You misunderstood what I was talking about. That’s probably on me as I could have been a bit more clear there.
I was referring to the Yuga finance roles that you referenced as a baseline for the SC pay. I wasn’t comparing the SC and WebSlinger roles. My point was that the SC is neither qualified for nor doing the work of the Yuga role; and that most of that type of work in that role is being done by WebSlingers - not the SC.
For context and the avoidance of doubt, let me elaborate…
The intrinsic point here is that regardless of your [finance] qualifications, you weren’t hired in the SC to perform any of those roles - and you don’t. So, why are you suggesting that because you happen to have a finance background, the compensation should be comparable to that of a Yuga financial analyst? Especially in light of the fact that you are being paid top Dollar for a part-time role whereas the Yuga role is full-time.
I mean, it literally required AIP-282 of this past Aug to force you all to explain to the community what you actually do, and AIP-305 from this past Sept that complemented that one regarding accountability.
To wit, Yuga also has an open position for a head of development in gaming which pays $200K - $250K per year.
“The US base salary range for this full-time position is $200,000 to $250,000 in addition to equity and benefits. Our salary ranges are determined by role and level. The range listed encompasses several levels. Within the range, individual pay is determined by additional factors, including job-related skills, experience, and market demand. Please note that the compensation details listed in role postings reflect the base salary only, and do not include equity, or benefits.”
There are very few people in the industry who could fill that role because it’s very specialized. If someone like me were to apply (which, even if I didn’t own my own studios, I wouldn’t since I am over-qualified and make way more money than that anyway), I would be expected to meet or exceed that level of experience and qualification - in a full-time role. As such, if I were in the SC, I certainly wouldn’t be expected to fill the role of a head of bizdev for games because that’s not what the SC does - and isn’t what the role is for. And then to be paid almost $250K per year for a part-time gig is as astonishing as it is wasteful and absolutely ridiculous. Better yet, that role would best be suited for the Metaverse Working Group team; but even so, the author didn’t put up actual bizdev qualification and experience for such roles. Instead, he came up with this in AIP-245 - completely devoid of anything resembling qualifications and experiences required for the role. Which is why literally everyone in this list - believes that they are qualified for it. Why? Because the role isn’t clearly defined, and so, anyone can apply for it.
Not to menton the fact that, regardless of qualifications and clearly defined job specifications, people are voted into these roles not because of criteria befitting a corp environment hire but rather via an inequitable - and flawed - voting system that’s literally a [corruptible] popularity contest.
So, no - please don’t compare the SC role and payment to one in a corp environment like Yuga.
Noted.
However, like opinions, speculation and conjecture are the core tenets of discussions as well as data aggregation and analysis. My opinions rely on the core sentiments surrounding the SC salary and roles, as well as data flow analysis. e.g. If AIP-337 passes and SC salary drops by 50%, it’s unlikely that your AIP will result in a vote to increase it above option 4.
For the record, I need to repeat this:
I simply don’t care about what the SC is being paid. The founders put these salaries into play; we didn’t.
What I do care about is that in AIP-1 the founders created that pay structure without community input, and during the Web3 Gold rush when funny money - without accountability or consequences - ruled the day.
Then, when a DAO member attempted to revise it via AIP-277, amid much controversy, the SC literally placed itself above the rules by refusing to send it up to vote because it would put the Ape Foundation in a position whereby it would be in breach of signed contracts. Said contracts which are in fact the SC contracts. The end result forced the author to create a new AIP-337 which was modified to only make the salary changes effective in the next SC term. Which basically means that the Ape Foundation is OK with modifying and using a revised contract in the future but not in the present. This would thus lead to the belief that it was using a [flawed] contract which - shockingly - couldn’t be terminated with or without cause. Such a contract is simply unheard of in a corp environment. So, an AIP can’t modify a contract because it would be a legal violation. And so, if true, that’s basically saying that we could end up in a situation whereby 1) we can’t terminate a contract if we run out of funds to pay, or 2) we can’t terminate a contract if an SC member were found to have engaged in activity that violates either laws or DAO guidelines. While those may be extreme examples, those are the consequences of a contract that you can’t terminate because it would put the Ape Foundation in breach of said contract.
These are the sort of things that I care about because they are directly related to the people we vote in to serve in the SC, and who are being paid a significant sum of money to run the DAO in a fair, legal and equitable manner.
All that aside from the fact that AIP-1 actually allows for the removal of any SC member, for any reason, by DAO vote. So we can fire people - who have contracts - but we can’t modify their contracts.