October Rewards Distribution

October Rewards Distribution

October Distribution

The October rewards distribution has been posted here. This also includes two additional tabs:

  1. Summarised contributor rewards in USD. This has been done in order to clarify total reward given there is a number of fixed stipends spread across Index amounts and USDC payment amounts this summary sheet allows for comparison across all contributors.
  2. Provides breakdown of rewards per workgroup


The index Contributor Rewards Methodology can be found here.

INDEX Valuation

INDEX rewards are first estimated in USD, and then converted to its equivalent INDEX quantity.

The 20 day rolling average value of INDEX is used to calculate INDEX distribution quantity.

The 20 day rolling average as of November 5th (payment date) is calculated as $26.43 per INDEX.

Disputing Rewards

If you feel like there are contributions that we’ve missed, or you feel like there should be adjustments to the rewards amounts, please fill this form out .

Claiming Rewards

This month’s reward distribution was completed via Index Coop Safe Payroll . This is a fork of the native gnosis multisig transaction bundler. We are continuing to iterate on the treasury distribution to improve speed & security of execution.

Here are the rewards transactions:



Many thanks for the October Contributor Rewards.

I will not dispute anymore, since it is a waste of time!

However, in my case, the reward in US$ divided by the hours I put into, shows an hourly rate of 9 US$.

I dig therefore into the spreadsheet and found that several of my used time has not been needed. I will not do that anymore. Maybe I misunderstood to do something useful for the DAO would be honored. Unfortunately, I cannot find that sentence right now (possible it was in the handbook).

I DONATE therefore all my contributed items, which are not needed:

Video link

POAP link

Exchange Link

Maybe the upcoming tipping can help in the future.

Many people see me in online meetings.

  • I am usually quiet and listen to the presentations - even the meetings are for me after midnight!

  • I do not waste time by greeting people or

  • using words not found in a dictionary to get attention (“HOOT HOOT”).

I try to focus on the presentation. However, sometimes I do speak up, when the presentation misses some links, like in the meeting presented by @overanalyser “DAO Revolution Community call” Thursday, November 4, 1:00 – 2:00 am (It is not a time most of you are in a meeting).

1 Like

The problem Ronald faces here is that the contributor rewards sheet I was provided to assess contributor rewards for included only 2 out of 5 lines that he submitted, as confirmed by hooty bot.

@gregdocter @Pepperoni_Joe as funding council and @pujimak_in as the supplier of the rewards xls is there a reason three lines would be removed?

Can we agree it seems both logical and reasonable to believe that someone is censoring contributor reward information. If so, is this standard and acceptable coop behavior ?

Because I feel censorship is opposed to the guiding principles of fairness, transparency and communication

Leadership must be held to highest account when it comes to upholding the Coops guiding principles. If we are simply missing key information here please advise.

1 Like

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your message and I will reach out directly to @Elmit to discuss any issues he is facing with the contributor rewards process along with the reasoning behind such allocation of rewards.

I would like to strongly disagree with this narrative. As you can see below @Elmit submitted 5 lines for rewards. It seems as though you have filtered the spreadsheet to only show APAC contributions, being the two lines you refer to above. The remaining contributions were all tagged and considered by the Growth & Marketing WGL.

The contributor rewards process is transparent and each month rewards are uploaded to the forum for all to see and review. If you have a specific issue with the way in which this is handled please do reach out to me directly and I would be more than happy to field all questions and provide clarity where required. Thanks.


I have reached out to you on discord, can you accept my message request. Thanks


Accept @ElliottWatts we are agreed, because the .xls I was emailed (to provide input on) was filtered (censored) - just not by me.

I simply trusted @pujimak_in our working group lead to provide information in context, but who knows? perhaps he also only had limited information @gregdocter @Pepperoni_Joe

I never accused anyone, as you have me.

From your explanation I now understand it is standard and acceptable to provide limited and skewed information to some people. If the rewards process was transparent enough, this forum post would not be here.

You have significantly higher visibility into the contributor rewards process than either Ronald or I & you owe me an apology

As per our conversation on discord, I actually mention earlier that the sheets shared was filtered only APWG specific tasks, as we were discussing on rewards for APWG and not other working groups. As the main context was see who contributed what in APWG.

