Financial Proposal: Increase monthly allocation for the Executive Sub DAO members

Problem: Here is something we can all agree on - burnout.

Solution: My response to that burnout was dGov my attempt to decentralise my work within the ESD. I experienced a problem and created a proposal to address it. Same here above with @daniel-ospina leadership and your support.

Problem: All three of us [ESD] are perceived as the “enemy” at times, it seems inherent in the role which lacks any visibility into the time we put into this. I can see this with

  • imo failed to coordinape funding efforts and
  • the disparity that comes with the security of fixed remuneration via AA and
  • the privilege your role affords in terms of building context and access to information

Solution: Suggest a % reduction of DAO rewards in some way [TBD] proportionate to the AA-funded role.

Problem: I am aware of my characteristic tendency to focus on what we can improve (performance-driven orientation) versus what is already very good, as seen here.

Solution: I am sorry that I failed to communicate that I greatly value working with you Ivan and for the record, I believe

  • you are mission-critical to the success of this DAO

  • you informed my understanding of transparency - easy access to clear, concise information

  • you have modelled this well and delivered processes to help guide transparency throughout the community

  • you proposed dTech, the DAO’s first great success story

  • I value your pragmatic approach

  • I value that we have diverse perspectives and different approaches to the ESD role.

  • I will always return to Gall’s law, thanks to you

  • I am reliant on you to call me out when I make things too complex

  • I see you as being well-positioned AA <> AN DAO to progress needed change

  • I hope you will lead the efforts to build diverse stakeholder representation for decentralised governance

  • I do not see you as the enemy - @fartunov @daniel-ospina @AlexClay @Shawncubbedge @Blockchainlore @mheuer @b3n @Anthony.Leuts @alibama - more my comrade in arms, because it often feels like a battle.

Also for the record, strategic alignment is something we ask of all proposal authors, the documents @joeycharlesworth supplied were the key source of strategic alignment and his feedback provided me with the most overall support in the authoring of those proposals.

Problem: I value your work within the ESD because I have visibility into your contributions and experience of the time and effort it requires. However, the community does not have that visibility. While I did not raise the question of the value you add I do propose a


Problem: I do and will always struggle with anyone that poses problems without a solution.
Solution: can we perhaps agree that in raising problems we also present at least one solution, so that we can focus on the solution vs the problem AND take responsibility for actioning the solutions we suggest


To Alex’s point, the lines are becoming blurred which is a good thing!

Problem: I do not see zero-funding as the right solution for @fartunov @AlexClay @b3n @mheuer @jessicasmith anyone operating across multiple teams. Given we are trying to encourage people to transition toward the DAO from the AA there’s a desperate need to solve the issue of fair contributor rewards. This is certainly not a problem I can solve. I know DAO compensation is something high on @b3n radar I know this is something @daniel-ospina has done a tonne of research and work around too.

Solution: As discussed at this morning’s ESD General Meeting the ESD have agreed to release short term (S1) funding for strategic hires and to secure external expertise. We see @b3n as having the highest context and people expertise to identify the right people for the role(s).

Problem: Opting out of Coordinape circles - so as not to accrue rewards - also disrupts the ability to fairly allocate funding proportionately to the help I receive from all DAO participants. We need people like @Alex @fartunov @mheuer in these circles at times. Zero rewards provide no incentive to participate and help to reward and express gratitude for others.

Question: Where people do not participate, should that funding remain unspent or be divided proportionately to the allocated GIVE?

Solution: the ESD has in past discussed a percentage decrease of around 50% in the DAO awarded funding. In the case of a coordinape circle, this would reduce by 50% the reward allocation with the other 50% divided proportionately to the other participants?

Can we test this idea @AlexClay @fartunov @daniel-ospina both the dGov advisory and ESD circles are on hold awaiting clarification to progress reward allocation.

1 Like

Thanks for this @lee0007 I am happy to test the proposal and see how we go. I agree it is not efficient to opt out as it will skew the results. Agree on urgently solving the compensation problem and great to hear we are looking for experts on it!

1 Like

I don’t have anything else to add here other than I have found the Executive SubDAO to be doing a great job and would like to extend gratitude to @fartunov @daniel-ospina and @lee0007 for their efforts, especially given the limited compensation they have received to date, and I feel what is being requested is more than fair all considered.

I believe there is a great and urgent need to work out and clarify compensation and benefits across the DAO as the merge draws near. I understand @b3n is working on this and I look forward to hear more as this process gets underway.


Thanks to @AlexClay @Ricktik6 advice we have provided a standard for coordinape allocation testing which can be found here

1 Like

@fartunov @daniel-ospina shall we move this to vote?


Think this is ready for a vote @lee0007, I am happy to post it for you as a group as well.

Thanks Alex! @fartunov said he will post thursday

1 Like

For transparency, in light of the Coordinape circle slashing for AA team members I am revoking this statement and will be accepting the ESD fixed pay if the vote passes


Indeed I will

The technical issue is resolved. The proposal is going online in 5 min:
Aragon Voice

I see the vote does not include the performance requirement as I did not update the proposal.

For transparency during the vote are we agreed that

  1. under performance will impact the final payment each month and
  2. individual responsibility to report against KPIs?

CC @fartunov @daniel-ospina

@lee0007 FOR performance-based reward

Hey, yes indeed. As we discussed on one of the ESD AMAs the first message constitutes the proposal, the rest is discussion. As the update/change was not reflected I did not take the liberty to include it into the vote

1 Like

doesn’t seem like my kinda basic questions were worth answering directly… idk = whatevs?

Yes not in vote
Yes was left out that’s why it’s not included
Yes agreed to performace based funding and individual monthly reporting

Can I get a simple for or against please. Just to be super clear

ESD End of Month individual reporting to improve transparency as requested by community members on this forum

cc @alibama @Anthony.Leuts @fartunov @daniel-ospina

1 Like

I agree with all 3. Let’s discuss on the call today if the KPIs remain as stated or should be adjusted (they were defined as group performance)

1 Like

I fully support this proposal, the effort that ESD has put on a huge number of proposals is cristal clear and that should be equally compensated, retroactively.
I also agree with the suggestion of @alibama of including @Shawncubbedge and @SpectraCryptoVerse into the ESD

1 Like

Agreed on all 3. As discussed in the call we just had, this reporting is tripling the admin work but is 1) probably a necessary step until we can define better mechanisms and 2) shows our willingness to provide transparency to the community.

1 Like

Vote Passed: Aragon Voice

@Ricktik6 please take this in to account for this month