Working Group - Contributor Reward Framework

Title: Working Group - Contributor Reward Framework

Status: Proposal

Author: @MrMadila / @Matthew_Graham / @Lavi

Review & Feedback:


From Genesis to now, the current structure around community rewards has remained consistent. With the introduction of working groups, there is an inherent change in how rewards are distributed. This post is focusing on the process of change. We are creating a poll to gauge sentiment on how we implement change/s.

What is the core problem(s) you want to solve?

We want to ensure that any change relating to contributor rewards is done in such a way that is fair, open, transparent and consistent with our values. We propose the best way to endorse a change is via open and transparent discussion, much like how other topics are being addressed within the DAO.

Why is this worth addressing today?

Whilst everybody is keenly working to make speed and quick decisions a habit, we should not confuse haste with speed. It does not take long to gauge community sentiment and the methods in place today are adequate but can be improved upon. We, therefore, have time for dialogue around any change/s to how community rewards are managed, administered and the methodology used to determine the rewards.

How will you address it?

Let’s vote to determine how we manage change in relation to contributor rewards.

What impact will this proposal have?

This vote will address concerns around the fairness and transparency of any changes to the current contributor rewards process.

Your Vote

Working Group - Contributor Reward Framework Poll

Do you believe that any change to how contributor rewards are distributed, a standalone proposal and vote on the governance forum is required?
  • Yes

  • No

0 voters

Voted yes given the way the question is worded, but just to summarise my view:

I don’t think there has been an overt attempt to change the way rewards are being distributed with the working group model, and if that’s how it’s come across then we should definitely have a conversation around it. I’m sure @gregdocter can weigh in with more thoughts on this but my understanding is that we are looking to trust and empower the WG leads so if we (we being treasury committee) can ensure the rewards framework is being applied fairly across all areas and to each recipient then that goes a long way to solving the concern.

The two solutions I’d see straight off the bat are:

  • Treasury committee coaches WG leads on how to apply the reward framework and maintains alignment across the different areas
  • WG transparently report reward distributions

I also voted Yes as a general point here but am keen to see WG leads have powers (including rewards) devolved to them as an evolving hub (Treasury committee) and spoke (WGs) model


I voted yes - however this discussion will quickly grow in scale and complexity. We need to go into it with a VERY clear understanding of the outcomes the community wants and what is being discussed.

Compensation is one of the most important issues that we need to discuss as a community. While working groups are important, public discussion is just as important.

The core issue being discussed is this - Community members are devoting lots of time and energy to the Coop and want to be fairly compensated. @dylan @DarkForestCapital and @gregdocter have worked extremely hard over the last few months to ensure that that everyone is being paid fairly. We do a good job of this now, and our system works. However, we need to improve our system on a few levels and make sure that it is ready to scale as Index grows.

These are a couple things to focus on within this working group

  1. Clear framework for contributor levels and expectations. The Golden / Silver / Bronze framework has served us well up to this point but it clearly needs some tweaking. We need to clearly lay out expectations for all levels of participation + ensure that each level has a clear path if they want to increase their engagement.

  2. Build a model for moving between community levels: We need more transparency and rhythm here. This is why I like a class model built around selecting a group of individuals to move between levels every few months.

  3. Discuss what role the WG Leader will have in this model: I see this going both ways, while the WG leader has the best insight into the work that people are doing one of our biggest strengths as a community is that we have people helping out on a number of fronts (@MrMadila and @Mringz are a great example - they are always pushing forward on a million things across all areas of the Coop!)


I voted yes - I think this process marks an important step in the growth of our DAO. I believe embarking on this process will lead to us retaining and attracting the best talent to our DAO. We have amazing community members that would like to commit more time but are not convinced in the long term sustainability of the current rewards system.

I agree with @BigSky7 that the current rewards system is a little outdated however I do not believe it needs to be scrapped just updated in line with our current direction as a DAO.

I would also love to see this model being implemented this will free up more time for the treasury committee to focus more on core treasury management instead of managing how to reward community members on a monthly basis which I believe is a time consuming process. I believe it also takes focus away from the main goals of the treasury committee like optimizing our treasury and funding the community for long-term sustainable growth.


Hi guys. Thank you for the responses. I’ve also had some really good conversations “off chain” with @DarkForestCapital, @LemonadeAlpha and @Matthew_Graham who kindly provided lots of insight, clarity and context that with hindsight I was missing from the start so apologies for any misunderstandings…

Fundamentally it feels like we are all largely aligned with just minor differences in interpretations that are already looking easy to resolve! :slight_smile:

I would just like to echo @DevOnDeFi’s point on WG lead autonomy. 100% agree with that. The sooner we are all “Nodes” within the Index network the easier we can scale and benefit from network effects! :sunglasses:

I think this sums up where we are now and where we here heading right from the start so thank you as always to @DarkForestCapital !

:100: :clap:


This is my sense too!

Let’s be sure chat about this on tomorrow’s #:factory: organization call :raised_hands:

1 Like