I’m not saying we need to fire good contributors that are making high US salaries, we have who we have and if they are performing we should keep them 100% agree.
That said, it is a huge mistake to be spending so much when there is no clear business or economic model for a path forward for GTC, and setting the salary rate high for people that are hired in the future doesn’t make sense to me. Fine, people are paid a lot who work here now… that doesn’t mean we should maintain that policy into the future. There are incredible people all over the world that can do work just as well as someone from the states. I know because we hire them at Giveth, and they don’t care that they aren’t getting paid American wages.
I said as much here when the idea was presented, and i’m surprised it was pushed through anyway given the debate there:
In general we are going backwards with the approach in budgeting.
We should say how much GTC and DAI we are willing to spend each quarter, given our current holdings and the macro outlook, divide that up amongst the working groups and live within our means. This is how we need to build a budget for the DAO in the bear.
Right now we don’t actually have a budget, our process (cynically) looks like this: Each working group spends way too much time trying to sell their work in forums and calls, then they put out a number that gets nickel and dime’d by a bunch of stewards that don’t have enough of an incite to really judge the request and then it gets approved eventually and we spend whatever, with no concern (at least outwardly) about how the increase in supply is going to be met with demand.
^^^ This is a fine pattern in a bull market where the macro environment can generate tangential demand… that is not where we are right now.