Contributor Compensation Audit

[Vega]

@safder

This analysis demonstrates that the DAO’s spending on compensation is very much in line with market rates.

This analysis does NOT show that.

This analysis was designed from the start to justify the status quo and the current rates. Because of that, feedback exploring other ways of deriving what a “market rate” was for Gitcoin ignored.

I invite Stewards who are interested in holding insiders accountable to read this string of posts.

Especially this part, which was never actually really responded to effectively by @safder ( They technically responded in form. But not in substance. In substance their response was just stonewalling & more justification for the status quo)

@Vega

Does OpenComp have a large dataset of public goods DAO compensation data on it?

@Vega

Will you be comparing compensation data to massively profitable for-profit orgs, or to non-profits?

@Vega

According to this post it looks like there are plenty of other public goods funding DAOs! And many of them are WAY more capital efficient than GitcoinDAO. I hope you include those in your analysis.

@Vega

If financial stability of the DAO is the primary concern of the Stewards, do you have any plans to actually address the financial stability of the DAO?

So since my initial feedback was ignored, I’ll ask again @safder: Who decided that comparisons for the audit (US Based companies with business models vs non-profits & public goods DAOs)? Who decided that non-profit pay models are exploitative? Is that a position of Gitcoin? Was the community of GTC holders consulted on this decision? If not, what give this position legitimacy?

@Vega

I hope this analysis is scrapped altogether or reworked to be legitimate.

I wish you had responded to these concerns 2 months ago so we could have achieved alignment then!