In order to create momentum and structure, we should consider paying full time contributors through Uptopia labs.
Every full time member should have a well-defined role with deliverables. The Council will have authorization to hire folks for renewable 1 year terms.
We propose authorizing $50k total monthly across the following roles:
Mayor
Community Lead
Engineering Lead
Operations Lead
Legal and Compliance Lead
Software Engineer (up to 2)
We are outlining roles and responsibilities here:
Ammendment:
Allocate 5k per month to contributor bounties for tasks around marketing, operations, dev, legal, etc.
the google doc is locked - i requested access. Love this idea, but we gotta think about how we are empowering them to do the work. super intrigued by what the Mayor will do
Great idea and feel in general generously re-investing back into people to grow can be a huge advantages for DAOs to eventually move faster than most centralized web3.0community where money re-invested = less money to cash grab from mint for core team.
Few suggestions:
I suggest to pay the first month not a fixed salary, but as a bounty for successfully completing of clearly defined accountabilities. This way it’s easier to fire if it doesn’t work
Maximize skin in the game. Instead of paying fully in ETH I’d rather see us buying citizens from the floor and pay contributors in NFTs. The amount of NFTs stays the same and if they are successful at their job the value and hence the salary will be more worth over time
I agree that we should reinvest to keep the project moving forward with aligned contributors and I agree we should try it one month at a time.
While I see advantages to all-equity compensation, I suggest that we offer a range of options to accommodate different life situations. One candidate might be in a position to accept all equity but another contributor may need partial USDC compensation. I think we should be flexible throughout this range and aim to field a wide range of candidates.
While I see advantages to all-equity compensation, I suggest that we offer a range of options to accommodate different life situations. One candidate might be in a position to accept all equity but another contributor may need partial USDC compensation. I think we should be flexible throughout this range and aim to field a wide range of candidates.
Sure, let’s be flexible and assure it works for the team that is to be hired.
But I believe we have the means (financials, vision, PR opportunities) to attract the best talent.
That will then put us in the position to prioritize as of following:
What does CityDAO need from the team (>>> aligned incentives and hence motivation to make this work long-term)
What does the team need from CityDAO
It’s based on my observations of aligned incentives & motivation being more important than experience and track-record.
Especially in innovative fields where there are no best-practices yet.
It doesn’t need to be ALL-equity compensation. But I’d be surprised if we couldn’t find very strong candidates with an 70-80% equity compensation.
I welcome the thought of professionalising the DAO and financially rewarding individuals who spend a significant amount of time contributing to our joint future.
That being said, I think the plan as it is set out should be reviewed before it is voted on.
$50K a month is appropriating $600K a year which is close to 10% of our treasury (@ current ETH value). This amount feels excessive to me, especially in case the value of ETH takes a significant hit over the course of the year.
I agree with previous comments on payment in equity, vs cash. Buying citizens @ floor price to remunerate the team benefits the entire DAO and citizens are a fungible commodity - nothing stops any of the team members from selling them should their life circumstances require them.
Given the current absence of a charter and aligned goals across the DAO, full year commitments do not feel right. What if the individual is not delivering to expectations or what if the needs of the DAO change in 6 months?
Here are some alternative terms that I would be supportive of, as a conversation starter:
All paid for positions constitute 6 months’ appointments. Roles and performance are to be reviewed by the DAO or council before being offered for another term.
All positions are remunerated in citizens - 1 to 3 citizens a month depending on the seniority of the position. These citizens should be bought @ floor price from an open exchange.
Total Citizens distributed per month should not exceed 15
I take your point and I can see myself voting for candidates who want all-equity compensation, but also understanding and voting for qualified candidates who want more USDC-type compensation. I have an open mind about this.
I think this is a good idea in general but I agree with a lot of what’s been said above. $600k per year is far too steep a commitment. Compensation should be partially equity based, whether it’s earning citizen NFTs from the treasury, a temp-token system or otherwise. I’d rather see a bounty system based on achievements that the DAO can verify as opposed to a steady salary. Finally, these positions should be shared among a few people and the DAO should elect people to these positions.
