Hey AC, thanks for the quick response. I’m impressed by the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes with the whole Governance Working Group. Even then, I’ve had different community members reaching out, questioning the pay structure and expressing concerns about it being overpaid. If that’s the case, ask yourself, have you done enough for the community to feel that the pay is justified? If so, they will likely vote for Option 3, which I’m not against. The main goal here is to empower the community to decide; it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else believes is right. I’m committed to standing by any choice the community makes, whether it’s to cut salaries or not.
Please don’t take this proposal as if I’m diminishing or not recognizing the value in the work that goes on behind the scenes because that’s not the case. Ask yourself, what else can the Governance Working Group do to establish more confidence within the community so that everyone sees the value, and let’s execute on that. Pay is directly proportional to the value one provides, and all the Governance Working Group members are indeed valuable.
Just a note that some of your proposed salaries here are not only under, but well under a living wage for some US cities where it’s a single person with no children (giving the maximum benefit of doubt to your proposed numbers.)
As a result, the roles should be defined as part-time if you were to attempt to push this forward.
Hey matt, I believe that there’s no explicit mention of specific working hours or a designated time commitment for Working Groups. It seems to follow a task-oriented and results-focused approach, allowing the Working Groups to determine their schedules and working hours based on the needs of the DAO.
It’s not about the time one invests; rather, it’s about the value and results one brings — something I believe you consistently deliver. You made (and are making) great contributions, and I personally appreciate the dedication and impact you bring to the DAO.
Good proposal man, very well structure but can we for once, let the people in position work ?
Just proposing AIPs to straight deduct salaries by 50% everytime is not the way. Stewardship is an under rated and under appreciated position. Unlike Special Council that comes and discuss once a week, stewards are on job 24/7 all around the month.
Hey Evil, I’m with you. The goal of this AIP is to give a chance to the broader community to make a decision on the value that’s been delivered since its inception. In no way is it aiming to prevent people from working. It’s about giving power to the community on the perceived value, and if they see the value, for sure, Option 3 will be voted.
And how did you ensure that you fairly compensated these roles against the special council pay? Can you articulate what each of these roles does to me, and how you determined how much value they provide to the DAO?
If you can’t, then it seems like you arbitrarily cut each role’s pay in half without understanding what they actually do, or the impact they actually have. We need to hold ourselves to a high standard when making decisions like this, and to show respect to the people who have been dedicating themselves to these roles.
Also I do hope that people realize that the amount these roles are getting paid has basically zero impact on the price of $APE. There was $66 million in volume in the past 24 hours. A couple hundred thousand, in total per year across all of these roles, isn’t putting downward pressure on price.
The goal with this AIP is to give the community a chance to contribute their input and vision. We can only speculate on what’s fair or not. The roles are described in AIPs 239 and 240. This has nothing to do with ApeCoin price. Also, the AIP is not suggesting a 50% cut, but 3 different options to choose from (options provided took inspiration from AIP-350, as Working Group pay was based off SC compensation at the time).
This statement directly conflicts with what you said here:
So it’s fair to say that you actually don’t have a point of view supported by data in any way. You also aren’t able to define how these roles actually compare in terms of impact compared to the SC. Correct? Can you provide proof that the working group pay was based off SC compensation? Where are you pulling that from?
And if this isn’t an attempt to boost $APE price, what are you hoping to accomplish by slashing the pay? The end result is you’re likely to lose out on future candidates who would have been interested, but can no longer justify the amount of time they’d spend vs. the pay being provided. Real talent knows that time is their greatest asset and will expect to be comped as such.
Also we don’t need to only speculate on what’s fair or not. That’s why you spend the time to deeply understand the roles, their responsibilities, and the impact they do or do not have on the DAO. You then comp that against comparable roles elsewhere to determine fair market pay. I think I’ve heard you say that you own a business, right? This is the basis of how free market economics work. Let’s do things right.
I believe we’re going in circles here. Could you please read the AIP and the above responses? All the information is available. Whether my opinion aligns with what you think is right or not is immaterial. What truly matters is that the community has the option to vote on what they consider fair compensation for the Governance Working Group. Hence, 3 options have been presented.
We’re not going in circles because the information isn’t available. I strongly encourage you to not move forward with this until you or someone else can:
Clearly define the value these roles provides to the DAO.
Explain how the presented salary options for people to vote on maps to the value these roles provide.
When you start with low quality input, you’re going to get low quality output. The DAO is controlled entirely by two or three entities at this point, we need to be super careful about what we put up for vote.
After review, this Topic submitted by @Moonlyght has been rejected due to non-compliance of DAO-approved guidelines. The Topic may be reconstructed and submitted again by any user and upon approval, will be open for 7 days for community discussions.