Like this idea. It’s similar to @kronosapiens’s proposed idea of subtracting salary from Grain, but by making it “additive” (Maker pays the difference if “base” SC pay is below salary), you don’t run into problems of theoretically negative pay, and framing SC as the “base” gets people used to thinking of SC as the foundation of a pay system, not just a bolt on.
On issue that makes solutions like this difficult for Maker (or any org that also has a traditional hierarchy/compensation structure), is one of privacy vs. transparency. I agree with @decentralion that an org having its Cred and Grain scores open like SC does, which is similar to having an open salary and cap table at a startup, is going to lead to a lot more equality generally. Studies have shown that companies with public salaries have smaller gender pay gaps. I mean, would we even be discussing salary caps if grain payments weren’t prominently displayed in our UI?
However, once people have financial privacy in this form, and are benefitting from it, financially and psychologically, taking it away is very difficult. There may be more benefits to all to use a more transparent system, but psychologically, we’re wired to experience loss as much more painful than gains. I think basically, we need to ease people into it. Slowly introduce SourceCred as a supplimental, bolt on benefit if need be. Then just wait for people to get “sorucepilled” and see the potential. Or not. It won’t be a fit for every org. But I’m confident that once people start seeing the benefits of a more transparent system in tangible, real ways, they’ll be more open to SourceCred generally.