I love many aspects of this proposal, but am skeptical of a few as well
Transparency
I am neutral here… I like the ideals of transparent salaries, but in practice, i haven’t found it very beneficial, so i could go either way.
Global Salary Benchmark
I strongly disagree with the proposed policy.
US Base + 30% ? This doesn’t make any sense in general IMO… If you are hiring a strategic expert solidity dev, you might need to pay a lot more than US base + 30%, or if you are hiring an admin from the Philippines there is no reason to triple their expected salary.
For an Impact DAO going into a bear market, especially given the current state of GTC, we should consider trying to reduce our number one expense, salaries.
What are we doing to create the demand that will balance out this issuance?
I am going to rally hard against large workstream proposals next round. We have to get scrapier, and start hiring talent that live in less expensive countries.
We are a global impact DAO with the opportunity to hire people from all over the world that are ideologically motivated. We should allow workstream leaders to minimize their budget and handycapping them to US wages + 30% is unnecessary.
Saf & Loie are the Compensation Committee
I love this as a concept, but I generally like what @krrisis brought up with it being more advice than control. The workstream lead has a budget and goals, they should have the agency to make the necessary budget decisions to satisfy their requirements.
Denomination in stables
Definitely, whole heartedly agree, GTC is a horrible unit of account. I would denominate pay in Stables and use the GTC exchange rate at the time of transfer (not moving average).
General Thoughts
I love @owocki’s triangle above, and added my own placements:
The big thing missing here is Vesting in GTC…There should be some vested interest in the DAO’s success. People being paid a salary should also get some future GTC to align their personal best interests with the GitcoinDAO’s best interest. Maybe the lower the salary, the more GTC they get, but it is locked for ~3 years (when we will hopefully be for sure into the next market cycle).
I think this policy is trying to over prescribe payments for the good of the individuals working in GitcoinDAO but at the expense of (or in complete ignorance of) the actual GitcoinDAO reality. We need to fund projects that will bring economic stability to the economy and make reasonable budget cuts until we can do that. Spending millions of GTC when there is so little demand and liquidity for the token is irresponsible.
Let’s approve high level budgets for work streams, and support work stream leads in salary negotiations, but let’s consider also what is in our means and not tank the value of GTC by overspending it.
Major Companies are cutting their costs by 20%, sadly we should follow suit… we don’t have nearly the same income streams that they do, and grew too fast beyond our means. Our budgets are not balanced, we cannot lock ourselves into US base + 30%.