While when the rewards are distributed, it was made publicly in the forum. Which shows the overall data.

This in my eyes could have taken and discussed with relevant people and only resort to the forums when questions are not answered.

Hope that clarifies. Thank you.

Clarification, after the fact @pujimak_in Lots of information forthcoming since the concern was raised. Am I correct to understand that you filtered the xls? If the people making decisions not to rewards had simply spoken to @Elmit directly, this would not have been an issue raised in the forum, So I’ll return again to my point that leaders have increased responsibility to uphold the guiding principles - fairness, transparency and communication.

Why do you think I am involved here?
Because Ronald raised this with me. My advice was to seek feedback. I did not advise forum post but at least this provides transparency and prompted answers.

Yes as per my earlier discord massage to the core team dated 31 October. Which you acknowledged to the message.

Please find the screenshot here (for transparency purposes);

Clearly this was already made aware to all APWG Core and issues should have been raised then if any. So I’m confused on which part you meant “after the fact”? Where communications has clearly been relayed prior to this to the Core team.

Do share where I might have missed so will endeavour to adjust.

Thank you.

Please highlight where you say the data would be filtered inthat forum post. Because in combination with your email my understanding of - ALL THE DATA for those APWG work, was actually all the RAW DATA FOR ALL THINGS APWG - no filters applied

This is the first time I’ve been put in the position of assessing contributor rewards - which is really what you are being paid to do @pujimak_in

Clearly this is a misunderstanding but I repeat, it would not have been an issue IF the people making the reward decisions were simply to communicate why rewards are not allocated for work.

I simply tried to support a fellow contributor to seek and find answers. I would never have provided filtered or censored data to @elmit had I known it was not all the raw data. In future I will certainly refer to the forum post, not email. But I sincerely hope it does not come to this again

Won’t be defending myself for this. But I’ll share my thoughts on how I assess contributors rewards for APWG for community context.

Empowering each of my Sub regions leads like @Tudou @Vanita and @Lanks to assess their own team contribution and discuss on how much to reward them. hence why I shared the “filtered” sheets which shows information that is relevant to my team (which was meant to be private; as it’s operational matters). While having inputs from you @lee0007 as someone whom I value that growth mindset and will help me aligned.

I could have done everything (reward allocations) on my own and without any inputs from the core. Though I value and “trust” in the insights of my Core Team members. @Louisaraj included. :relaxed:

That’s how I run the process in APWG… other working group may run it differently.

Thus on a personal side… to implied that I’m not doing my job. That’s something I’ll let the community decide.


p.s. I’ve reaffirm myself to Index Coop Guiding Principles and Code of Conduct again here. As we always need the reminders for humans are forgetful creatures.

1 Like

I support your approach @pujimak_in to empower the regional leads to provide input. I did not imply you are not doing your job, I stated

And in regards to the discord conversation I will do you the favour of only posting my response

It seems to me that each working group lead gets a portion of the reward sheet, and if they do not understand the line, or do not want it, they just DELETE it. That is the wrong approach.

IF a working group leader needs to ALTER/CORRECT/DECLINE a contribution, then PLEASE contact the person who tried to contribute something. That would have saved a lot of anger, confusion, and TIME. This time we could use much better to create something or promote our products.

1 Like

Hi All,

There seems to be a lot of confusion and miscommunication which I believe has caused the current situation. I will try to clarify a few points, and hopefully a this kind of situation can be avoided in the future.

From my understanding from reading the above you were provided a limited sheet with just APWG work. As you are responsible for allocating rewards alongside pujimak I can allow you and anyone else responsible for allocation access to the main master sheet. Which will contain all the raw data so everything is transparent.

On these points regarding feedback, we will be adding in a feedback column from next month which allow WGL to provide feedback on any contribution.

To address this point, this is not true. I am attaching a short loom video (Loom | Free Screen & Video Recording Software) which explains how WGLs allocates rewards. In short the process works as follows:

  1. The master sheet contains all raw rewards data for all WG’s
  2. Each WG has a filter view which allows them to view work tagged to their WG

However contributions are never deleted or altered with, all contributions are considered.

I hope this helps clarify a few points of confusion, and the feedback column from next month will help avoid situations like this.


