Nothing like a hot cup of coffee on a Saturday morning, for some forum contributing
I’m very appreciative of where this conversation is going. POKTScan submitted this as a per-proposal, which means it was submitted for feedback before presenting a final proposal to the DAO. Major props to them, and others who submit per-proposals, who are asking for specific feedback before publishing a final proposal. Much thanks to the GRIP team for helping construct this system.
We are at a place were it’s important to show that all contributors are treated equally in the DAO. As @ethen regularly says, “DAOs are in the people business” and I can’t agree more. He’s regularly talking about how the DAO should be investing more into people, which I completely agree with, but in the people business folks need to be treated with equality, objectively, or people become divided and demoralized. Spending more is great, but there has to be a system of equality, which is why I’ve been very consistent with attempting to establish measurable value metrics. I literally called this exact situation back in July with the first LeanPOKT proposal, because in the people business, equality in how folks are treated is paramount.
Yes, you can call me Nostra’sha’mus
Equality For Client Work
We need to decide if a value breakdown is only to be applied to specific proposals, or all proposals. One of the fastest ways to create division would be if we have a system where some folks can arbitrarily value their proposals, while other have to have value breakdowns.
So far to date, there has been basic expectations for reimbursements to have, at a minimum, a break down hours and expenses. For POKT Lint, there was extra demand that wasn’t required of others, which is why I created the Proposal Value Model, to help quantify more aspects of value beyond just hours.
Right now we have two core client proposals, this Geo-Mesh one, and PoktFund’s Lean POKT. Right now the v1 team has expressed that client work should have a value breakdown but has only mentioned it in regards to this proposal. Does measuring work only apply to Geo-mesh, or should PoktFund be required to provide a value breakdown as well? ThunderHead has said they are going to submitting a proposal for 3M for their work on Lean, so which treatment will they get? Also, what about the v1 team, how are they to be treated in all of this?
These kind of conversations will show up time and time again, especially if we don’t treat all proposals equally with the same standards.
Solution
Reimbursements
These reimbursement proposals be based on measurable metrics that relate to the work done (with an emphases on work hours) and expenses. Any contributor to the POKT ecosystem should be able to look at a reimbursement proposal and understand what it is paying for and justify the amount.
Ecosystem Value Awards (EVA)
The DAO should setup a system to then reward contributors for the extra value their contributions brought to the ecosystem. This is done outside of the reimbursement proposal. The DAO, and potentially in conjunction with PNF, looks at all contributions, regardless of the company that it came from (including PNI) and grants EVA’s to specific contributions.
It would be rather straightforward to create a committee with half PNF folks, and half community reps to reward EVAs. It can be given a large quarterly budget (or a % of DAO income) and community members can nominate contributions they see as worthy of an EVA.
In this case, both Lean and Geo-Mesh could likely get notable bonuses for their outstanding work. In the same spirit, the v1 team could get notable bonuses as well for their work.
By separating EVAs from reimbursement proposals we keep things equal across all contributors. I’d love to see @deblasis get an EVA for outstanding work on v1, just as much as see ThunderHead get an EVA for pushing Lean forward. Regarding Lean, the PNI core-devs that provided blueprints, testing, and code reviews can be treated equally as well. There is no road-blocks to rewarding everyone.
This way, all work is treated equal, while also rewarding the impact the work had on the ecosystem separately. Lean and Geo-Mesh proposals can be reworked to be about the nuts and bolts of the work done, meanwhile we get a structure down for EVA’s, give it a budget, and start moving quickly to reward the extra value these contributions held. We can also start providing EVAs to the v1 team as milestones are hit. This kind of system encourages transparency and communication about what is being worked on and accomplished, which would also be great for the ecosystem as a whole. @jdaugherty and @Olshansky, and many at PNI have been leading examples recently regarding transparency. EVAs would motivate more transparency overall, beyond PNI.
This would be addressed with EVAs. If you do something awesome on a Tuesday that is a novel innovation (or you do it on your off hours) and it has an impact on the ecosystem, you should get an EVA without having to go through any hoops. I personally would love to see @Olshansky share some awesome innovation his team did and nominate the individuals for an EVA. The community gets transparency, contributors get the notoriety they deserve, and the bonuses that are due.
NOTE: The more generous these EVAs, the more inventive there is by all to do more work that has the highest impact on the ecosystem. We can find the balance and drive innovation, while maintaining equality on reimbursement proposals.
Conclusion
I’d love to know your thoughts on this, and thank-you POKTScan for hosting this conversation on your per-proposal They are a 5 star host in my book
P.S. I understand parts of this could be hosted on other parts of the forum, but the conversation is here right now in regards to valuing specific proposals and proposal equality. If folks like what I’m proposing with EVAs then I’m happy to start a separate thread.