One effect of that is traditionally, people working at the Holdings company (corporate) have made salaries/benefits - like any corporation. Gitcoin Holdings (the company that existed when the DAO originated) had a policy of paying team members US competitive market-rate-for-technology-companies-salaries, which in some cases, meant that often times our compensation policy meant offers were generated at compensation levels comparable to this:
Of course, Gitcoin Holdings has venture funding & a business model (and revenue generated from doing virtual hackathons) that has allowed the corporation to generate offers in this category. And even so, it is losing lots of money every month as it supports Gitcoin Grants (so perhaps this is not sustainable).
The DAO does not, as far as I know, have a model for financial sustainability yet.
But it does seem that the DAO has inherited the company’s compensation policies in some areas.
I am writing this post because I see this trend is about to collide with market conditions. I want to name that. By naming this trend, the DAO can get ahead of it.
I believe that this sentiment is echoed in other stewards posts during S14 governance:
Lefteris has told me privately that full time contributors to Rotki make $30k - $50k per year.
Griff has told me privately that Giveth contributors make $19/hour. GivETH v2 shipped with about $500k in funding.
By way of comparison, Gitcoin Holdings pays roughly $300k/mo for software engineering. And the DAO spends about $150k/mo on Moonshot Collective (the only software engineering organization natively in the DAO).
Gitcoin has still not shipped Grants 2.0. Here are some more thoughts on why.
This leads me to a few questions I think the DAO should consider?
- If I were to start this project all over again, should I have gone the Giveth/Rotki route?
- Is the DAO in for more hard times if it continues Holdings’ compensation patterns?
- Should GitcoinDAO pay six-figure salaries to its full time contributors, like the Holdings company did (perhaps unsustainably)?
- Is there a DAO-wide compensation policy in the works? Should this policy be consistent in both times of abundance & scarcity?
- Can the DAO sustain these compensation policies if we are no longer the market leader?
- What is the DAOs compensation model? What are the workstreams compensation models?
- What would have to be true for the DAO to create great software, become a market leader, get to financial sustainability, and pay web2-competitive salaries (the virtuous cycle I personally think the DAO should be aiming)?
I understand that these may be painful conversations to have. But I see no alternative to getting these hard governance questions out in the open.
As always, please remember I am just one node in the DAO network - and I have perspective given how long I’ve been in the project, but the governance of this question (and other matters of import to the DAO) are up the governance process.