It’s great to see this discussion and the sharing of different perspectives - having these discussions around pain points and root causes in the open makes for better solutions. I think for now this thread should not be too opinionated on solutions and should try to welcome as many different viewpoints around key issues regarding people’s ability to contribute and get paid.
One other point before responding directly to some comments is that resource allocation for Pocket should flow to our shared goals and priorities. This is why PNF wanted to deliver Project DNA as our first priority - so it can create alignment around what those priorities are. Then teams/individuals can make their own decisions around whether they mobilise towards those priorities - in the knowledge that resources will be available and frictions will be reduced - or whether they prefer to work on other things, which is of course their right and should be welcomed, but in the knowledge that availability of funds and the outcome of proposals might be less certain.
Ok, responding to some specific points raised:
At PNF we have identified this as a pain point. There is no ROI for someone investing a full month navigating the proposal process for small payments. This is an unnecessary burden. We plan to address this through the creation of “Sockets” - low-friction seed grants for working towards the goals and priorities of Pocket. By providing seed grants optimistically we can avoid needless debate and make continued funding contingent on evidence (of impact and results) rather than “ideas”. This broader compensation discussion might be best to focus on bounties and these smaller “seed” grants first. PNF will soon share more on the Sockets program and anyone wanting to provide input to make the program better will have plenty of opportunity to do so.
This is another pain point we identified at PNF and have on our roadmap as a priority - we are working on design of an RFP process because we recognise that larger pieces of work need to make their way to highly capable builder teams and PNF will work to facilitate that. We are meeting as many teams as possible in the next weeks so we can understand their needs and capabilities more and hopefully finalise a design for this soon.
I also empathise with the perspective that bounties maybe don’t fully recognise the importance of certain contributions. I want to say clearly that PNF thinks anyone delivering a bounty is a critical part of Pocket, these people are a reason for our success that we should recognise and celebrate more, and also there is no task important to our success that is beneath any of us - no matter whether it’s called a bounty or something else.
I think Shane summarises it nicely - To do what? Energy and funds will flow more effectively when we have clear and focused priorities as an organisation, because then it’s easier to allocate more/larger work and funding to different teams and businesses.
However, asking what the DAO needs done doesn’t mean we should craft this need into a job description. I strongly believe we should be allocating work to different projects/teams rather than ossifying into a set of full-time “roles”. The power of Pocket grows from the success of the teams in our ecosystem to pursue creative solutions and their ability to work together, not from building new teams in “the DAO”.
This is why PNF has kicked things off with Project DNA and will next be launching new grant mechanisms. We must first answer the question of what the DAO wants to prioritise, then direct resources to any builders wanting to pursue those priorities. Depending on the nature of the priority, this may take the form of a bounty, or a “Socket”, or an RFP. But the point is that we will not be building out a large and ossified team of full-time roles, which would defeat the purpose of a DAO, we will be maintaining a pipeline of opportunities for DAO contributors to tap into.
One other point on this: We are a technical, engineering-led project and this will (rightly) always be our top priority. But without product, marketing, BD and design focusing on the customer, and economics, governance and operations people in the background optimising our systems, we will never be a success. We should not create two classes of citizens - engineers & “the rest” - because we are completely reliant on each other. We don’t want to lose builders - or any talent - that we have across the community. It’s on us all to make sure that happens by working together.
Harry’s perspective is not inherently more “right” than anyone else’s, but I’d just say that he and @Olshansky have a unique experience of using the current system successfully for v1. We also have @deblasis who joined PNI after working on bounties and @PoktNews who is on a rolling bounty each month - let’s hear from them, and equally we should listen to and hear from anyone who feels like our current systems don’t adequately meet their needs, whether that’s @dire , @donvincenzo , @poktblade , @addison , @pierre , @msa6867 or anyone else. Being open and user centred in our approach to solving the daily challenges will help us optimise what we already have, and I think the biggest reason to be optimistic is the crazy amount of talent in this community still to unlock. Let’s hear more of their voices before we jump into solution mode - either here in this thread or within the DNA survey**