Yeah! We have a funny rep decay… we go with inflation instead of demurrage. In our repDAO, rGIV, we issue a larger quantity of tokens every 3 months so that the people that contributed always have some voice, but it’s power decays over time… and each new contributor has a little less than 1/2 the tokens that the old contributors have.
1 Like
I feel like making a new post might just be making more work and there is a lot of info in this thread…
I love the abstain idea tho! We should have that in EVERY poll!
I’m taking the do-ocracy approach and making a new poll and then going to DM it to everyone… as that is just what it takes to get people to vote, and it’s blocking us from finishing the airdrop list!
- Include Vesting for Current Contributors
- Break the Current Contributor bucket into 3 buckets - Current,
- Abstain
0 voters
1 Like
I’m totally confused now and I read this thread 5 times. I’m not ready to vote.
2 Likes
Include Vesting for Contributors
This would mean that we lock in distributions for Current Contributors now (~3.5% of the Token Supply) and they would be given out over time. If people stop contributing they lose the allocation.
Split into 3 buckets
This would mean that we separate that 3.5% into 3 buckets.
- The Past Contributors for the last 6 months,
- The Launch Team
- Future contributors
1 Past Contributors for the last 6 months: This is the people that worked with Giveth since the Past Contributors Bucket was solidified. Anyone working in the last 6 mo would get some of this bucket.
2 The Launch Team: The core team taking GIV to the Moon! 
The team that is here right now for this critical moment in Giveth History!
3 Future Contributors: Future contributors already have 4% allocated to it, we would increase that and probably use it to reward people as we go? We haven’t put thought into how we use this bucket yet, honestly… but it would probably be
used for bonuses and some of that would be streamed.
PSYCH! They would both have about the same outcome
Effectively the first one is just the second one but not split out as far as tokens go… but there is the negative framing of Vesting… in the second one, there isn’t vesting, we just reduce the number of tokens allocated and give more tokens later.
2 Likes
Ahh I thought I understood as well but now I’m a bit confused too. Rereading again… But thank you for the latest summary Griff
Uhhhhhh. 
I’m seriously baffled by what is happening here. These options do not seem to reflect what is being conveyed by Mitch to which I am becoming quite sympathetic at this point. There is already a future contributor bucket, and the concern seems to be about what the requirements are for a current contributor now that some who contributed then aren’t here now.
Or is it that we allocated too much to the present and not enough to the future?
Splitting into 3 buckets then giving part of what is now “Current Contributor” allocation over to “Future Contributors” is just a change in allocation that would imply we are rewarding too highly the people who have contributed to “Giveth 2 and Trace” since we resumed… and need to save more for people who stick around or come in later. But I haven’t heard that stated, at all.
I think this missed the intention as I interpret it from this sentence " it seems unfair for the contributors no longer supporting us to get the same reward". In the process of trying to make it more fair by incentivizing those still here, it feels more like we’re penalizing ourselves instead by putting these ‘golden handcuffs’ on each other - we now HAVE to stay in order to receive what was already given for getting Giveth this far.
What about voting to move the dates for what is a current contributor vs. past contributor, is that not possible? I think I kind of assumed we would do that anyways depending how long it took us to launch the token.
2 Likes
Personally, I think moving dates for what is a current versus past contributor given how much more work has done in the interim might make sense and solve the problem as well… could we see that reflected as an option too?
1 Like
I had some discussion with Griff about this issue face-to-face and I definitely can see that from certain perspectives there is value in having vesting. However still, laying out the arguments I’m still in favour of a solution that doesn’t include vesting. I would propose that for simplicity’s sake we split the contributors airdrop into 2 buckets (which is really just one bucket):
- Past Contributors (Including the Launch Team, since everything you’ve done to launch Giveth still, technically, is in the past.)
- Future Contributors (A revamped RewardDAO system or something akin)
Past Contributors
Past Contributors have put in the time to build the dapp(s) and the culture that many of us inherited when joining Giveth. They laid the foundation that we walk on now and even though they have left (for any number of reasons) that work still contributed to the org and in part contributed to the success of our GIV launch. Not having these tokens vested will help our active contributors fully participate in liquidity mining, GIVstaking and GIVgardens autonomously. ( and thus help us transition from the rGIV DAO faster).
