So after JD used data to show a more reasonable outcome, we are switching to a different method of calculating to arrive at a similar dollar value? Why wasn’t that approach used earlier in the conversation or as a response to the OP?
For someone so interested in our guiding principles it’s also funny that there was no rush to increase the community methodologist bonus, despite it asking for a total of $40k in bonus up to $100m AUM. Yet the initial DATA proposal was asking for 2% of INDEX supply at the same AUM, or $4m, a 100x increase. Surely it was unfair then what we were requesting? In fact, our proposal was used above to argue that we are getting paid too much relative to MVI’s revenue! That’s despite recycling our methodologist bonus, chosing for the fee split to go entirely to the Coop and are still making time to help lead community initiatives forward. Perhaps we should’ve just milked it for all it was worth and not worried about winning together with the Coop as a whole.
I question what direction our culture is taking when I see contributors that have disappeared for a while come back and suddenly feel that certain things are super important, and that the Coop has to bend over backwards to fix them. Coincidentally these things happen to relate to product onboarding and methodologist rewards just as they launch a product. Likewise with this proposal and now threats to cease work (alongside the insults that came in the Discord recently).
If you want to threaten the Coop to leverage rewards for personal gain that’s your choice, but it goes against the culture and environment we’ve built here.
I tried to empathise with the general idea, and know there is a proposal being worked on to discuss more appropriate framework for this type of thing which I support. I’ll be waiting for that post to appear before trying to have a hopefully more reasonable discussion about this stuff.