Following the GOV call on August 15th we touched on the topic of how to decide what makes a contributor eligible for vesting.
Currently we have two metrics we generally follow to decide an eligible contributor.
- Do they have a role proposal?
- Have they requested nrGIV in the latest quarterly distribution?
This used to be pretty easy, according to the presence of one or both of these metrics and our general awareness of our small group of contributors we could define contributors eligible for vesting.
Now that we’ve begin to grow this is getting a bit more blurry. I have identified two edge cases:
How to deal with contributors who have a role proposal, are eligible for nrGIV, but didn’t request any?
How to deal with contributors who don’t have a role proposal, didn’t ask for nrGIV in the latest round but still sort of do work for Giveth?
As @freshelle mentioned the base metric for a regular contributor is the presence of a role proposal, which going forward is a very clear signal. However we have some core members who have been a part of Giveth for a while and were assigned a vesting stream according to our original vesting plan but don’t ask for nrGIV nor have a role proposal, do we assume to end those vesting streams?
Secondly the important role of nrGIV is to signal a base level of engagement in Governance. Contributors with role proposals and have been contributing a minimum of 3 months are eligible for nrGIV, which is distributed quarterly.
If a contributor has a role proposal but doesn’t ask for nrGIV should we automatically give them nrGIV? Should we require them to have asked for nrGIV in the latest distribution?
Many many questions! Looking to collect feedback!
Send reminders on Discord tagging them, link to a doc with instructions on how to claim their nrGIV. If they don’t do it on time, they missed it and should be able to do it next time.
If a contributor has a role proposal but doesn’t ask for nrGIV should we automatically give them nrGIV?
No, I think that should be their own effort.
Should we require them to have asked for nrGIV in the latest distribution?
There was a use case where Mateo (I think) asked retroactively, that was reasonable but I wouldn’t make this become a common practice.
- How to deal with contributors who don’t have a role proposal, didn’t ask for nrGIV in the latest round but still sort of do work for Giveth?
Can you define “sort of do work for Giveth?” Are we talking about OG unicorns?
However we have some core members who have been a part of Giveth for a while… but don’t ask for nrGIV nor have a role proposal, do we assume to end those vesting streams?
I wouldn’t end those streams. They are always welcome to join again and become a regular contributor.
Getting a stream wile actively working on Giveth stuff? IE: when they stop working on Giveth, the stream stops?
I have 2 suggestions for this
- If nrGIV tokens are absolutely required for vesting (those voluntarily requested), then these contributors shouldn’t be eligible for vesting at all.
- If nrGIV tokens are not a hard requirement, then maybe they can get vesting but only a portion/precentage of what they would have received if they had nrGIV tokens.
The requirement on nrGIV tokens makes me think on what is the purpose of the vesting. Who are we rewarding? If we grant vesting to those who actively participate in governance decisions, then nrGIV tokens that are asked voluntarily during distributions should be required.
For me, no. Being an nrGIV token holder is a responsibility, so I think this should be voluntarily requested.
No. Requiring them to ask for nrGIV tokens would mean requiring them to participate in governance decisions. If they missed the nrGIV distribution despite the numerous reminders in discord and calls, then I don’t think they would have the commitment to vote on important decisions.