Weighing out who gets what shouldn’t look much different from what Griff proposed and any objections to the amounts given should be raised, be dealt with and voted on (I prefer rGIV DAO for security reasons), the advantage of being a current contributor is that you have the social influence and relationships with your colleagues to get a favourable airdrop. The ones who have left, even if they return to participate in the discussion, do not have the social captial (nor perhaps the rGIV) to hold as much sway over our decisions. The people on this list should be dropped the tokens they are allocated without any vesting besides the regular GIVstream (90% vested over 5 years).
Future Contributors
Future Contributors should include current contributors as they continute to contribute and any newcomers who join the team. If regular payments are being switched to GIV then why have the redundant layer of vested GIV being distributed as well? To make it more comprehensive we could add a percentage of the airdrop to the RewardDAO. At any rate if you work for Giveth you should get just compensation. The mission of our organization, the strength of our social fabric and how fairly we pay people should be the incentives we rely on to retain contributors, not witholding airdrop tokens.
In Sum
Why should current contributors get fat stacks (to the amount we could consider it a threat if they ragequit) of airdrops because they happened to show up at the right place at the right time? If the value of someone’s work increases then they should get rewarded more, just as in any workplace when receiving a raise. I think by merging the past/current contributor allocations and upgrading our RewardsDAO we can settle the airdrop in a timely fashion (without vesting), allow current contributors to fully leverage the GIVeconomy and ensure we have strong, positive, incentives to retain contributors.
2 Likes
Honestly I thinking keeping the allocations as they are (with the adjustments made recently to add people and reorganize) and adding vesting is the simplest, most efficient and fairest solution. Here’s why:
- Right now we have ~3.5% of the token being allocated the this “current contributors” bucket, meaning that people who are contributing a lot now (but in some cases are relatively new) are getting allocations that are pretty similar to big past contributors
I think the work we’re doing now to launch the economy is extremely important and we’re growing super fast, and because of the evolution of Giveth, it could be argued that this current contributions are more valuable than some of the past contributions… but I still don’t think that 1 year in “current” times should be akin to 3 years in the “past”. Leaving the allocations as they are and eliminating vesting is saying as much… that our scrappy and helpful current contributors of <1 yr are deserving of more tokens than Giveth founders who worked >3 years fulltime laying the foundation.
If we remove vesting it would be reasonable to argue that we should completely revamp the allocations for current contributors. That sounds like an unnecessary amount of additional work, and already a lot of work went into creating the current allocations… so it’s like throwing out all of that careful attention and thought.
- We have not developed a good system for how “future contributors” GIVdrop GIV will be distributed and that unknown creates an potential inefficiency in awarding governance power (i.e. GIV) to relevant people in the near future (i.e. our current contributors every day past the GIVdrop snapshot)
By adding vesting we are basically setting up a future rewards program… assuming that our current contributors stay on to the same capacity… but instead of calling it “future rewards” we’re just calling it vesting.
If we change (i.e. reduce) the allocations for current contributors and have no vesting… awesome people who are working here now and are familiar with how things work will not have a clear allocation of GIV in order to help steward decisions that support of common future vision… and instead we’ll really have to figure out a good way of distributing the “future contributors” bucket and it should arguably start right after the GIVdrop… so I really think that if we had no vesting we’d need to put energy into developing this system an having it start at the same moment as the snapshot…
Also, to your comment @mitch
Regular payments are the salary people need to live on… They need that to eat and pay rent… so it’s not fair to assume this is like giving them more GIV to hold and use in governance (and later project curation, etc.). The extra vested GIV is like proportionate influence in the GIV ecosystem being allocated to people who are contributing to building and understanding the ecosystem. It’s the difference between giving influence to stewards and giving money to people to support themselves.
