Proposal #8: 2021 Ops Distribution

Governance Proposals
#22

I voted “neither” because, if we want to reward individual contributors, I don’t think completely removing SC is the best way to go. SC, as flawed as the current dials may be, is a brilliant opportunity to reward the long tail of contributors and possibly engage them as active contributors. I’m an example of that. My vote was cast, but I’d like to say I’ve changed my opinion: I prefer moving forward with option 1.

Regarding individual contributions, it seems to me Coordinape was designed precisely for this. The pitch of “I deserve X for Y work” maybe should be made before the Coordinape voting session. It’s the “biased by humans” part of the distro. That’s where I would argue to wesee that I deserve GIVE, or post in a channel a summary of my contributions in the epoch.

1 Like
#23

Thank you all for considering my grant request and allow me to present my grant proposal.

To define a bit of my work over the past 15 months.

I was part of all Tokenomics calls and discussions and contributed to the design and overall strategy. I also have made several suggestions for token experiments that we engaged in.

I have attended every community call where I have consistently provided feedback which has help to cultivate our culture. I have been a multi sig signer, spending personal gas to execute transactions related to robot distributions. I have help create content used on the website, social media and been a critical component to community engagement. I have personal relationships with many of our clients and recruit and market heavily for MetaFactory. I have also hosted Community Creator calls and been a discord administrator for a bit. I attended and was an significant contributor to the curation design hyper sprint. I have done discord security tasks and channel management.

I have taken more calls than I can consider and work hand in hand with many of our customers to define their designs and actively create novel assets for many of our clients. I brought Sushi’s internal team to the table and have gone above and beyond to considered our clients needs. I was also one of the few people to vocally support Twisted during his drama. I also consistently skill up our designers and technicians.

I do a ton of support for technicians and clients and have been releasing products recently too. I have personally lead over 22 projects that made it beyond the design phases or have been released, and many more that I have had to turn away or explain that we were not a good fit.

I also took the branding assets originall made by FLOC and vectorized them so that we could use the assets in a production environment. I personally hand made coasters for the wicked sunday club. My wife has personally printed, paid for shipping and sent 2400 robot face stickers and are printing 4000 more stickers now for packaging.

In addition I have booked us on several panels and spoken very highly of metafactory in all relevant organizations.

This was not a comprehensive list of everything I have done with no pay consideration. I too have no job other than DAO work and have been relying upon a promise of getting paid. It is disappointing to work so hard and for so long to get 666 as my 15 months of work. I have spent almost $10k in the shop and that is the only reason I have any voting power.

I did my best to resolve this internally and privately and presented my proposal internally directly asking for 2k robot and outlined details of my proposal. Instead of discussing it or providing any feedback, a public forum post was made that ignored my grant request. Now the snapshot vote has already begun and is accepting votes without communicating we were ready for a vote or providing me a chance to respond.

I apologize for any of this being public. I tried to resolve this internally and would not have picked the public forum. I believe it is important for us to be transparent and honest with something as critical as paying contributors and consider my level of activity and support is above and beyond. Thank you for the opportunity to explain my role and I ask you to please consider voting to either continue the discussion until we reach an agreement.

2 Likes
#24

I’d also like to propose that we create specific working groups focused on each one of these areas (and more). As we grow and expand, work will need to be organized into focused teams. Doing so provides a more clear path for new community members that want to get involved by delineating where they should join based on their specific talents and interests.

Additionally, I’d like to propose that we earmark specific budgets to each of these teams and areas, allowing them to operate with some level of autonomy towards their goals without EVERY small task and related cost needing to be passed through a DAO vote.

Will break this out into its own thread…

2 Likes
#25

here is the SourceCred data that was used to calculate the contributions outside of Discord / discourse: https://github.com/MetaFactoryAI/mf-cred/tree/master/config/plugins/sourcecred/initiatives/initiatives

That repo also has the rest of the sourcecred configuration

1 Like
#26

Upon review of the initiatives, I stand by my assessment of the SC having serious bias and claim initiatives do not not accurately capturing value or weight, especially with relation to time.

Managing these initiatives will require a lot of grooming and commuity perspectives. I think it would be better to remove initiatives, people that provide contributor level work should be included in the coordinape circle.

By removing initiatives we allow the data to control the community side of things and contributors to provide direct perspective on teammates they interacted with. That lets SC operate as with less bias, and will require little to less grooming.

#27

My interpretation of where we’re at:
Re-establishing the proposal before moving back to an official snapshot vote. Evolution was:

  • 32,200 Ops Distribution
  • Voted to remove and carry 10,000 forward to future distros, grants, etc
  • Voted on the Coordinape x Source Cred accuracy.
  • Penguin 2,000 Robot addition for past 15 months labor added, confused the process slightly as that proposal also stated flaws in Source Cred’s metrics and so it had 0 allocated to Source Cred and 16,000 to Cooridinape.

Where I believe it is now:

My thought is if anyone wants to see adjustments to the Source Cred weighting, they need to take the initiative to dive-in and propose tweaks and changes. I know it isn’t intended, but it could easily come across as bot-blocking rewards to those who contributed via SC metrics. I like what @weseeclearly said about "Rewarding people that didn’t expect to receive anything is a bet I’m willing to place on inspiring future contributors." -loose quote, they said it more eloquently! :slight_smile:

  • Could put a robot bounty on translating the SC weighting into pleb friendly speak. We’re already exploring adding the social media engagement aspect via a dedicated discord channel. Could also add a minimum payout threshold to prevent distributing 0.01 $ROBOT – maybe 0.51 or 1 minimum to go eco-friendly and save on gas.

:robot: Resolve ASAP so we can move forward and continue perfecting these systems to the best of our ability; then conquer the world via a swagged out robot invasion.

6 Likes