a regular proposal on the Agora (where it could be discussed and feedback could be provided)?
If the end result would be No, don’t compensate as proposed - does it mean that a new interation will be proposed?
Also, I will leave my feedback here:
I like the mechanism used, in terms that the compensation will be unlocked based on the activity of the SFC. No activity = No compensation. This is fair!
I don’t think that SFC compensation should be included in the project proposals as SFC is an indispensable step (authority) in the process. I believe that asking for a “processing fee” will add more friction to the process for the projects.
This can be introduced later when the proposal volumes are higher. In my view, the SFC members should be compensate from the SFC’s budget, just like any other proposal.
Thus, I have a couple of questions that I would be greatful if you could clarify:
- How were the 50 $Standard per proposal calculated? What’s the reasoning behind?
- Why was considered adding the SFC’s compensation into the proposed budget of the project? Why can’t it be a separate thing?
Thanks!
3 Likes
Because the Snapshot vote does not reflect all the questions, I will express my opinion here:
- Compensation - Actually “NO”, but I voted “YES” as a kick in the ass to set the actions in motion.
- Ostanescu new member - 100%“YES”
- MTK new member - 100% “YES”
- Keeping the $STANDARD tokens in the multisig - “YES”
not part of the discussion but an important point in my opinion:
- Vlad in the SFC - yes, but without veto right.
4 Likes
Hey, I will vote NO to the current proposal regarding rewarding.
I see SFC as the main advisor in drafting a great proposal (this might include several iterations between contributors and the SFC until a proposal is fit to pass). For this reason I think the SFC should be rewarded based on some KPIs which reflect the degree of help and support offered to the community.
For example, they could be rewarded some tokens every season based on the amount of proposals they analyze (for the time they put into this) and receive a bonus (maybe higher than the initial rewards) based on the amount of proposals that will pass the snapshot vote and get implemented.
4 Likes
Gm frens,
here if my feedback for the overall SFC proposal
MTK and Octav - agree to have them on the SFC board
Keeping the existing Standard in the multisig - yes
Compensation yes , but not in the actual form, and even if this was already voted on snapshot, I consider that the process was not followed entirely and the topic was not addressed in the same format on Agora prior to voting, so based on this, tailoring can be done for the the final proposal that will get on Snapshot, also would have been nice to see @matei answers to Octav’s questions before end of voting …
now back to compensation, I agree that we should have it, but based on some KPIs, like SFC members are active or not in providing constructive feedback to the proposal, did the proposal improved and was passed based on the SFC comity (or on the contrary SFC should “block” proposals not bringing any value to our “DAO” )
speaking of DAO, @Teo has a valid point, I think that a small step toward decentralization can be done, if the SFC has no lead (Vlad is part of SFC and can act as a Lead to promote High Quality , but at least on paper will sound better having no assigned Lead ), maybe they can have a coordinator, that invites everyone for discussions for every proposal. If this is not the right moment for this, it can be considered for next seasons.
The SFC members should be involved in giving feedback individually also on first discussions on agora regarding the Ideas, in this way the proposals will be drafted better, Base on this some KPIs for compensating the active members could be specified.
3 Likes
to @ostanescu & others who had similar concerns:
This proposal was up for debate (mentioning that the SFC does not see fit to be compensated) for 4 days on Agora (3-6 Oct) and I further encouraged, and discussed other possible solutions on Discord for 4 days (7-10 Oct) before launching (alongside the SFC) the prerequisite proposal, which has passed.
The allocated sums (not to be budgeted under the projects but under the SFC’s total budget – that of 90k STANDARD) were chosen based on both historical activity and reward relative to the effort of the Ambassadors, the only other contributors rewarded by the SFC.
As for concerns regarding decentralization, it’s important to create accountability within the committee, hence Vlad is the lead. Since the SFC acts as a guiding body, (see proposal above & previous discussions) the committee is not intended to be a bottleneck for proposals (regarding what you call a “veto right”) and, whether it believes a proposal is perfect or needs adjustment, it is not up to the SFC to vote on the proposal on Snapshot, but up to the community.