In my view, Owl’s in the thread are acting rationally and the system is still not working - forcing communication into forums that are not well-suited to resolution. I’m using this communication failure to elevate a previous suggestion to a broad request. For context, part of my response to the F.Nest Proposal this quarter:

Pain at these levels should not be the threshold for process improvement. This has been and continues to be a problem no matter the form the rewards process has taken over the last 6 months. Please provide a regularly scheduled meeting as a way for contributors to engage with your WG/Nest and provide feedback. Y’all do a great job of communicating out, but not at actively engaging with the community your nest supports. It’s not enough to be good at what you do, you need to engage within this DAO with more empathy by actively listening as well as being heard; the current feedback loop is not working. F.Nest is most empowered to solve this problem, but it needs to be a conversation and that’s not being allowed to take place.

Areas that could use attention:

  • Clear(er) communication that unless work has been expressly agreed to be rewarded, it is at risk of being unrewarded given that it’s PURELY WGL DISCRETION as it stands. If a view develops that WGLs are allowing/encouraging work that will not be rewarded it’s massively problematic.
  • Communication of reward ahead of drop (it’s weird that we find out WHAT we’re getting paid WHEN we get paid). WGLs should communicate these decisions ahead and make themselves available to discuss.
  • Better guidance on best practices for WGLs around proper communication and responsibilities.
  • Toil in daylight whenever possible.
  • An avenue for resolution that is divorced from those carrying out the problematic process.
  • IMMEDIATE resolution via payment if a greater/additional reward is the result of a dispute (it’s been earned and should be paid out accordingly, not the following month).
  • If we’re calling it what it is, despite the skeezy tradfi vibes, we’re submitting timesheets. Monthly. It’s too long to go to find out that whatever you’ve been up to is not going to be rewarded. Shorten the feedback loop. I’d like to see this move to every two weeks in keeping with the skeezt tradfi standard it mimics. Build more frequent feedback into the process. In the meantime maybe Copper and Bronze Owls can “submit” weekly to WGLs for feedback ahead of the monthly.

In keeping, I will not be supporting any WGs next term that do not have at least monthly open meetings until there a communication standard for functional areas within the DAO, as reporting and weekly-planning-call updates alone are not sufficient. In my view I’m being forced to think async through problems at a granular level that were delegated to this nest to solve - happy to keep doing it in an open, regularly scheduled, and synced discussion format.

Noting that F.Nest just absorbed the contributor reward function from FC, and with it this elevated need for increased contributor engagement; I’m not taking issue with the way things have been run, but it’s time for a change. Also noting that EWG and TOC have not had open business meetings in some time and I’d like to see that change.

cc: @Matthew_Graham @ElliottWatts @Pepperoni_Joe @bradwmorris @edwardk @dylan


I really like that as Index Coop and APWG, we are constantly reflecting and improving. Obviously from this thread, we haven got things figured out yet but we are coming together to find a better solution. This gives me a lot of confidence in our future as a DAO.

Agree with you @mel.eth that we need to have better feedback loop on rewards contributions. As finance matters are more sensitive in nature, I’m not completely sure if a community call format will be a safe space and effective. Let’s chat more on this. Will reach out to you.


I look forward to our chat given our agreement on the reward process; I expect it to be spirited. Given that I called for more open conversation and this would be taking the conversation back offline, I’ll give more context based on your characterization of the challenge being faced due to the nature of the finance function:

I’m going to propose that a community call format for F.Nest comms is in fact ideal, and I would insist it be made a safe space like any other call. The notion that because there may be some aspects of operations within a WG or Nest that house sensitive information, the entire body is exempt from engaging openly with the community, needs to be dispelled immediately.

To clarify I’m not by any means asking that all business be conducted in an open meeting format; all WGs have closed and open meetings to coordinate internally and externally, except a few and that’s a problem in my view. I’m mainly asking that this provision of the F.Nest proposal be scheduled monthly with some sort of agenda that provides updates on initiatives as well:

Surely not all finance matters are sensitive in nature; our accounts and transactions are public. I’ll ask that you please consider what aspects of what we entrust this Nest to do can be openly discussed and what can’t ahead of that call. Yesterday @Pepperoni_Joe presented a Nest structure of which F.Nest was 1 of 5 nests - if the stance of F.Nest is going to be that there will be no broad synchronous communication with this DAO, I see that as problematic.

