# Compensation Structure for DAO Contributors **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposals\ **Created:** [February 4, 2023, 3:47pm UTC](https://forum.pokt.network/t/compensation-structure-for-dao-contributors/3918 "2023-02-04T15:47:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 51
**Author:** ![zaatar](https://forum.pokt.network/user_avatar/forum.pokt.network/zaatar/32/386_2.png) [@zaatar](https://forum.pokt.network/u/zaatar)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2023, 9:59pm UTC](https://forum.pokt.network/t/compensation-structure-for-dao-contributors/3918/51 "2023-02-11T21:59:09Z")
### Complex Budget Calculations > [@Cryptocorn](#): > > Maybe not a hiring committee as such, but a ‘soft guidance’ committee (potentially part of GRIP’s remit?) to give a suggestion when there are cases of ambiguity on asking for compensation. > > Proposers wouldn’t have to ask for the recommended number, they could still ask for more/less, but it would give some gravitas: ‘GRIP Funding Committee recommended I receive 200k POKT and that is the amount I’m asking for’ as an example. > [@Jinx](#): > > I’ve suggested oversight committee type structure in the past, and the challenges of evaluating engineering contributions are a driving reason for that. I don’t think that’s GRIP necessarily, but perhaps a similar structure. > [@Cryptocorn](#): > > Let me rephrase: non-binding committee suggesting an evaluated amount. People can value themselves more or less, but a neutral, repeatable formula or set of standards that can be applied by a third party to offer a ballpark figure. > > Although I appreciate we may get into new issues of who’s on the committee and potential for politics etc there. > [@msa6867](#): > > > [@Cryptocorn](#): > > > > Maybe a member of GRIP, a member of PNF and a member of PNI (or DAO appointed representative?) Funding + stewardship could come under GRIP. A 3 person team re-elected each year? > > I would oppose scope creep for GRIP. It was put together and budgeted for a specific mission. Keep it to that mission and populate any new functionality needed separate from and without reference to GRIP. We don’t want GRIP creep. At the same time, however, part of GRIP’s mandate as per PEP-45 is to use its expertise to help technical proposal drafters determine appropriate compensation: > [@PEP-45: Get a GRIP: Group to Review and Improve Proposals](https://forum.pokt.network/t/pep-45-get-a-grip-group-to-review-and-improve-proposals/3634/1): > > The technical specialists will consider any amounts being sought for reimbursement or advance funding and opine regarding the appropriate budget. Accordingly, it makes total sense for GRIP to play a role in budget assessment. I like Cryptocorn’s idea of a three-person committee: GRIP member, PNF member and a DAO-appointed representative. For small asks, I don’t see anything untoward or controversial about GRIP providing a budget assessment on its own. After all, that 's part of GRIP’s mandate. But I do agree that for large funding requests (and at the contributor’s request, for smaller ones too), the assessment should be done by a committee (including the GRIP member). > [@Caesar](#): > > I would be cautious centralising decision-making in one body just because it exists. There can be multiple bodies empowered by the community for different tasks. That also gives opportunities to new community members with diverse backgrounds to participate. Centralisation and issues of “who’s on the committee” are valid concerns in regards to decision making, but much less so if the committee merely suggests a budget and lets the proposal author decide. However, to allay what concerns may exist, the DAO member could rotate among a roster of qualified individuals who get compensated for their participation. Also, the GRIP technical specialist could change from time to time. ### Imbursement? Before Pocket, I had never come across this word. > [@Jinx](#): > > Reimbursement and imbursement are listed as synonyms in the thesaurus, so I was driving towards some clarity in meaning, > [@ethen](#): > > I think we could use Grants, but I like Imbursement as it works well with Reimbursement and is an allocation that has yet to be earned, whereas Reimbursement is for work already completed. > > Trying to simplify the process here. The proposal template is being revised: [here’s the related Google Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wUq6GDzunsIyY34V5rjuEZEHT7SxPe6JtWfKdaNBxDA/edit?usp=sharing) (feel free to add comments). “Imbursements,” for clarity, may be replaced by “Advance Pay.” While surprisingly “imbursement” is an actual word, as Jinx notes, it does not mean “advance payment.” See the Wikipedia [entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imburse). ### DAO Treasurer? > [@Caesar](#): > > We need individuals with finance and business acumen involved in managing the DAO treasury, payments and budget planning. I strongly agree. A Treasurer? Convert some POKT to stables, perhaps U.S. dollars and invest. What are other DAOs doing? ### Fiscal Prudence > [@Caesar](#): > > With upcoming inflation cuts, POKT allocation to the DAO treasury will reduce accordingly- just wanted to remind everyone. > … > > There shouldn’t be knee-jerk payments (especially large ones) because of pressures and historical connections. We need to look forward. > > I suggest working on a plan, and until then we halt any payouts that are not already in the voting stage. Interesting idea. We definitely need to factor diminishing DAO reserves due to inflation cuts into our spending decisions. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.pokt.network/t/compensation-structure-for-dao-contributors/3918)._