I will continue to stress (as I did with my commentary on the council proposal) that I believe the core team is doing a great job and I’m very appreciative of their leadership thus far. However, it’s starting to feel like they’re getting rewarded over and over and over without making enough room for others to step in and contribute. I say this as someone who is not interested in any of these positions, but I’d imagine I speak on behalf of many folks who are. This would be the third time we’re given a binary option to either reject a proposal wholesale or reward the same few folks at the top (in this case, said reward is massive - the salary of many a full time mid level employee). And on the full-time salary note, some of the “shoe-ins” for these positions are working on other DAOs and in some instances have other full time jobs. Are we really going to agree to pay them ~$120k a year each for their work in CityDAO? A lot of people have invested and contributed to this organization and that kind of money should be spread among many more people, full stop.
A final point - the 4 people being suggested for roles make up 20 percent of the council-to-be that will do the “hiring.”
TLDR: the general idea is fine but the specifics of this proposal are greatly flawed and treading too far from the spirit of a DAO.
it’s starting to feel like they’re getting rewarded over and over and over without making enough room for others to step in and contribute
Many people have been completing bounties for the DAO and getting paid for their contributions (specifically in dev and design). I see how this isn’t the most visible thing since payment isn’t necessarily announced but if you would like names of specific people so you can talk with them about their experience I would be glad to provide them. We would like to move toward a more dedicated contributor model for the most consistent contributors, rather than purely using bounties. This CIP is the start of that.
I’m also not sure where the assertion that the core team is getting rewarded “over and over” comes from. I have been paid for some dev work, but the majority of the core team hasn’t gotten anything besides a few citizen NFTs – meanwhile, they are working in some cases full-time on administrative work.
A final point - the 4 people being suggested for roles make up 20 percent of the council-to-be that will do the “hiring.”
For me, this is not true. I have turned down my council position. I don’t think that has been publicly announced so that’s a reasonable misunderstanding.
If the mayor is not elected by the community, but just put himself on this position isn’t he act as a dictator?) Mb I’m too stupid but I can’t see any DAO in such an actions. And I’m talking not only about mayor position…
What’s the point to have citizenship for now could someone explain me?
Thanks for the clarification @greg. As far as you not having accepted the council position, I was going off @Justin ’s message here: Discord
“Every core team member agreed to join the council.”
Thanks also for clarifying what the core team has received for their work so far. If it’s truly limited to a few citizen NFTs, then that’s well deserved.
That said I still stand by the majority of my points. I’m down for moving toward a more dedicated contributor model but I’d like to see this sum of money go to many more people, like a handful of teams of a few people, and I’d like the DAO to be able to elect those teams. If we need to incentivize current contributors to keep going in the meantime I’m all for it, but it doesn’t need to be to the tune of 120k a year. Let’s start a lot smaller and have the folks at the top build out their teams so the wealth (and our collective investment) is spread among many more worthy community members.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Some things we can incorporate into final proposal based on suggestions:
The Council elects each paid contributor by majority vote each of these roles on a yearly basis.
These are mainly Team Lead roles for people taking on a full time level of responsibility, approving 50k monthly which will enough for 6-8 full time folks.
We will still have comp opportunities for folks contributing part time or doing bounties
We can limit this proposal to 6mo or 1 year allocation and come back to the voters for subsequent authorization. One part of the charter will be that all proposals involving use of funds will be up to Citizen NFT voting
Personally I think this proposal is sorely needed in order to keep a lot of our most dedicated contributors on the project. Most of them have donated dozens, even hundreds, of hours to CityDAO so far.
Excellent question. And since we’re an LLC, should we be having them sign independent contractor agreements to that effect? (I have a form we can use). For a few grand a month, I wouldn’t worry about such formalities. For 10k a month, it would make me feel a lot more comfortable appropriating such large sums.
In addition to the above mentioned, choosing full-time leaders of each part, I think we can take a page from GitcoinDAO’s workstream model and open up the marketing, operations, and community aspects of the granular work to community members who can apply to be contributors.