The word accountability is used in the F.Nest funding request this quarter - so please tell me, who watches the watchmen? If F.Nest is giving feedback on what my WG is doing in funding terms you can bet I want to be able to show up and openly talk about how that process works - and if I were ever to find out that a contributor to my WG has had as rough a time as @Elmit engaging with a process that has been delegated, I’m not taking that to the DMs for satisfaction. We stand up before this DAO and make ourselves accountable, just like everyone else, so that we can surface these challenges and solve them together.

To put this another way @Louisaraj - this is a governance forum, not a complaint box; if it’s being used as such because a contributor has nowhere left to turn for resolution it represents a failure in the process that you’re acknowledging and we agree on. I feel my ask in response to this ongoing issue is not outsized: please provide an outlet for two-way feedback, live and in the open so we can solve problems together, so that things don’t get to this point again. Otherwise I don’t have confidence that this functional area can iterate synchronously at pace with the broader DAO - I’m not stating this to appear threatening in any way; I just genuinely see a walled-off accounting function as a threat to an organization that requires persistent contributor buy-in and calls itself a cooperative.

We’ve had a walled-off rewards process for some time, and quite literally the entire DAO has had to come together to solve this problem because access to improving the existing process has been denied. The real danger is NOT opening up the lines of communication as we can’t iterate on improving that area in coordination with the others. We all need to openly communicate at a predictable basal level. I just don’t think it’s too much to ask to open up a chat and get the conversation going with some regularity. Quite simply, I’ve noticed most dissonance and frustration that exists is generally involving aspects of this DAO that are hidden from view; we can’t move together when the comms only flow one way. Even the brain sends and receives feedback - no part of this organization is exempt from natural law. It doesn’t matter how fast we can run if we don’t know a nail just went through our foot.

I can’t believe I left a chill real world job to come to a DAO and subsequently beg for the accounting department to host an open call every month. F.Nest serves the INDEX holders and the DAO now that it manages payroll. The DAO, its contributors, and WGs support F.Nest. Imo this Nest needs to find a way to converse with the members of this DAO as there’s apparently conversation to be had. Please let’s work toward how to best foster that conversation when we speak @Louisaraj . Thanks for your attention on this; I’m confident we’ll find a way forward that simultaneously opens up comms and keeps sensitive information protected.


Thanks @mel.eth- the future state you describe if definitely where we should be heading; shorter feedback loops, better expectation management on rewards, and more open channels to feedback. Is there a playbook that WGL could implement? I’m happy to contribute to that.


Me too @Cavalier_Eth and it seems like that’s where it’s headed; @Matthew_Graham reached out and walked me through some recent efforts that align with the desired outcomes above and WGL guidance was something we spent meaningful time discussing. The FN folks are working on the challenges identified, and @Matthew_Graham assured me that open calls are still planned and being prioritized.


Hi all, thanks for the feedback over the last few days, and apologies for only getting to this now as I was out of the office. The above feedback has been taken onboard and F.Nest along with other members involved in the rewards process will use this to improve going forward.

We are sorry to hear that certain members feel the process has let them down and as a result caused undue stress and anger. We are working with these members to come up with appropriate solutions going forward.

@lee0007 thankyou for your feedback and we have had discussion through discord around appropriate courses of action so thanks for spending the time to walk me through the issues, I have attached a short detailed clip around how rewards are allocated by WGL’s.

@mel.eth and I also had a productive 1:1 this morning to discuss F.Nest involvement in the process and the need for a platform for feedback to the nest along with scheduling regular open calls for all community members to join. Which are assured to take place in due course.

Coupled with the above feedback and noting that the F.Nest has only just taken over ownership of this process we would like to take this opportunity for the community to provide anonymous (if they so wish) feedback on what works well and what could be improved. This will enable us to gather valuable information to improve and iterate going forward.

I value everyone’s feedback and appreciate the time people have taken to respond to this issue.

Please see the attached form which will also be shared with all discord members. https://forms.gle/LkxKgJyrRKNHoVaXA