@catjam I do not think my point of view on negotiating fee splits was accurately captured so I’ll clarify here.
I don’t believe that the existing process for negotiating fee splits works. @setoshi captures a lot of the problems I see in the incentive dynamics between other Index Coop stakeholders and methodologists in An Analysis of Methodologist Incentive Dynamics.
I am not in support of a shift in responsibility for fee split negotiations from BDWG to PWG. I do not believe that shifting this responsibility will solve any of the current problems in the process or incentive dynamics.
I am in support of:
- increased transparency
- developing objective guidelines for product fee splits (Methodologist Fee Menu as an example of what could be designed or implemented)
- overhauling methodologist incentives
Determining fee splits is frustrating because:
-
Process is slow and inadequate: No directly responsible individual or working group with community buy-in.
-
Process is arbitrary and unfair: Methodologist fee split is 30% for every simple index product despite widely ranging degrees of effort and resources provided by Index Coop and methodologists.
-
No negotiations are actually taking place: Fee split offers are being made without anyone being empowered for a give-and-take conversation - hence no actual negotiation is really taking place. The fee split offers for simple indices are always 30%/70% regardless of what the methodologist and Index Coop offer during the process, and as far as I know, there is no process for changing future fee split based on what different parties have brought to the table over time.
-
New products are at substantial disadvantage in the Methodologist Bounty Program: This has been discussed ad-nauseum to the point of exhaustion and so I will not go into details here.