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

[lee0007]

@Don-ETH

@lee0007

APWG lead stipend is inclusive of all rewardable COOP work based on 55 hours per week

@lee0007 just curious where this standard came from?

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

@lee0007

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

@pujimak_in

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.

@pujimak_in

Thus it is my preference to be paid a fixed and inclusive sum representing the 55 hours per week I expect to contribute across multiple working groups, knowing that at times this may be higher but not less.

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.

[Hammad1412]

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.

@lee0007

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.

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.

[lee0007]

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.

[anon10525910]

@lee0007

We are requesting a total budget of 112,669 + 1120 INDEX allocated in the following currencies:

• USDC: $48,030
• Fixed INDEX: 1120
• INDEX at 20-day TWAP: $64,639

To make sure I am understanding this correctly, the total budget request is however the following math works out:

112,669 USDC + (1120 INDEX * $/INDEX)

Using the current price of $31.92 merely as an example to try to ensure my understanding

112,669 USDC + (1120 INDEX * $31.92) = $148,419

Of the $112,669 USDC

• $77,919 would be held by the FC wallet
• $34,750 would be sent to a potential APWG wallet

Am I getting all that correct? What am i getting wrong if not?

[pujimak_in]

@anon10525910

Am I getting all that correct? What am i getting wrong if not?

Yes. That is correct. Followed the format from BDWG III proposal. But apologies if it wasn’t clear.

Hope that clarifies it. Let us know if you need further clarification, Ser. Cheers~

EDIT #1 : for further clarification; @anon10525910

@anon10525910

Of the $112,669 USDC

• $77,919 would be held by the FC wallet
• $34,750 would be sent to a potential APWG wallet

$112,669 (Is a combination of USDC: $48,030 + INDEX at 20-day TWAP: $64,639)

FC Wallet will held all “INDEX at 20-day TWAP: $64,639” + USDC $13,280

USDC $34,750 would be sent to a potential APWG wallet

EDIT #2 : @lee0007 next reply is the CONFIRMED allocation. Thanks Renee

[lee0007]

Lol confusion much? Would love to see $ all accounted for in a single denomination but I have triple checked as I thought I may have made a mistake in the proposal xls TRUE function proves its worth. @anon10525910 @pujimak_in note guys I do not know what the TWAP means (guessing trade-weighted average price?) so I for my own purposes I’ve simplified this 20 Day Moving Average (20 MA) which is my placeholder for whatever it needs to mean

Denomination		$		Held By
Total Fixed Index		1120		FC
Contributor USDC		$17,280		FC
Contributor 20 MA INDEX		$60,639		FC
Total $ HR		$77,919		FC
Operations USDC		$30,750		Multi Sig
Operations 20 MA INDEX		$4,000		Multi Sig
Total $ Ops		$34,750		Multi Sig
Totals $		$112,669		-
Totals Fixed INDEX		1120		-

[pujimak_in]

Announcement Final Vote is NOW closed;

As per IIP-85;

@anon10525910

Announcements

• The Final Vote must be announced by the author as a reply to the original post
• This announcement should make clear this is the “Final Vote.”

As Co-Author of the original post, the result for the Establishment of APWG is 97% FOR and 3% AGAINST. With a total of 33 Votes recorded.

As the Final Vote completes the required parameters, the establishment of APWG is a go. Congrats Asia + Pacific team!!

Have a blessed weekend!!

Monday onwards comes the “real” work begins. Let’s do this.

Cc: @lee0007 @Tudou @Lanks @Vanita

[anon10525910]

Thanks for confirming this.

What is the address of the multi-sig that will be used?

[pujimak_in]

Hi @anon10525910 , will confirm on the multi sig address soon. As needed to set this up.

Thanks.

[anon10525910]

Parroting this back slightly differently…

Fixed INDEX: 1120
USDC: 48,030 (17,280 + 30,750)
$ as INDEX: 64,639 ($60,639 + 4,000)

[pujimak_in]

Hey @anon10525910

Please find the address below our APWG MultiSig

0xF08a94c724E0D005ec441342E1420f111fB02814

Here’s a url link to it as well; APWG MS

Cheers~

[lee0007]

The following reallocation of budget applies changes to the WGL lead stipend with calculations now based on 40 hours per week as opposed to 55 hours per week. This reduces the total WGL stipend from 11k to 8k equivalent. The bulk of the difference has been redistributed to core and community rewards pools. However as the number of the core is also reduced by one, this section of the budget is now $321 less than the approved budget. CC @Hammad1412 Applied for Nov & Dec 2021reward allocations

Catergory	October	November	December	Total
Humans Resource	$	$	$	$
Fixed
WGL INDEX	200	120	120	440
Core Contributor INDEX	160	240	240	640
WGL USDC	$4,000	$3,800	$3,800	$11,600
Strategic Contributions USDC	$1,760	$1,960	$1,960	$5,680
Variable
Core Contributors	$12,800	$9,600	$12,800	$35,200
Community Contributions	$6,400	$7,680	$6,272	$20,352
Contributor Job Rewards	$1,440	$1,584	$1,742	$4,766
Reward Totals	$26,400	$24,624	$26,574	$77,598

It may be evident to people from the outside looking in that APWG has its public disagreements. What is not seen however is the way that our approach to radical candour allows us to challenge directly while caring personally, so that we can resolve conflict in constructive ways.

Thank you and honourable mention to @pujimak_in that in service to his team, in recognition that we are building APWG together and in response to some directly challenging feedback our working group lead agreed to rebalance the distribution of community rewards. IMO this is exactly what servant leadership looks like.

CC @Lanks @Louisaraj @Vanita