I’d like to use this thread to open a discussion around the rewards in the TEC coming from the praise and future SourceCred.
The topics i’d like to discuss and open to discuss other topics not considered in this first thread:
What would be a metric to say our contributions are accurate:
The quantification process is based on subjective data evaluation by a decentralized pool of quantifiers who may or may not be in the know of things happening in the TEC. I suggest we have a feature after the praise result on the praise dashboard where the reward board and quantifiers express their satisfaction with the result and if it passes a certain threshold we move on with the distribution. This would be a pain in the ass especially at the beginning would make things slow down but could enforce a solution faster since distributing rewards is a priority.
In the same lines a flag system would be nice where every community member can look at the final distribution and signal if they think themselves or someone was under or over valued. We could use this data to improve next quantifications. If the flagging is above a certain threshold, distributions could be paused for review and re-quantification.
What’s the ultimate goal of the reward system?:
Another discussion is what is the end goal of the reward system? Do we want to reward all contributions to the TEC and use the Gardens only for TE proposals and exclude working group funding? Or do we want to use praise as a bonus on compensations? (compensations that have been already paid)
This also leads to another question: should contributors receiving funds from the Gardens or will Working Group budgets also be rewarded by the reward system? In the past we were deducting people who had a salary so praise was rewarding people doing actual work in the DAO without any compensation and compensated people had a 75% deduction on its praise. This method had some conflicts but, if we keep rewarding everyone the same, the pie is eaten by the people who already have their piece from regular stipends or salaries, which means contributors that are doing work and are not receiving a salary are getting a very small reward since majority of it is going to paid contributors as a bonus.
For me the quick solution regarding that matter since the praise is not giving satisfying results based on what is praised, who is praised/praising, how much is allocated and by whom, for now would be to reward working groups by conviction voting, if the community thinks they are necessary will pass it and if not, not. The reason is because if some operations we think are important we shouldn’t take the risk of people leaving because the reward system is not paying for it but at the same time people being paid i feel it shouldn’t get any reward (10% max). It would create an interesting opportunity to go all in on rewards since the pie is not being eaten by a couple of full time contributors, that means praise could potentially be attractive again.