Hey Givethers… In this months payment processing thread, it was proposed to make Regular Reward Traces on various Campaigns within the Giveth DAC that has ETH in it, to use it up.
This caught me off guard as the Campaign Owner for the RewardDAO, which is an active Campaign with funds dedicated to ‘Irregular’ Rewards. It is still being used to reward contributors that provide services of value beyond the standard SourceCred/PAN payouts and outside of Regular Rewards, unlike the Social Coding and GrantOps Campaigns which are defunct.
It is not clear to me if this decision is to use up all the ETH because we need to, in order to pay everyone this month, or if there’s an intention to simply pay out all the ETH because going forward we will only use GIV. Either way, it strikes me as short-sighted to not have any ETH in Giveth coffers at all, as there are a variety of scenarios that I can imagine where a need for Giveth to pay something/ someone in ETH would arise, and the RewardDAO would be a likely place to fund such a trace.
I think it is within the Governance Circle jurisdiction to make this decision, and I also think it’s important that the decision be one made consciously and transparently so I bring it here to you:
Close RewardDAO, we have new ways to reward contributors with GIV going forward.
Keep RewardDAO, use up all the ETH in it, and convert to giving only GIV.
Keep RewardDAO, use all the ETH, swap GIV for ETH if needed in the future.
Keep RewardDAO and some ETH, use part of it to pay Reg Rewards.
Keep all the ETH in the RewardDAO for intended use.
Great question! I agree there’s definitely a lot of common-sense value in holding some ETH for any instance where we would need to reward someone denominated in crypto other than GIV.
On top of that there is a huge amount of speculative value as well to hold onto this ETH and it could be worth exploring to hold a diverse RewardDAO treasury of different tokens in the future.
I think keeping the rewardDAO open as a campaign is a good idea but we really don’t need to keep the ETH in it… if in the future we need ETH for some reason or another we can get it some other way. I guess by selling GIV (though I don’t think this is the best idea)… or from donations… from Gitcoin, direct donations to our project on io or TRACE… there are always solutions…
Since I started working here our payments really have been predominately coming from Santa… like, didn’t that ETH in there also come from Santa? it seems very logical to use money previously donated by Santa for funding Giveth to… fund Giveth…
Launching the GIVeconomy will be an important step in making this entire system more sustainable, and in the meantime we should try to use what we got already in Giveth, rather than make it necessary to ask for more.
I think we could reasonably use the ETH in the Giveth 2 campaign for starters for this, cover next month, and then perhaps by then we will have launched the GIVeconomy and not need to touch RewardDAO… but if we have another month… we should use the RewardDAO funds for contributors before we move into this next phase.
yeah I allowed 2 choices out of interest in the fact that you can do that, and it’s a neat option that falls somewhere between single vote and ranked choice!
Donors who give to a Campaign always have the option of rejecting a Trace delegation, and yes most of funding Giveth has come from Santa.
However, using funds from RewardDAO to pay salaries is not logical at all. It’s actually quite wishy-washy to overrule the Dapps designed protocol for transparent accountability, where a Campaign has a stated purpose, and the funds donated to that Campaign are allocated for that purpose. I think it would set a poor precedent to say that all funds from Santa are to fund Giveth, so lets just use what we have where ever it is, for that very generalized purpose.
By that thinking I might as well make my Governance Trace on Dapp Development, because it’s still all Giveth and funds in both places came from the same donor. But funds in the Dapp Dev Campaign, are for DEVELOPMENT. And Amin runs that Campaign and has a budget for his Circle and that’s what those funds were placed there to cover.
If it is decided that in order to cover salaries, we need to re-allocate funds from RewardDAO, then the transparent and accountable solution would be for me as Campaign Manager to create a Trace that gives the funds back to the Giveth DAC to then have it delegated for this different intent in the appropriate Campaign.
Anything other than that is hacking the system. So if we do it, we would have to clearly state that we are hacking the system, and reference where we decided to do so (here)!
Well it seems really like the system is being revamped and reorganized a lot as per today’s gov call… and I think at this moment in time before the GIV launch it makes sense to use ETH we have in our Campaigns to pay our people rather than needing more ETH from Santa. And in the future, if we keep the rewardDAO open as-is… we put GIV in it for those one-off contributors as needed…
So then the re-allocation to the Giveth DAC maybe makes the most sense, unless it leads to us paying more gas to move things around.
We’re making a new system, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cleaning up what we had previously, and archiving them. I hear you on “hacking the system” and I think it’s nice to have things clear, organized and trasnparent… so we could also clean out those funds, make a note/comment, archive the rewardDAO and start a new on our new terms.
Also…
Donors to Communities have the option to reject a delegation whereas donors directly to a Campaign do not.
Nothing’s wrong with hacking the system, but yeah I guess I would love not to fork out a bunch of ETH to pay people if Giveth has the money and a path to sustainability.
Would it be a hack to reward me as a contributor for all my efforts using Reward DAO :-D? I don’t get paid anything.
Maybe even retroactively! I don’t think Giveth has paid me for years.