SO
TL;DR
-
Our current contributors are really valuable and it’s reasonable to expect that many of us will stay on and keep building Giveth.
-
Current contributors should really get allocated a good chunk of GIV to use to govern Giveth because we have the best concept of what’s going on here.
-
It’s not fair to give fatstacks to our current superstars that are similar in amount to people like founders, original builders, biggest donors, etc. without vesting because the current allocation imo is to a significant degree based on “current level of activity and projected future performance” and not necessarily “contributions to date”
-
GIVdrop is very different from GIV being earned as salary - the former is more akin to “influence as a steward” whereas the latter is more akin to “food on the table”
5 Likes
For me it is hard to pick! I agree to Bowen, to delete vesting and make it simpler and clearer with three buckets . The main purpose of vesting is to encourage people to remain active and contribute to the community which can be done by other means and it is already considered on the future bucket I guess.
As Lauren mentioned this is a reward not “food on table” salary, however it should be generated fairly, people get rewarded for what they’ve done so far and got voting power It takes some time to apply Bowen’s suggestion.
On the other hand, if it it needs too much effort and takes too much time, we can play with percentages on upfront airdrops and streaming to make it fairer.
Anyways, if you guys don’t mind, can you please elaborate more with a use case or scenario like what Griff did at the beginning but compare it in both cases, so make it clearer?
I love to contribute to this discussion but I’m not sure whether I got it right!
After reading this forum post a few times, I think the vesting idea makes sense for Giveth in terms of ensuring that people who are given power in steward decisions are going to be more aware of what is happening in Giveth and can make the most informed decisions.
One worry I have surrounding vesting: would it lower the current contributors influence earlier on, and give much higher weight to past contributors who don’t know as much about what is going on in our organization?
I also value what past contributors have done to get Giveth going and foster this community and lay the groundwork for out incredible organization. That should definitely not go unnoticed or unrewarded. However, I think that current contributors should be given a large enough portion to influence decisions somewhat equally to past contributors, but gain in influence over time, as we have the best idea of what is happening and can make more informed decisions that those who haven’t contributed in months or years. Due to this, I support vesting because I feel it accomplishes this objective. I also agree with what Lauren said here:
Regular payments are the salary people need to live on… They need that to eat and pay rent… so it’s not fair to assume this is like giving them more GIV to hold and use in governance (and later project curation, etc.). The extra vested GIV is like proportionate influence in the GIV ecosystem being allocated to people who are contributing to building and understanding the ecosystem. It’s the difference between giving influence to stewards and giving money to people to support themselves.
Regular payments are the salary, the vesting can increase the decision making power for those that are most involved - which I feel is the best for Giveth long term.
I don’t know how long I will be contributing to Giveth (I hope for a very long time, but we never know - none of us do), but having the tokens vested is still what I believe is best for Giveth and personally it does not make me feel trapped for financial incentive.
However, I also want to offer my perspective as a “cusp” contributor because others might also be in the same place. To this, I agree with Bowen’s call out of this issue:
The current contributors tension was generated by the time-lag between when we were supposed to launch the airdrop and where we find ourselves today. Having the hindsight to know where “current contributors” is now versus 5 months ago is a huge difference in mindset by the contributors in question.
The “current contributors” who are actively involved with the project now move to the “past contributors” list - since the tokens are already on a drip, it seems senseless to add the layer of complexity of an additional vesting layer to the contract(s) - even if it’s already built in”
I began contributing to Giveth (not full time but I attended many meetings and gave a decent amount of my free time to side projects) about 5 months ago. This was around when the current and past contributor lines were drawn. Where we are today, I feel like I have contributed to Giveth in the past and helped us get to where we are today. I understand our structure and how we work, and share our mission and values deeply. I use myself as an example of someone who joined on the “cusp” of where we drew the line, as others might be in a similar position. It seems that we are having “blocks” set people apart (past versus current contributors set apart by one date that occurred awhile ago) rather than something a little smoother to allow for those cusp cases, or people who have been contributing for months but receiving the same amount of steward influence as other contributors who have very recently started. Also thinking in terms of what is best for Giveth, it seems logical that those who contributed for longer understand our processes slightly more and should be allocated GIV that represents a proportionate influence in the GIV ecosystem and governance.
