It sounds like your answer here is YES, you do think that the analysis was done in a backwards way to justify the current pay rates. (For clarification, I was not involved in this and was not countering your argument, only seeking to make sure I/others understand.)
I do agree that something like connecting pay to GTC price would be a potentially useful consideration. Maybe something like half the pay in USDC and half paid in GTC at whatever price it is so salaries adjust with the value of GTC? Is that the type of solution you might be suggesting?
Part of what you are experiencing is caused by how much time and effort went into operating grants rounds GR15 and prior. This season the DAO is focused on launching the protocol. This is largely why we voted to scrap the old cGrants platform and fully move to the protocol even over having a GR16 round in December. It gave us time to deep dive in workshopping and understanding these deeper problems which we are acutely aware of, but have not been able to prioritize.
We have been able to use the extra time to meaningfully work on these issues. Personally, I respect both the ability of the community to help with the brainstorming process AND the need to have people closest to the problem be the ones working on it. Until we share where we are at with our business planning for 2023, it will be difficult for you to judge how well the time has been spent. However, I don’t see any problems with us working out ideas between people close to them, then sharing with broader and broader segments of the community.
We absolutely do know the urgency of the problem of this downward spiral. The number one problem to solve is launching the protocol. Number 2 is how do we ensure it’s continued success.
Lately I’ve seen a lot of people suggesting that Giveth is a better model for paying the contributors because they have launched many products. How would you connect that as being true while also looking at their token?
Here is Uniswap. Our weekly average high was around $14 (not a daily high that was a parabolic liquidity spike squeeze with a little fomo reflexivity on top). This shows me that an established project like uniswap at a 6-8:1 devaluation so forth. We are closer to a 10:1.
Polygon is the best I could find sitting at about a 2-3:1
We all know AND USE the Graph GRT which is sitting around 20-40:1
My point here being. What do we define as success?
If we are talking about a team maintaining market value, how does one suggest that the pay structure of the Giveth team is desirable when they have suffered a 60-90:1 devaluation?
While I agree with your point about the analysis being done in a way that could have been better. It seems like there are 2 issues you are discussing here.
- The argument with the incorrect articulation of the analysis and it’s purpose. For this, I feel there isn’t a need to push it further because it specifically was the straw man incorrect articulation that is being argued. This does bring us to the real issue which is point 2…
- How might we justify the 2023 business plan for Gitcoin as whole. Including pay rates, budget processes, and revenue/growth forecasting, etc.? For this, lets continue the conversation in the thread linked here.
One question: Have you attended any of our steward calls or DAOvibes/Community calls? I’m not able to decipher how much is based on us not publicly documenting as much as we should or could vs making the wrong decisions. Knowing how much you are able to use what we are making available could inform us on how to improve these efforts.