It’s been almost a month since the last emergency airdrop and there are still many decisions to be made about the very critical Funding Allocation Proposal that @rachel has put a ton of effort into putting together. In the meantime, we need money to bridge the time gap until next steps are decided upon collectively. So! @ezraU and @zevi propose an airdrop!
Previous airdrops have calculated payout based on cred scores. This makes sense… when the cred scores are accurate. Right now, our cred scores are wildly out of whack. People haven’t been doing did-a-things or props very much, so the algorithm isn’t actually representing the profound work that’s been happening around here lately. Using those systems to accurately account for work done over the past month would require a ton of work, and after it’s done we would probably still need to tweak the numbers.
We’re about to jump into a new CredSperiment involving a new algorithm and need-based payment. And in the spirit of becoming scientists together, we thought, “why not try a different system for this airdrop?” SO…
We propose a mutual aid-based model.
We propose a one-time airdrop distributing a total of $40,000 USDC to all contributors who opt-in by the end of day Sunday 2/27. (This is effectively payment for the month of February at a rate of $10,000 per week for all 4 weeks.) The airdrop would occur on Monday, February 28th, 2022 and would distribute $40k of the $200k of bridge funding from PL. By Ezra’s calculations, this would leave a remaining $51k unallocated from the bridge funding. Due to gas fees, no amount under $150 will be paid. This airdrop would not initially be accounted for on the SourceCred instance ledger, but will be added retroactively later.
Figuring out how much each contributor gets paid is going to look different under this model.
All contributors who opt in need to fill out this form by the end of day Sunday 2/27. The form asks about your current level of need, the work you have done over the past 4 weeks, and what amount of money feels fair to receive with both these factors in mind. Then, we will have a meeting to discuss these numbers to make sure everyone knows what’s up.
If the total comes out below $40k – huzzah, everyone above the cutoff gets an equal share of the leftover money! If the total comes out above $40k, we could either (a) ask people with the highest numbers if they can drop their numbers, or (b) take an equal proportion of the excess out of each person’s cut.
[Example: There will be an airdrop of $40,000. Contributors A, B, and C work at SourceCred. A asks for $20,000; B asks for $15,000; C asks for $10,000. That’s $45,000 total. By percentage of that sum, A asked for 44%; B for 33%; and C for 22%. Since the sum is over the payout amount ($40,000), they would instead get that percentage of the payout. This would come out to A getting $17,600; B getting $13,200; and C getting $8,800.]
Option B isn’t great, but it’s better than doing an equal cut.
This system is… overall, not great. It’s pretty susceptible to bad actors. Hence, the meeting. If this weren’t a high-trust group, I wouldn’t suggest it. But people need to be paid, and using cred scores would, in Ezra’s opinion, be using a veneer of authority and still get us bullshit numbers. I’m excited to start the experiment outlined by Rachel’s proposal, and thereby build better systems.
This is not a ratified proposal. It’s a little slapdash, and until/unless it is ratified, it is open to change via feedback. Other proposals are also possible. If you aren’t in favor of this, please propose changes or an alternate proposal.