TL;DR:
What I believe to be the best for Giveth is…
Vest current contributors contributions because members remaining active will garner more governance influence and they will be the most knowledgable about what is going on in our ecosystem and which decisions we are making
Revisit the timeline from when we drew the line between past and current contributors to more accurately reflect today’s distribution. This could look like a more “smooth” distinction rather than a hard date of 5 months ago (perhaps diminishing past contributor rewards from 5 months ago to present), manual adjustments, or moving the date to a more recent one.
2 Likes
It’s true what you mention, I’m worried about how we’d execute it though. Manual adjustments sounds like it may bring A LOT of chaos to it. I’m interested in knowing more about that “smooth” distinction you mention. We should focus on the easiest and less troublesome solution. Any solution that we pick will have something to dislike.
I’d love to see a “skin in the game” measurement for this, it would solve all our problems 
is that a thing?
4 Likes
I Think we are hacking this distribution to satisfy 3 use cases.
Distro 1: “Recent” Contributors
I feel like a launch bonus for the current team is warranted… but that could be included as part of the “past” contributors bucket… which I would propose we call the “Recent” Contributors bucket.
The past contributors bucket was really well done by Dani, Bowen, Kris, Kay and myself… but it was done in March.
So the contributions after that… let’s call “Recent”, were voted on back in April and obviously need to be updated… I did that to the best of what I see, but I don’t see everything so I am open to re-voting on that. (DIFFERENT PROPOSAL)
Distro 2: Current Contributors @ Launch
Then Current Contributors at time of launch should get a nice reward for being part of that magical moment… but I don’t think it should be sooooo huge, right place right time shouldn’t be such a controlling stake if you just leave the next month.
Distro 3: Future Contributors
The rGIV DAO is where the “Old Guard” (Our Core Team) will continue to manage many token distributions so it makes sense for it also to manage future rewards to team members. I think its good to hook the crew up with GIV that is building our stuff, and every 3 months seems like a good cadence.
From on perspective its vesting, from another, its rewards… but the out come is the same, feels like framing more than anything (which is important!)
Bowen is proposing we separate all 3.
Mitch is proposing we combine Distro 1 and 2, to avoid the vesting framing.
I propose we leave it as is with all 3 combined since that’s how it is and requires no extra work. And then we don’t have to kick the can down the road for sorting out the future contributions for everyone that is already here… only new people we hire.
2 Likes
I don’t really understand the framing of these 3 buckets… so “recent contributors” still have vesting?
I do enjoy the idea of incentivizing rGIV holders to continue to steward the DAO, and the platforms and having an incentive to do so makes sense to me.
The “Recent Contributor” use case doesn’t need vesting, but it’s easy enough to loop it into the proposed system.
Thanks for linking this again, one quick question on it: Is column D or column B the total tokens we will end up receiving? Sorry for the confusion!
Other comments on this:
I agree here, I think right place right time shouldn’t be such a determinant and may not be best for Giveth.
This does seem to be framing more than I realized too so thanks for calling that out!
Does this mean the “recent contributors” (who are the past contributors currently) would follow a vesting schedule and if they left Giveth 3 months ago they have less tokens than they would now, or that they will receive the amount of tokens in the past/recent contributor bucket no matter what, but if they’re still contributing that vests?
I’m sorry for all of the questions and confusion! I think we’ll be able to clear a lot of it up when we’re all talking on our call today and can chat about it.
B is the amount they get from the bucket, D is this bucket and other buckets together.
Yes! Every person on the list (if we go with the vesting solution) will get a % at the launch and then a bit more every 3 mo if the rGIV considers them as contributors.
The total distribution they get will have this vesting, but it is likely many of them will lose the part that is vested and only get the part that is front loaded. Anything lost there will just be held by rGiv to go to other Future Contributors.
Closed the Poll, the people have spoken. let’s get this party started!
3 Likes