I think that the community is what makes PowerPool stand out. And while testers were rewarded handsomely, PowerPool has great contributors on board, whose job has never been rewarded.
At the same time, the project is growing. We need to do more marketing, more support, more biz dev. We need to onboard more contributors, and we need to pay them.
I think PowerPool needs a standardized contributor program to allow the community to hire people. The canceled tester allocation can be used as a treasure for such a program.
We need to combine all prior proposals into one standard program.
I suggest a simple system
Every hire needs to be approved by a proposal.
Payment is made using CVP from the treasure, with the ability to set a custom vesting schedule.
The community can cancel vesting in the case of the contributor’s poor performance.
In that case, a contributor has immediate and continuous funding, while the community has leverage and control over funds.
To do it, we need community oversight and a vesting contract with custom schedules.
I am for this idea. However, there is a separate proposal for translators already. The strategists and researchers should be rewarded IMHO.
I also think most importantly that we need to employ a couple of full time telegram and discord admins who can answer queries to newcomers and promote the project. This is not an easy project to grasp and I think the community would benefit bigly from having some competent telegram and discord admins to supplement the work that some already do in there…(DrG etc)
I am for this of course and thanks for mentioning me.
would add a couple of things:
I am working on govn proposal in parallel but looks like I overcomplicated the things and, yes, probably we need to start with something more simple.
need also add 1-2 guys on kind of market data analyst role (I’d better combine strategists and researchers but have an analyst - crypto market data is not as easy to aggregate as Bloomberg data on equities)
@DeFi is another active community member I believe should be in the list - just look at his input since the August
I am for this idea, i think that the above mentioned contributors need to/should be rewarded.
I especially feel that we need to do more marketing and biz dev. Defi pulse gets great marketing exposure with their website and biz partnerships, PieDao has partnered with a very popular, reputable crypto youtuber (Chico Crypto) who has given the project a lot of exposure.
PP has great upcoming tech developments ahead that will (hopefully) distinguish us from our competitors. I think marketing is currently a little lacking. So building a strong and effective marketing avenue will help us reach more people so that we can showcase this great product.
I would like to propose a separate model that’s more decentralized:
Protocol politicians.
Protocol politicians can build their own on-chain smart contract systems to delegate CVP, and reward them for some amount of fee over time. for managing the CVP. I don’t think CVP necessarily needs to individually spend fees to pay specific users for their contributions, and instead, I think they should look to delegation systems once we move out of the yield farming phase. It’s much more distributed, and people can vote with their dollar, rather than adding more to the existing protocol. We should have bolt-on solutions when needed, and avoid adding complexity. We can easily reward these users without adding more issues to the existing protocol like management and marketing fees.
I’m for this idea. I think it tackles a very important issue of scaling the team, while preserving a nice degree of decentralization and community oversight.
I think we need to add a community trustee role, who is responsible for tracking contributors’ performance.
I believe the rewards wshould be set up asap and then we can think on how to make it in a more decentralized way. (as far as I see other projects use pretty much the same schemes atm)
It’s really not. I could code a solidity contract that accepts CVP deposits and bleeds off 0.5% a year to a politician, who can use the CVP in the contract to vote. This has been done before with other voting systems and doesn’t take that long to deploy.
I just don’t want more bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is like cancer. The more it festers, the larger it grows until it’s completely uncontrollable. We should have a “first answer is no” to additional bureaucracy, especially ones that require more fees.
Bureaucracy is just a scary word. this is like an iron - you can iron a shirt but you can kill someone with it.
Example: do you think It was bureaucracy that I was annoying about the NUMBERS to prove the YETI initial weights? I don’t think it was.
What if I would ask to provide a simulation with all possible outcomes for YETI performance? well this would be a pure bureaucracy.
So I d suggest not to use the word bureaucracy that easily.
Otherwise please suggest, how exactly the solution you offer (great one again, but need to make more job to implement it) would allow to compensate someone providing research or calculations or strategic solutions?
Thanks for mentioning mate)
Obviously I am “for” this proposal.
I also think that we should elect protocol politicians to control the fairness of distribution and
evaluate the contribution of every community member but its really hard to do that for anyone. This is why I created a proposal about translations and translator: simple and straight scheme of rewarding translators. Deadlines, certain amount of CVP per word from the original text + leveling system to keep the most experienced translators in project.
But its much harder to create the same scheme for another roles.
So I think that there must be some kind of hierarchy where there is a leader for every role or just a fix “salary” for every role again.
For example, N CVP to every community manager every month, N CVP to every analytics, N CVP to every media-influencer depending on views of video/articles/tg posts/twitter posts etc.
And once per month we collect all the info about the job that we have done, protocol politicians checks it and sends to the team addresses of contributors + amount of CVP they have to get + info about what exact job has been done during this month.
Its a bit manual but we can have even google form with limited access for contributors/leaders of the roles to fill it. So its gonna be a lot easier for protocol politicians - they will just need to check it and send to the team to let them send multi-sign transaction(s).
So we just need to set the roles of all the contributors that we have now and all the employers that we will have in the future + set the amount of rewards for them. And describe the scheme (like I suggested in my proposal) in proposal.
Plus, we need to set the amount of CVP that can be distributed to the contributors who arent in this role model: for example someone creates really cool infographics (just once) or creates an article like (Defi for chads) or releases 1 video about CVP and this video is pretty good and useful.
To clarify, I’m against giving an infinite stream of funds for workers on the protocol directly to people. That pretty much enables rent seeking behaviors. It’s easy enough to write a request for consideration for research into the forum, or even a proposal to pay yourself for your research.
If there was straight up a proposal from you saying, “Hey, I’ve done all this research, can I receive 5000 CVP for it?” plenty of people would say yes.
Some direct options I think are feasible now that are not another fund with another layer of bureaucracy:
Protocol politicians/Dev teams/marketing teams form their own contracts asking for CVP and bleeding off it. The contracts are used to give them voting rights. Note this is slightly different than delegation because to pay yourself in CVP, you need to actually hold the CVP.
We encourage people to submit Requests for Consideration for improvements via the forum. People who produce good work will just socially attract more funding. No coding necessary.
