Term Rewards For Second Conclave

Public Archive
1

:skull: Abstract

I propose paying the 6 conclave members from the second conclave 1 wagdie each for their efforts of running the conclave for the past 6 weeks, using the funds from the treasury.

:skull: Motivation

This allows recognition and payment with a resource that promotes the health of the community and creates a positive reinforcement on spreading floor wagdie to contributing members.

:skull: Rationale

Conclave members meet once a week for at least an hour to discuss and manage proposal flows. In addition to the back and forth on the conclave discord to organize and coordinate.

:skull: Specifications

Devs will use treasury funds to sweep the floor at a random date/time and send 1 wagdie to each of the 6 conclave members (I donโ€™t care how randomness is contributed)

:skull: Steps to Implement

Buy 6 wagdie and send 1 wagdie to each conclave member address listed below:

  1. ๐•ฎ๐–”๐–š๐–“๐–ˆ๐–Ž๐–‘ ๐–”๐–‹ ๐•พ๐–Ž๐– (brennen.eth)
  2. The Twins (0xc16aB488D45131dc41284F6a2183400f0FfBb3F0)
  3. dontfeedthewolf.eth (dontfeedthewolf.eth)
  4. hersilence.eth (hersilence.eth)
  5. Prince Hamdoe (hamdoe.eth)
  6. thegoldeneel.eth (thegoldeneel.eth)

:skull: Timeline

At the behest of the devs

:skull: Overal Cost

6 wagdie floor sweep costs around 0.6e right now

6 Likes
2

I for one approve this reward.

Would love to see some LARP for the 6 characters awarded each term, but realise thatโ€™s asking a lot (more) of the reps, so not suggesting it is a requisite.

3 Likes
3

Iโ€™d suggest changing the wording on this and just have it be the standard reward for conclave reps going forward. Unless someone has been particularly naughty cough Brennen cough, I canโ€™t see a reason why the term rewards should be different across seasons.

Edit: I would add the stipulation that if the floor hits >0.2ETH then theyโ€™re rewarded another way (a token or something). There should be a cap on how much weโ€™re willing to spend on this each term.

3 Likes
4

I like the proposal, it will ease the burden (pleasure) of carrying the conclave on your shoulders.

Now, I know it hasnโ€™t happened and everyone is great, but thinking in the future, maybe there could be exceptions for when a member hasnโ€™t fulfilled their role properly, donโ€™t you think?

1 Like
5

This was something we discussed as well. It definitely shouldnโ€™t just be automatic as we arenโ€™t creating a system for people to game things, rather awarding the work and efforts of others.

There is data here within the conclave and we can pull this for all nominated and elected officials so everyone is aware of their activity within the Conclave:

image
image1049ร—876 95.6 KB

In addition to that, each term and each meeting, we share record of the meeting in the Discord. Record includes how long we met for, who was present, so anyone can see if there is a Conclave member who is consistently missing meetings. I also organized the meetings so people can easily identify Term: # and Meeting #

Conclave #updates : Discord

3 Likes
6

Iโ€™m a bit hesitant on this becoming a rule of thumb with doubts on sustainability. WAGDIE is in a critical time where we should focus funds on initiatives that promote and expand the project or enrich user experience.

With the current dearth of conclave fund income, I donโ€™t feel that putting $800 into WAGDIE rewards is prudent direction at this time.

I will disclose that I voted against the vote the first time around when I was serving.

3 Likes
8

I agree with this. I voted no last time and will vote no again. Keeping in mind this passed overwhelmingly last time, my comments above were just to add some fairness/guardrails to this idea + avoid the same convo every 6 weeks. I still donโ€™t think itโ€™s a good idea though.

9

Curious to see how sustainable a model it is, with the Conclave being full on volunteer and clearly defined only reward is service.

Already weโ€™ve already seen less nominations/acceptances. First term 2 out of 6 opted out of re-election, second term 3 out of 6 opted out.

