Level K Worker Proposal 7/2022 - 8/2022

Summary and Timeframe

I had a week of vacation in July and a lot of my time was spent catching up on other people’s DAOtalk posts, keeping up on chats, and catching up on my late worker proposals. Also, some time was spent contemplating bigger picture issues like DXdao budget, product direction, and crypto at large. I think all of this is important for my work with DXdao. Since I am catching up on worker proposals and contemplating various aspects of DXdao and crypto, I want to take some time on my own to have dialogue with other contributors, research what’s current in crypto, and create a thoughtful and impactful forward looking worker proposal that will also have time for discussion prior to the start of a new worker period. I will be aiming to post something a week or two before the end of August for a worker period starting at the beginning of September. I will be engaged with DXdao with the below responsibilities and goals, but working 50% time throughout this period, leaving room for personal exploration of crypto and reflection upon DXdao.

  • 7/1/22 - 8/31/22

  • 2 months


  • Organize and run weekly dev call

  • Speak on community calls and as needs and opportunities arise for public speaking

  • DXdao Multisig transactions

  • Keep up on all product chats

  • Keep up on all Discord chats and ensure users/community members’ problems with products are being addressed

  • Coordinate smart contract auditing and architecture

  • Support technical due diligence and review as needed across squads


  • DXdao has never had serious budgeting discussions. With a large treasury and difficulty hiring during the bull market, the modus operandi has been to be entirely focused on expanding. Now that DXdao has grown to 29 part and full time contributors, as well as 4 contractors, and the market has turned, it is time for DXdao to start taking budgeting more seriously. A goal is to help drive conversation around budgeting. This is already underway.

  • DXdao has not achieved significant traction for its products. A goal is to drive discussion and exploration around what DXdao can do to achieve more traction. This is already underway.

  • Get the necessary involvement of design and development for Carrot V1 to support Federico in the development of its front-end.

  • Help drive conversations around Nimi and its relationship with DXdao, helping to best set Nimi up for success, while creating a sustainable template for how DXdao can incubate projects in the future.


Experience Level: 8

Month one.

  • .5 * $9,000 = 4500 (xDAI)
  • .5 * $9,500 = $4750 of DXD
  • .5 * 0.1667% = .083 REP or till 4% max is reached

Month two.

  • .5 * $9,000 = 4500 (xDAI)
  • .5 * $9,500 = $4750 of DXD
  • .5 * 0.1667% = .083 REP or till 4% max is reached

The full 2 month period.

  • $9,000 (xDAI)
  • $9,500 (DXD) to be paid in a vesting contract continuously for three years with a one year cliff.
  • 0.1667% (REP) up to 4% max


I have been involved with DXdao since inception, as part of Level K, involved in a variety of areas of responsibility. You can find Level K worker proposals via the governance interfaces by searching for “Level K”


I wont support this worker proposal and I dont recognize him as an active worker and member of dxdao till the late submission of all previous worker proposals of Level K are submitted, finalized, and his future work reviewed and accepted.

Having a top position in dxdao doesnt give you any right to decide where you have to work and what you should do, and then go and do it, this is for the dao to decide, and it is a direct violation of the rules established in the dao and disrespectful to the organization and its members.

DXdao should be lead by example, something that Is not happening here, and I cant tolerate these actions in something Ive been working so hard to build, I hope my honest opinion serves as example for every member in the future.


Here is my opinion about John’s late proposals.

To preface this, I had a discussion with John privately, where I told John all of this already before writing on the forum

I find it disappointing that someone as senior as John, who helped develop worker proposal processes such as this one is not following along with it. Personally, there is no excuse not to write a proposal for a whole year, a few months sure, but not the entire year. From what John has said it was because he was busy but that doesn’t seem plausible and he was reminded multiple times.

What bothers me the most about this situation is not that John didn’t submit his proposal, but that people are afraid to speak up because of fear of retaliation or conflict. I think in order to have a successful and functioning DAO/governance system we need to put ourselves on the side and think if this behavior is good and fair for DAO itself. Usually John would be the one to speak up in these situations, but it seems that when tables are turned, this is not the case and the same rules don’t apply.

This is my personal opinion of what should be done regarding this post. I think it’s totally out of the question for John to be paid fully. The fact that John is such a senior member and was fully aware of what needed to be done and why and still decided not to post it and undermine all of us who go through this process every month. Also, we can’t verify with certainty what was done a year ago and what vacations were taken. My suggestion is 33% cut on all but the last proposal because of everything mentioned.


@AugustoL and @Violet : I agree with your frustration with John for not making worker proposals, when he helped develop the proposal process to begin with. It certainly seems unfair if everyone else is held to a certain standard, but not John. The rules must be the same for everyone, and I hate hypocrisy.

