**POLL CLOSED** Proposal: Asia Pacific Working Group (APWG) w. BUDGET

EDIT : Re-edit to reflect APAC Core Contributors whom will lead respective initiatives within APWG (Operations + 3 Subregion POD Lead)

EDIT #2 : Includes budget deliberations + WGL splits of remuneration (Fixed INDEX + USDC)


Thank you @lee0007 the proposal is comprehensive and truly sets the standard for proposals in DAOs.

What’s Great
The clear and consistent alignment with Index’s mission makes this proposal a no-brainer to me. Each region has its own needs, timezones, and established relations. An APAC group for Index would eventually grow to be a gateway for investors to get exposure into crypto without the extreme heavy lifting someone new to the space needs to put in.

I’ve looked at some other proposals Index has put up and each new product is carefully built and executed professionally. This makes for a compelling argument.

I’d like to suggest including space for strategic partnerships with people that have an established presence doing ecosystem building, education, and university outreach in the region.

When I joined the community call, I observed a strong bias for action but the team is constrained by size, commitment, and leverage. That’s normal for any new and budding team!

I spoke to @pujimak_in during my discovery call and found that there might be synergies between Tribe (where I work) and the APAC working group.

We started out as a blockchain startup accelerator 2 years ago and have been taking our startups on global demo tours. I’ve kickstarted some initial conversations and we’re definitely interested to explore this potential strategic partnership.


Strategic partnering with universities at the regional and local levels is a great call.

University outreach falls within the mission and strategic objectives of business development

And Q4 Core KPI’s

Would love to see this work progressed for APAC FYI @Lanks @pujimak_in @BigSky7


Awesome, well the proposal has given me a basis to kickstart conversations on my end so I’ll definitely be looking forward to sharing with you something very soon!


Paging @bradwmorris as well… as this would require cross WG initiative. From onboarding to business development.


In the spirit of transparency;

Please find the link below a reference for my intra COID.



Hi @pujimak_in I fully support you as APWG lead and because you are listed as a core contributor on a number of other working groups can you please specify which 1) working groups and 2) provide an indication of how you are looking to split your time please across multiple responsibilities

Perhaps a ratio? APWG:POC:BDWD:CDWG: Other

And based on that split is it fair to say you will seek contributor rewards in addition to your WG Lead stipend? Is this how it works for other WGLeads?

I ask because I strongly believe how you intend to split your time should be directly reflected in the APWG proposed budget. At the moment the APWG WGL budget is close to a FTE contributor role based on 36 hours per week.

If you have the bandwidth (I know you have the commitment) to work overtime that’s your call, additional transparency as to your commitments will inform the final budget to be voted on.

IMO there’s limited transparency within the coop, as to how work is valued and how the contributor reward process works, which makes forecasting a reliable HR budget less like accounting and more like a guessing game.

In the spirit of fairness and transparency as stated in our guiding principles I believe leaders have the opportunity to set an example of transparency by communicating in open forum (vs limited access documents) specific cross WG commitments and especially when you expect to seek rewards in addition to the WGL fixed income.

I’d be super keen to hear from the funding council on this too @gregdocter @Pepperoni_Joe (once back from OOO) and any other working group leads as to how this currently works @BigSky7 @LemonadeAlpha @MrMadila @Matthew_Graham @Cavalier_Eth @overanalyser @mel.eth (limit 10 tags)

How many hours is it expected of leads to maintain? and at what point should people look to delegate responsibilities to other community contributors, as there’s plenty of people that would love to contribute to the growth and success of the coop.


I’m strongly in favour of this proposal

Look forward to seeing the progress and reporting

And hope to see some exciting success stories coming out of APACWG shortly!

Good luck @pujimak_in @lee0007 and all the heavy crew :slight_smile:


Thank you for this feedback @lee0007. Yes, I agree that transparency is key here.

When formulating how WG Lead should be rewarded; I was advised on a couple of ways to on how WG Lead can approached in his/her remuneration;

  1. a fixed sum which includes all my work time and contributions across multiple working groups.

  2. a reduced sum (which only focused on the work I’m doing internally in a WG) but also claiming rewards across the other WGs when cross working happens with its respective working group.

As it stand the current budget is based the latter; where trying to split my time across multiple working groups. I understand that it is more accurate to attribute and distribute rewards from different working groups. The challenge with this option is that it is difficult to know in advance what work is required and how my time should be split.

In regards to my work as a core contributor to BDWG, the bulk of new work we are undertaking will be APAC focused however there are some engagement that are global in nature such as, Investor Relations, or Protocol Partnerships which in the crypto space, it’s borderless and non region specific. For this reason, I feel my BD work can be attributed to Asia Pacific thus even though I’m label as a core contributor for BDWG III; my remuneration should be attributed to the APWG budget, which will open up the budget for you guys. Tagging @Mringz and @BigSky7 for this.

