Adjusted #s
Made a revision to the google sheet to reflect what it would like with if reducing the amount given for calls and adding a multiplier for top delegates (here defined as above 100k).
Columns
- T-Y are the original formula
- Z-AE are revised with the below changed
- AF-AG include a multiplier of 1.1 for delegates with over 100k SCR
Changes
- Call attendance was multiplied by 0.5
- The bonus for 10+ calls was reduced to 2,000
- The bonus for 5+ comments was increased to 3,000
Let us know what you think and if either one of those works.
Also, if you feel as though there’s anything missing, reach out to Jamilya or Eugene.
Working group
We will be posting a new version of this proposal by the end of the week. We will also share some revised numbers to look at / get feedback on before then.
I do want to flag that we will be adding the creation of a temporary working group for 4-5 weeks to create a proposal for the next iteration of GCR.
This working group will be 5 people total, 2 of whom will be from the governance team, and 3 will be delegates and/or relevant experts. The governance team would start the hiring process as soon as the proposal passes. A form would be generated where people could apply. We would be happy to include a question asking for consent to share publicly if there’s a desire for more transparency.
The role would include a $2,250.00 USD equivalent stipend per member to partake in a ~3-4 week working group (NOTE: Foundation employees do not receive the stipend). Each member is expected to contribute 30 hours during the 3-4 weeks. The expected outcome is to present a formal proposal for the next iteration of the GCR, including background research.
Comment reactions
Thank you and @bitblondy for the clarification in this regard. @ACI do you mind sharing your thoughts on this as I know you had also initially flagged this.
Agreed. We are going to suggest including the formation of a temporary working group to come up with the first iteration going forward, and the intent is that the working group will define both the inclusion criteria and guidelines for qualitative inputs.
I know this one was brought up a few times and we can include a minimum (would be interested at what amount) if there is strong interest in it.
These are gathered from onchain data, forum, data from the Negation Game team, and transcripts from all of the recorded calls. We are taking case by case evaluations on corrections (not all of which are reflected yet), so far all reviewed claims have had corroborating data and will be included. If you have something we missed, reach out to Jamilya or me.
The data in the original proposal had a cut off of April 15. If people want that adjusted, I would recommend Apr 30 for cleanliness.
As of now, we are operating with the following understandings:
- For calls, we were just counting attendance. This means there is an inherent overpayment as not everyone was active on all the calls that they attended. As a result, and given feedback, we will decrease the payout. Again, we do not recommend using this metric in the future.
- In terms of the forum, a meaningful contribution is one that does one of the below. There would definitely need to be clear guidelines in place if this type of metric is used in the future. The governance team sees this topic as one potential area for exploring experiments.
- adds context or understanding to the idea at hand,
- asks questions that lead to useful context or understanding in the response, or
- present alternative ideas or arguments.
- For voting, good contribution is voting at least once in the first three onchain votes.
Given this is a one time retro, we are keeping it informal. Reach out to Jamilya or me. Future iterations will have something more robust.
These are good things to keep in mind for future iterations.