That being said, I fear the consequences you propose are too harsh, because of the following facts of this case as I see them. If I’m mistaken about any of these, please LMK:

  • People were aware that John was behind on worker proposals, yet this is the first time the matter is addressed publicly in the forum. At any point, someone could have made a topic publicly asking John to submit his worker proposals, but this wasn’t done. I understand why noone would want to do this, but nevertheless, this is the first time the matter is being addressed publicly.
  • Other contributors routinely submit late proposals with no consequences. I know John is especially late here, but for better or worse, it’s part of the culture that proposals are late with no consequence. If a proposal which is 3 months late faces no punishment (as has been the case), then why should a proposal which is 4 months late? Or 5 months? Or 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 months? Where do you draw the line exactly? Point being, we’ve never seen someone punished only for being late. In the case of Martin, who received a ~14% pay cut, his cut was due to the fact that he never delivered the product, Aqua, which he was working on and which he estimated would be completed much earlier. So, I don’t see that case as establishing a precedent for late proposals, only that if you don’t accomplish your deliverables within a reasonable timeframe, you may face a penalty.
  • John could and should have submitted these proposals earlier, but I can also see how from his perspective, his work at each given moment seemed more pressing and important. From what I’ve seen of John’s work, he has been the one to hold the DAO together, keeping others accountable. Notably, he also helped obtain ~$700K in ENS tokens for the DAO during one of these missed proposal periods, as well as much other important work which I am not privy to. So I can understand how proposals constantly get put off in favor of whatever the issue of the day is. And the later the proposal, the more procrastination, because the worse it will be to catch up. We’re seeing this now, from the reactions here, it will take John significant time and focus to respond to all of the concerns that are now being raised as he catches up on proposals. That doesn’t mean his procrastination was right, it was wrong to procrastinate on proposals, only that it is understandable.

We should also establish is that it is the responsibility of the DAO to bring about a vote on a worker’s responsibilities and continued work if they have concerns about them. Anyone could have made a topic or even a proposal regarding John’s responsibilities within the DAO at any point, but this was not done. In the future, I would like to see accountability in this form from the DAO well before we ever get to the point of having proposals that are this late. So in this case, I would vote for no penalty, given that frankly the DAO also dropped the ball (including me!) by not doing something about this sooner.

As I suggested in another post, the creation of a topic for feedback on a contributor should be done by ContributorUX 2 weeks before their proposal is due. Let’s not let anyone be more than a month late on their proposal without someone creating a proposal to address the matter. It seems that would have avoided this present issue. This way, the precedent becomes “Make your proposal on time, or else someone else will make a proposal about you, and it might not be the proposal you want.”


I like how you try to bend logic here (you always come up with interesting new ideas → DXdao misses your fresh new ideas)

However, I don’t think it’s a smart or useful idea to pass the responsibility of a contributor to do a contributor proposal from the contributor onto all the members of the community.

For example, would I make a proposal about you @Caden who does not have a live contributor proposal passed by the DAO? What would I put in it? Things I want you to do?

The Contributor Proposal process IS the MAIN mechanism DXdao has for reviewing and adjusting what a Contributor has stated he/she will be working on and what are his/her responsibilities.


Might be wrong but is this not already a function of the ContributorX squad, to make sure that contributors are up-to-date on their proposals?

If not that seems like the obvious solution. Rather than having individual contributors call one another out and likely create some ill will, or not do so because they’re conflict-averse. Have a dedicated person in ContributorX who’s responsible for making sure working proposals are up-to-date.


I am not sure that type of action drives behavior. (and ContributorX can’t do it for you)

Which is why I would propose something that would likely drive behavior:

There are some communication channels that only regular contributors are a part of. If there were a rule that only contributors with active proposals can be a part of these channels, I think we wouldn’t have late proposals.


Good point @sky, it would only make sense if a contributor was actively contributing but didn’t have a proposal. And then it could only be a binary, “Should Contributor X remain an active contributor at DXDao given that they have not made a timely worker proposal? Y/N.” You’re right, it would make no sense to assign them responsibilities

+1 for removing contributors without an active proposal from comms channels after a month or two

Therein lies the problem - How can DXdao pass a proposal to take away contribution responsibilities or take away compensation from a person who doesn’t have a proposal or communicated responsibilities?

Like this?
“Should Caden be allowed to contribute value to discussions in the DXdao forum?” Y/N

This DAO decision point only comes at the time when a proposal is made. Hence, why all of this discussion is built up and coming now around these proposals.

Well, if the DAO voted “No” on a proposal, “Should Contributor X remain an active contributor at DXDao…”, then it would be a clear signal that any retroactive worker proposal from that contributor claiming compensation for work after the proposal’s passing date should not be accepted. Until they made a new, forward-looking proposal that was accepted, that is. Think of it like (perhaps temporarily) firing someone vs. the situation now of letting them keep coming in to work without having the right contract.

That being said, the above isn’t a replacement for people doing their proposals on time - as you mention, it’s still a necessity for people to communicate their responsibilities on time. It’s simply an additional remedy for the DAO to make clear that a retroactive proposal will not be accepted for a certain contributor from that point forward. Thus forcing them to stop working without a contract and catch up on proposals.