Looks like the GWG proposal was largely popular so we will be pushing the process forward. The next steps are deciding the leaders. As defined in the post, there will be two leaders alongside someone from the Set team (myself).
The two leaders will be paid a monthly salary in INDEX tokens (voted on below) and will be responsible for:
Evaluating and delegating GWG treasury to meaningful growth initiatives
Ideating on growth programs
Making sure all growth initiatives are going on track and on schedule
Hosting and leading any necessary meetings
Giving updates to the wider community regarding progress on growth goals
Analyzing and improving the current structure of the GWG in order to make it more efficient and/or more effective
To do so, a 15-20 hour weekly commitment is likely going to be necessary from each leader.
To begin with, the GWG will go through a 3 month test phase to see how this structure works in a lower risk setting. We will be voting on initial parameters below:
GWG Leaders Monthly Rewards (in INDEX)
$4k
$5k
$6k
$7k
0voters
GWG Starting Budget (in INDEX for 3 months)
$50k
$75k
$100k
$125k
0voters
Please nominate individuals you think are right for the role or nominate yourself. Super pumped to innovate on open org design!
Because @LemonadeAlpha and @reganbozman did such a great job with putting this structure together along with generally being highly productive team members, I would like to nominate them for the position of GWG leaders.
Additionally, in regards to the rewards here - we should aim to be on the more generous side as opposed to frugal. We want to attract the best talent and get the best results for their work in order to make $INDEX worth anything at all.
So let say 75k for 3 months with 2 salary at 5k, it’s 45k for projects and almost 50% of the budget for 2 salary.
Do you think it’s better to decrease salaries at the beginning to see how things work, especially if there are 2 Leaders. And then increase it if there is a real need for 2 Leaders ? Hard to give feedbacks without knowing what they will do exactly.
Or what about 3k with a potential bonus at the end ?
I think that the budget for compensation should come out of the treasury grants that are funding current rewards, given that that pot of INDEX is already funding grants for community contributions.
I am admittedly biased here given the nomination, but on the whole I think we should pay competitively. The frame of reference that I look at is that the difference between $4K per month and $6K per month is not meaningful in the context of the INDEX treasury, but it is meaningful for an individual contributor. So if that additional $2K per month helps us attract better caliber talent, we should always be willing to pay that premium
But 5k for 15-20 hour week, is 12-15k for a full time. It’s a lot !!! it’s the salary of a leader devs on big protocols.
And if I understood well, Leader, won’t do much as community members will have to submit proposals. So basically a “leader” is a facilitator, and will organize things and at the end give feedbacks.
Members will vote anyway. Just wanted to point this out.
And if it’s true, I would be happy to quit my job and apply to become a Leader in the GWG !
I agree that we should pay competitively. The Coop should want to attract and retain long-term builders committed to long-term value creation.
You are right that $4k-$6k per month is not meaningful in the context of the Treasury, and I would argue $4k for 20 hours/week is on the low end of startup tech compensation (~96k for 40 hours/week). This is a lower salary than than what what most junior developers would earn at a VC-funded tech startup of similar market valuation.
How do we incent top talent to build Index Coop instead of just keeping their cushy tech job and passively investing on the sidelines? (FWIW - This is what I’ve been doing for the past 3 years).
Agree with everything said here. To answer some questions:
GWG leaders will be paid out of normal treasury, not the allocated budget here.
There will be reasonably high output expectations for the GWG leaders and we want to make sure that they are more than well compensated for it. It seems like $5k/month is winning, but if they do a good job - we should consider bumping it up even higher. Naturally, if they feel like the work is too much they should feel free to step down.
Note that the compensation is in $INDEX tokens, not a stablecoin. For this reason, there is some liquidity and volatility risk taken on by the GWG leaders. With that in mind $5k, to me, seems reasonable.
I’m all for paying competitive $, but let’s start small and add ++ incentives for beating initial goals for each leader. Same for the budget, if we get over X% results over expectations, then we can bump up the budget.
I appreciate and accept the nomination, @puniaviision
Have appreciated the warm welcome these past few weeks from Coop members. I’m passionate about Index Coop and its growth. Would love to take on this role.
IMO the consequences of overpaying are way smaller than the consequences of underpaying. We want to move fast and be aggressive. The cost of paying a few $k more a month than their market price is negligible - first priority is to get results.
Those that win the nomination will be expected to produce a set of goals and KPIs the community can hold them to.
I would also urge higher compensation too, for all the reasons stated above, especially when trying to get people with high paying normie/TradFi jobs to side hustle. Paying more seems like low incremental cost but high leverage to me.
For what it’s worth on compensation - am totally in favor of setting up a structure such that if a meaningful contributor wants to earn a full time salary from the Index Coop, they should be able to earn a competitive full time salary.
We may not be there yet, but I think we should be aiming towards this
For context on how much the Coop has been paying people previously from the Grants Committee I was getting a $1-2,000 a month for working only a couple of hours a week so roughly equal to $4k/80hrs/month even though this Growth Leader requires much more time commitment and higher risk/opportunity cost.
Idk if comparing to startup salaries or other DAOs is a good model because there are many unknowns across a lot of factors. Just pay people well and see how they do, evaluate from there. Regan has a great rep, he’s not going to scam us. Idk about Lemonade but we should trust him he’s been a great community member.
That’s true if you assume that a high salary indicates quality of work and can be turned on its head if the assumption is opposite. Still, I agree with reganbozman in “…if a meaningful contributor wants to earn a full time salary from the Index Coop, they should be able to earn a competitive full time salary.” I don’t know the biz well enough tell one from the other yet but overpaying is not a good look to me. I’m curious to see what decision is made as I view all of this as directing inflation proactively rather than reactively like in fiat. Please correct me if I’m wrong but BTC throws all the inflation into security so it’s interesting to see it go to community participants. Clear metrics or KPIs is a must so the work or at least comparable work is quantifiable if we want consistency in the long run. I’d appreciate if someone could point me to an explanation of the security model of INDEX too.