Ultimately revenue growth will be a function of the other growth metrics at the top of the funnel. Creating KPI’s for revenue, I believe, is a wider community conversation as it combines the efforts of other WG’s (I/BD etc). I am open to ideas and feedback here.
GMWG <> IC Comms: Agreed with the idea of more formal/regular posts and calls around our targets etc. We of course have our weekly calls which we have started to introduce our targets vs dashboards, as well as our monthly reports available on Notion (Defo scope to condense these into the one-pagers ). We have also been working with a specialist data consultant in q3 to work on the effectiveness of our actions that I am looking forward to sharing soon.
I am requesting 100 Index p/m (based on a price of $35) + $7,500 of Index p/m via the usual 20dma standard. I am not requesting any USDC.
I am requesting 75 Index p/m + $5,625 of Index p/m. 0 USDC for @caf (Note caf’s time will be split ~25/75 between DWG/GMWG hence the difference.)
Budget detail clarification: Good spot, apologies for the error. Corrections below (Q1 removed):
As you can see I have also separated out and clarified the leads and contributor totals etc. From your budget vs actuals spreadsheet, I’m not 100% sure what those numbers mean? It actually looks as if the forecast and actuals are overstating q3 as I was on significantly less and LA is on the FT program? I think it could be a question of accounting here as FT contracts don’t appear to be allocated against WG budgets but co/leads are hence the sudden increase. Also in short answer to your question, yes we are targeting an increase in headcount in q4 however I would not describe it as particularly significant (individual’s value adds briefed as per original post.)
Contractors: Typically GWG3 used contractors for very specific pieces of work over short time frames or where integrating someone into the community was not warranted or efficient. It should be noted that outside of engs/devs IC does not always pay competitively in some areas, therefore, onboarding specialist marketing talent etc is not possible and therefore contracting is the only way to achieve specific outcomes. Examples of this as SEO consultants, freelance content writers and complex marketing data analysts/strategists. So far this is actually proving to be an extremely efficient way of procuring expertise as and when we need it.
Impression Mining: As above our target is 5m impression p/m. In Q4 I am targeting this to be on top of the official account rather than including it. Initiatives to increase impressions in order to utilise this allocation include plans to bring more people into the program by publising and sharing the success stories of current successful accounts. (See (relatively) viral workshops etc.) There will be more public drives to recruit more Crypto texans !
Events: This is a very rough expectation made in the run-up to token2049 of which we now have a lot to learn, digest and reflect on overall value. As a premium brand, we look to target premier events such as t49. We are now in the process of building out event calendars in notion. It should be noted that this budget is available for all IC members, not just GMWG. That’s all I can offer at this time as it is very early on in our event sponsorship journey and will likely iterate significantly as it evolves.
Q4: $448,350 total per Q is correct. With $187,350 coming from FC and $~240,000 currently in the GMWG multi-sig the actual transfer needed to GMWG multi-sig is just $21k (This is obviously contingent on the price of $INDEX over Q4…)
Thankyou, GMWG will continue to strive to continue this throughout Q4.
Yes, it appears not every WG is using the same $35 Index assumption and IBD have come in with slightly lower figures after the GMWG proposal… I am acutely aware there is some ambiguity amongst WGL’s as to what stipends to request and I think this highlights the need for a framework for everyone to work off of. The proposal above is written with flexibility in mind in light of this should we need further alignment.
Agreed. Please consider this as confirmation GMWG is now officially only requesting remit and budget for Q4. Thanks
@gregdocter I just want to acknowledge some minor administrative errors (apologies, first time and all that!) : not explicitly labelling the poll as a FINAL poll and manually closing it after 4 days instead of automatically after 3. Are you satisfied that despite this the results are sufficiently indicative to be considered effectively valid?
I can see 1 vote AGAINST. GMWG welcomes all feedback, concerns and fair criticism however understand that doing so in a public forum is not always easy or feasible. An anon form is available here for anyone wishing to submit their feedback. (Responses will not be publically shared)
Thanks to all who voted, provided feedback, questions and patiently awaited answers!