This period was one of the most hectic and stressful periods for me contributing to DXdao.
A lot of time went to conflict resolution and meetings with individuals. We also had to make some tough choices in regards to the Recontructioning of DXdao where Swapr Budget is one of the main focuses. Read more about it here
The Nimi time split sure didn’t help the case here. I had to work nights and weekends to keep up. Let’s hope for less drama and more effectiveness in the next couple of months.
What you’ve listed seems like deliverables for the team. What were your specific contributions beyond the few designs shown above, attending ETHCC, and some SEO optimization? I don’t think DXdao drama is really an excuse for not delivering, at least if you are expecting to get paid.
You have removed me on both keybase and twitter. You deleted all our convo history. You ignored me twice on devcon while I tried to be a bigger person to just say hello to you. If you have something to say, just say it. I’m tired of your games and drama John. If you don’t like what i’m delivering to the DAO, please reflect that on your vote and stop wasting more of my time like you have done the last couple of months.
Not really sure what my chat app hygiene or perceived attentiveness at devcon have to do with your worker proposal, but I already asked the question Zett. What contributions have you made in these three months working for DXdao? I see a few design screens, SEO optimization, attending ETHCC, and I suppose some Q4 planning Swapr Q4 2022 plan. Whatever the underlying cause, it seems like there is a lack of productivity from you.
It would be great if we could keep the conversation focused on your worker proposal and not resort to ad hominem.
Level K voted against Zett’s worker proposal here:
If instead of addressing questions and/or criticism, the answer is simply to say “go ahead and vote against me, I dare you” . . . . then perhaps this reflects that DXdao governance has been captured by self entitled “contributors” . . . I hope this is not the case and that others join Level K in opposing this proposal until it is demonstrated that an appropriate amount of work has been done. As far as I can tell, there is not more than 2 weeks worth of work to show for these three months of contributions, namely the designs shown above, attending ETHCC, and some SEO optimization. It’s quite possible that Zett did other work that amounts to three months of contributions, and just hasn’t shown that here, in which case Level K would be happy to vote in favor of the proposal once those contributions are demonstrated.
Slight detour here (especially from @jujusenpai 's post!), but I’ve a question on the Nimi side of things?
My understanding was that contributors would be spend part of their time on Nimi (40% in this case) and submit their requests for compensation from the DAO for the remaining percentage that was spent on DXdao functions only.
Which would mean Sept portion of this worker proposal would be at 60% compensation, but text above mentions full time compensation and doesn’t seem to specify.
I might have this wrong, just wanted to ask here and see if someone can clarify? Also I would assume if someone’s spending 60% time on DXdao, they’d receive compensation in the form of salary at 60% but also DXD bonus at 60% too, right?
Original proposal was up to 40% of their time on Nimi, with no limit at 6 months and made clear that the 40% of time wasn’t at the DAO’s expense (DAO only paying for 60% compensation in the example given in the original proposal).
The proposal that went on-chain added “up to 6 months”. I would have taken that to mean the part-time Nimi part-time DXdao set up would last only 6 months. Not that we’d fund the development of a project we have only a 10% allocation in to the tune of 6 months salaries plus $100k.
If it were the case that we’d agreed to fund 6 months salaries, then the final proposal would have actually increased DXdao’s potential investment in return for the same 10%. Assuming Zett, Adam, and Dave are on $9,000 per month and Milan on $6,000; then 40% for 6 months is $79,200. We dropped $50,000 off the initial investment in return for paying $79,200 in salaries funded? Surely not.
And then lastly, even if that was the case. Why would we be paying out 100% DXD bonuses that each of these latest worker proposals are requesting. Surely that’s an oversight. I struggle to see the rationale for why 40% of the time spent on an external project would be rewarded with DXD bonuses… Same goes for REP but less of an issue with that.
That’s a fair point on my comment on increasing funding for the same % (though 5% wasn’t included in the original proposal).
Still don’t read the on-chain proposal as having clearly signaled 6 months funding. Would seem to suggest 6 month cap to the half in half out structure. And for incubation support there’s a whole lot of non-financial support that the proposal specified below.
This may have been discussed privately and intended to mean full financial support. If that was the case I wish it had been more public and clear-cut. I was more cautious than some about Nimi from the outset, and would have been doubly so if those are the terms we actual meant to commit to.
@Zett, @dlabs, @adamazad and @Milanv95 as the Nimi team, in your views should DXD bonuses and REP both be paid out at 100% for Nimi work? Or was the intent to limit the 6 months support to salaries?
Already we see people voting for Zett’s payout without further discussion or justification. Starts to call into question whether there’s a tacit culture of unquestioning support of contributor payouts, regardless of the quality or even quantity of work. Where’s the accountability here?