If opting out continues to increase while nominating and volunteering continues to decrease, then the current model may have to change.

Maybe instead of mandatory Monday meetings, we just have as many volunteers as possible watching Conclave and when we all agree itโ€™s time to pass to final voting it just goes.

As an alternative, we could amend/change the rules on the Conclave Bells and just make it 6 bells each term, CR can choose to keep for themselves or gift to whomever. Maybe thats the easy solution.

Current workload of CRs:

  • Mandatory scheduled meeting once a week
  • Staying on top of Conclave posts, cleaning up, retagging, etc.
  • Having to choose 6 people to award and gift a description on why
  • keeping up on Gnosis, making sure operators up to date, getting current operators to sign the transactions
  • Posting/sharing transcript of discussions
  • Organizing recap of terms

And the list goes on. Itโ€™s a A LOT of work to keep it decentralized and open, and organized. I donโ€™t necessarily agree or say CRs should be paid a WAGDIE, but without any kind of payment/incentive I do fear that the current model collapses and a more centralized version emerges of hidden admins, less communication.

and/or just a model of having anyone who is able pay attention to Conclave posts watch them, with no clear model for pushing forwardโ€ฆ or just an open model where everything gets voted on, which eventually leads to voter exhaustion and less participation or everyone just voting NO constantly and shutting down everything.

Furthermore, if it goes to anyone who can volunteer when they can model. Then the bells get nixed completely because they were built around a system of 6 reps, 6 weeks. The weekly recaps and meetings will be out as well. Same with terms and elections.

And weโ€™d probably just have a system where Keepers at their discretion can push anything to vote when it seems like it has enough engagement or is ready. But again, I caution this model as it could lead to voter exhaustion and/or discouragement of participation within the Conclave.

10

Honestly the bells is a good model to send to conclave members. I like the idea of a concord token that represents governance and maybe can be utilized in the future for other governance votes.

Also, itโ€™s a concord token that exists already and we have another 30 of them to give out to community members. What if we did 6 to conclave and 6 to community members each session?

11

I agree with a token of concord reward, I think thatโ€™s best. Tweaking the rules for the bell so reps get them too seems like the easiest solution.

12

I swear the genesis of what became the Conclave Bell was a means of rewarding reps without using WAGDIE as the reward.

13

Iโ€™m not too fond of this reappropriation as it gets diluted pretty fast. 12 Bell ToCs every election cycle adds up quickly.

14

I agree 12 is too much. Hence my point that we keep 6 and they just go to the CRs who can gift or keepโ€ฆ

The community can then decide if they sick of the same ones getting rewards and vote those people out.

15

I think a โ€œgift or keepโ€ places too much onus on the CR to gift โ€ฆ what if 5 gift and one wants to keep, they seem like a selfish asshole, no?

I assume no CR is in this for the reward, but it is nice to provide some recognition because it is a lot of work.

At current prices, I would continue with a WAGDIE each, if they want one. Why not give CR the option to opt in or out? I feel that places less onus on them, and it doesnโ€™t necessarily need to be publicized as to who got one and not.

16

Why is 72 total too much?
There are plenty of ToCs with even higher supply.

17

Hm I can get behind this. I would hope CRs would not keep awarding themselves Bells after 1 but maybe Iโ€™m just idealisticโ€ฆregardless thatโ€™s a choice they would have to make and work with I suppose.

18

I agree, I think putting the onus on the CR is not a good way of going about this. It basically puts them back at square 1 because theyโ€™ll feel obligated to give it away. I also agree with King, I donโ€™t think 72 is too much.

Edit: I wonder how difficult it would be to just make a new token for this. Itโ€™s been done beforeโ€ฆ

19

Bells for good community members.
Chimes for conclave reps?

ยฏ_(ใƒ„)_/ยฏ WHY NOT?

1 Like
20

altar(native) bells? :laughing:

21

@brennen_eth may close this proposal idea as he has a much better idea that negates this and gives back to the community.