Feeling very good about this proposal! I can sense the amount of work that went into it, and it feels in-line with conversations/sentiment in the community. The plan outlined seems feasible, and I think it will get us where we want to go as an org. Including making space for emergence and pivoting as we cohere around structure.
A few concerns/suggestions:
I think Cred is the best starting point for defining membership. It provides a relatively credibly neutral reference point. The Cred scores are temporarily “whack”, but not due to limitations in the core algorithm (CredRank). This is more due to recent volatility and attrition, lack of support/training around props/didathings for new people, frustration with props/didathings generally under CredRank (CredEquate is designed to be better at this, but will not be ready to carry weight for a few weeks as we experiment and learn). That said, Cred scores don’t have to be perfect here. Or even good. Just get us a general sense of who has been contributing over the last couple months. I plan to create some charts of people’s Cred over the last couple months using the old instance (CredRank), and post them here later today or tomorrow. Potentially reducing weight on props/didathing to capture engagement on other, more active channels. I suspect there will be a clear threshold for defining temporary membership. Or at least get us 80% there, and give folx a starting place to weigh in with other factors.
I think this will work OK considering our relatively high trust group. I also trust the care team’s deep experience in need-based systems (mutual aid, etc.). Apparently people just saying the number they need is an efficient, effective method. I am wary of people being able to accurately estimate their level of engagement/attention in the future however. DAOs generally (and SC is more of a DAO than most DAOs, even it it doesn’t call itself that), are struggling with retention and accountability. Even when offering high/stable salaries, retention is difficult. Given the freedom to contribute to an exploding universe of DAOs, people bounce around. They’re also humans in a stressful environment. They run into mental health issues, take mental health days/weeks, have other unexpected life events, have changes of heart about the project, etc. Even with good faith estimates (which I think we can assume here with current contributors), I worry we’ll see some cases where we significantly overpay people that don’t work, and underpay those that work more than expected. This imbalance is often unpleasant for everybody, and in the past (at SC and in other DAOs I’ve witnessed) I’ve seen this reliably give rise to people expressing guilt that they are overpaid or resentment that others are overpaid. SourceCred’s superpower is accurately paying retrospectively, based on community consensus. I think that over time this provides stronger guarantees of contributors being fairly rewarded, and over time provides more stability. I would propose we do this experiment, as meeting basic needs and providing stability is our most pressing priority. But suggest we either:
a) Be ready to adjust/pivot to other formulas (e.g. higher base-line UBI for people that show steady contribution).
b) Accept that for the length of this trial payouts are going to be noisy, and do a good job communicating that to participants and managing expectations.
Bi-weekly? We’ve been doing weekly for a couple months now due to general volatility, and wanting to ease anxiety from contributors with less financial stability. I think we’ve accomplished that. But I suggest decreasing frequency moving forward. Coordinating payouts has very high coordination costs, from high-context individuals that are already doing a lot of other things and facing burnout. Typically payouts in companies and DAOs go out monthly. We’ve been fairly generous with our airdrops, and I think it’s reasonable to expect people have a longer than a week’s runway at this point. If they don’t, people in acute need have access to mutual aid, which afaik has been active and functional.