Here is my short feedback after voting on Snapshot for this proposal:
I consider that how the voting options were named, are influencing the decision of the voters, of course I want to have SFC keep going, and it was hard to press the "No, don’t start season1 " button, but I did it, as I do not agree how the rewards topic for the SFC members was handled.
3 Likes
I agree with @FreeFly. I was thinking of actually voting yes, to kick-start SFC Season 1.
The reasoning was that this would be a starting point for SFC compensation and we will see how the season develops, keeping in mind what went well and what no, and consider these for the next season’s proposal.
BUT what made me vote NO were the following reasons:
-
It was handled as a take it or leave it offer. I understand that the community voted YES to the original compensation proposal, but I can’t agree with the fact that the high percentage of NO votes were not taken into account (nor addressed).
-
this orignial compensation proposal came directly as a Snapshot vote and not as an Agora proposal. This did not provide the community with a chance of debating this matter in a proper way. The SFC Sez 1 Agora Proposal was used to get community’s feedback regarding IF the SFC should be compensated or not. Not on the compensation methodology.
-
I would have expected a separate Agora proposal regarding SFC’s compensation model. And two separate Snapshot votes. 1st over the compensation model, and then the SFC Sez 1 start/ or not vote.
-
I also don’t appreciate how the voting options were written. I see it as a subliminal method of passing this proposal, by trying to emotionally blackmailing the voters. Also given the fact that we have now the CT proposal on the pipeline. (Disclaimer: this is my own view and I admit that I might be wrong).
-
I am also not happy with the answer to my question regarding how the compensation was calculated. Having a look at CT’s proposal compensation example will clarify why I have this feeling.
Thus, overall, I don’t think that enough effort was put in addressing the questions and feedback (an example that more discussion/ debate on this matter would have been beneficial, is CT’s proposal which includes the $350 Standard in their budget), that the compensation proposal did not follow the right process and that for me it seems pushed.
3 Likes
I agree with @ostanescu regarding the fact that the proposal on snapshot has not reflected the feedback on agora.
HOW the compensation is done was not questioned nor put up for disussion before being thrown in the snapshot proposal, bundled together with the SFC season 1 start. I am voting NO again, not beause I do not agree with some sort of compensation, or that I do not agree with the changes in the comitee, but beause of the way the things were handled.
The compensation methodology was not ever put up for debate, but rather only IF compensation should be in place. Also coupling the vote and forcing action under the hood of “the SFC season 1 has to start” is not a nice way to do it.
On the other hand, I see this compensation model as a way to slowly inch toward our previous wish of putting back some voting power in the hands of the contributors. So, since this proposal is still going through, the upside is that at least half of these rewards are going to active members of the community.
6 Likes
This reflects also my opinion and decision
2 Likes
The formulation of questions/proposals on snapshot or on chain must be simple and clear without leaving space for any interpretation.
Concrete the " StakeborgDAO Financial Committee Season 1" proposal could be voted with:
- Yes, start season 1, or
- No, don’t start season 1
Either in the text of the proposal (Agora or Snapshot), is no question or concept about to “start or not start the season 1”. Instead can be found other questions that cannot be answered with “Yes, start season 1” or “No, don’t start season 1”.
I am convinced that an involuntary error was created in both, the formulation of the proposal and implicitly in the vote himself, I say that because of the feedback on Agora, Discord and especially in the voter comment text on Snapshot, the answer is rather to introduce the compensation for SFC team or not.
Because in this case even the quadratic voting is not an ideal solution, we must choose the simplest form of voting with 5 separate votes (question and answer) which can be answered with YES or NO like:
- Do you agree to start SFC season 1?
- Do you agree to introducing compensation to the SFC team?
- Do you agree with MTK as a new member of the committee?
- Do you agree with Ostanescu as a new member of the committee?
- Do you agree with keeping the STANDARD tokens in the multisig over returning them?
If the answer to question no. 1 is NO, then all the others become obsolete and we can go home earlier.
If the answer to question no 2, the answer is YES, then the compensation mechanism and the remuneration amount must be analyzed and debated separately.
2 Likes