As to my work with POC, I agree there is a need to delegate some of the work I currently undertake primarily my Community Manager role, in order to focus on my responsibilities as APWG Lead. I expect this role will probably be delegated sometime within Q4 (as will need to coach the future replacement for Community Manager). Secondly my role in Organisational and DAO tooling (ie Digital Assets and Anatomy) even though it’s consider a global initiative, I don’t see it’s an issue of absorbing my contribution to APWG; thus what the cost for my current POC can also be attributed to APWG. Tagging @Pepperoni_Joe.

I have also contributed as a project manager to a number of (C)DWG projects. However, undertaking this level of combined work has seen me contributing time at levels that I can not sustain over the long term and ideally, I would like to establish some boundaries on my time to ensure my long term commitment and performance. Furthermore giving the opportunity for other Owls to step up; tagging @DevOnDeFi on this.

Thus it is my preference to be paid a fixed and inclusive sum representing the 45 hours per week I expect to contribute across multiple working groups, knowing that at times this may be higher but not less.

Lastly I welcome insight from existing WG Leads (especially those I’ve tagged) in order to forecast a fair and realistic budget for this first iteration of the APAC working group.

I personally feel that APWG is setting a stage for other regional WGs in the near future (LATAM, MENA, EU, etc), and ironing out all of this is important… as it’s structure is totally different compared to Global “Niche” WGs. Thus the approach should be different.

Aiming to finalised this before the 6th October deadline. Thus @lee0007 will update the budget before then.

And hoping to have our vote commence latest Monday 11 October; if not earlier. Thank you.


FOR APWG, all members have clearly demonstrated their commitments and capabilities. Looking forward to their continued hard work driving adoption and growth across APAC. hh


1000% FOR! Kudos to @lee0007 @pujimak_in for spending so much time building this WG.


I’m really excited to see what happens as we go from APAC being in and around every WG to becoming ‘APWG’. Not only does regional demand dictate that the initiative is timely, but the growth ahead of formalizing these efforts has inspired BDWG to target 3 additional regions for expansion. To say that the WG and pod leads identified here have a demonstrated track-record of performing at an extremely high-level is an understatement - despite being on the opposite side of the world my requests have been addressed in minutes and with a level of intention and care that has helped shaped my own standards. This is just such a great example of how to rally and organize toward immense impact; a true credit to all APAC contributors and leaders. I will support this new WG in every way I can and will be voting ‘FOR’.


Edits to WG Lead stipend, proposed budget and strategic target, to reflect that the APWG lead stipend is inclusive of all rewardable COOP work based on 55 hours per week


@lee0007 just curious where this standard came from?

I think, adding column names like nov, dec, jan would be helpful.

1 Like

Edited. Thanks for pointing that out ser… FYI Q4 starts October… so its Oct/Nov/Dec…

For the first question, will leave @lee0007 to elaborate. :smiley:


1 Like

Poll added to the post. This poll is the “final poll” as per IIP-85 @gregdocter. Thank you

Tagging @mel.eth for sCoop!!


A grouping that has been in the making for a while. Great to see it proposed and looking forward to it getting to work in a full capacity! A fab five! Go APWG!


Hi Don, I’m not aware of any standard for contributor rewards except around FTE employees. This is simply drawn from the conversation above,

That said, I would like to thank the team @Hammad1412 @teewhy for the newly automated contributor rewards process and hope that with significantly less time required to collate/process rewards there will be more time - in combination with the Index 2.0 conversations - to establish standards and provide needed transparency around contributor rewards.


Hi @lee0007 thank you for the kind words! Have only just got around to reading this proposal, but I am fully supportive of this group. The value you guys are adding is immense and with a large geographical area such as APAC to target creating a dedicated team including driven and impactful contributors like yourself and all the other guys is what is needed.

I will try and provide some clarity around this being part of the contributor rewards process. You can breakdown the rewards for contributors into three categories atm:

Full-time contribution compensation
15,000 tokens vested over 24 months, with a 6-month cliff (625 Index per month) and an additional $5,000-$10,000 monthly stipend paid in Index on a 20 day moving average OR in USDC.

Working Group Lead + extra
Fixed stipend in $ or Index. Extra work tagged to relevant working groups and awarded a reward in $ (paid in Index on a 20 day moving average) by the working group lead of the respective group, which is paid out on top of any fixed stipend.

Contributor rewards
Tag work to relevant working groups, which is then reviewed by the working group lead and assigned a reward in $ (paid in Index on a 20 day moving average).

Please note this is a topic which is being worked on as part of the Index 2.0 Owl & Compensation workshop for community feedback and input so stay tuned for that as the team are currently in the process of drafting out a post for the community.


Thanks for providing this outline @Hammad1412 this does reflect the full extent of the information I could find. I am aware contributor rewards are a significant rising cost, and imo we need to balance the incentive to work (add value) with the need to minimise cost &/or operate more cost-effectively. I am hopeful that the Index 2.0 Future of Finance process will help us to improve transparency around contributor rewards (INDEX & $) in relation to time & value.