I rather have 4 people being paid for having the âban hammerâ than +10 so the âban hammerâ doesnât get personal. If it gets personal then that person abusing his authority is just going to be replaced anyway so thatâs not really an argument.
3 people full time is enough to discord & telegram etc
The whole point of my post was to seperate different duties and not for you start auditioning for a Fauna role lol, when i used my 50 HNY to vote for the Buzz proposal it was not for you start mingling your Buzz role with Fauna so you are now in both swarms.
Payments for buzz dao admins i dont think are inclusive to any of the admin duties at the time. The differences which were stated above were:
I also want to mention in regards to Fauna duties, one thing that was mentioned in the meeting that came up was the differences between the buzz swarm and fauna swarms in terms of moderation. The buzz swarm will primarily be focused on introducing new members to the ecosystem, whereas Fauna members will be responsible for onboarding members, ensuring that new members are aware of what the 1Hive ecosystem has to offer, and where to find the necessary resources. While buzz can be focused on building the network and expanding it, Fauna needs to be there to help keep it glued together. I also know many other members have stepped up to help and provide help in terms of moderation, and that is fantastic. This is why we will continue to dedicate a portion of our funding to the community in support of everyone working together to grow the ecosystem.
If we consider buzz dao admin funding then each âmoderatorâ of the media channels was given 1-2HNY allocated for the 1st month. This was again retroactive payment for all the work the social admins did beforehand and never received payment for (as the buzz dao was in a proposal phase for a long time). Future payments will likely be based off of influence using metrics so there wont necessarily be a base or static pay for any of the members through the buzz dao (with the exception of club members).
We can look at restructuring more and improving efficiency in the fauna dao, but again i dont think the asking price is unreasonable. We may have to look at specifics about the funding that youâre not happy with as again it seems justified to me, or we may just not have your support on this matter.
Seems like ignoring 90% of my messages is the way here, and ofcourse you probably donât need my support anymore cause now Buzz & Fauna swarms should be able to gather 142HNY to pass the proposal right?
You already have 6 Fauna members in buzz swarm, soon weâll have 5 swarms that pay out HNY and weâll see Fauna members being in all 5 swarms and all proposals for the swarms will get supported by swarms only and pass just like that.
I donât think this was how it was suppose to go.
Good job Fauna has gotten strong enough to pass it own proposals.
I call this scamming with a friendly face.
I donât mean to ignore the rest of this thread, will try and comment on rest a bit later, but I think its absolutely unfounded and ridiculous to imply that anyone on the fauna team is in anyway a scammer.
Lol.
I hope I donât get in trouble for liking that, but I miss a lot of opportunities to sprinkle you with cred, and your inputs are constant, on point, and helpful.
Fauna = moderation
If there are people willing to do the moderation for less money and be available for more hours then those people should get rewarded because then less honey is going out of the common pool. If the current fauna members dont want to give their place up and give those people a chance because they are trying to protect their interests by being in multiple swarms and receiving as much as 8 hny in 1 month then thats scamming imo and they will only gain more power as they gain more hny and things will get worse in the future.
I know it seems like there isnât much to moderating social media, but moderation isnât just for when there are issues.
Moderation should be 24/7 across social all of our social media platforms.
If all Fauna does is moderate, then sure, 3 might be enough for two Twitters, two Instagrams, Discord, Discourse, Facebook group and Facebook page, LinkedIn, and Telegram, at the levels of engagement weâre at.
In the cryptosphere, however, things can get whack fast.
When we experience the another influx like the one I came in on 3 Fauna will be nowhere near enough, especially in the context of defi degens ( I the coin wen lambo crowd, donât misunderstand me).
It is better to err on the side of caution when managing crypto social.
As we get all of our social up-to-speed itâs going to be incredibly important to have a consistent presence on each and every platform.
Period.
Lack of response is definitely not The Look in the cryptosphere.
If your argument for being in 2 swarms at the same time is just in case we have another influx of people we need 11 Fauna members thats ridiculous. Then you need 3 Fauna members now and 7 on standby that get nothing until the influx is there.
Fauna members are not full time, and are not paid as if they are full time. I see/understand the points @linca is bringing up though and believe them to be legitimate concerns. I also find the fact that now it is largely possible for fauna to pass these proposals by themselves kind of weird. Perhaps @lkngtn has more thoughts on this, but I think it is enough of a concern that it may validate adjustments to how conviction voting works. The fact that we have to rely more on community norms and potential ostracization to prevent us/seeds/other future groups with relatively large stake in the project from creating cliques and abusing the system does not feel scalable.
All this is a bit tangential to the topic at hand, but I just wanted to mention that I share concerns around these things. We have been trying to figure out a budget that is reasonable here, and we will probably submit an additional version soon. It may still be higher than desired, Iâm hoping we can create a model of what the future of fauna will look like though. I think itâs reasonable to payout most folks this month for example, since the hours have already been put in.
After this proposal there may be a good number of fauna members who either step down from their position or voluntarily cut their pay. I am willing to accept no base pay in the future, and I know others have agreed to the same. I think 3-4 full time mods is probably not the way. Maybe 6ish part time paid mods is more likely, and improving the way that we assign pay as activity or project based rather than naive monthly payments. We could also have some sort of rotation of people in the role potentially. I think expanding the number and scope of swarms also will fill gaps, and delegation can be done, shrinking the scope of fauna work.
Anyway these are all potential ideas. I do hope itâs understood though that we should not pretend all of these changes are made retroactively, and not pay people for the time they have already put in.
I hope this upcoming revision is conservative enough that we can get community buyin. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Apart from the strong wording I have to agree with linca on this point.
I feel like 11 fauna members is way too many for the work thatâs being delivered. To justify paying 11 fauna members I think there should be a more clear overview of the responsibilties of fauna because the excel sheet that has been posted above looks like some tasks are being pulled out of thin air to justify the hours that are being made.
My suggestion would be to split Fauna in a group of moderators, around 3/4 people seems enough to me but I dont have enough insight to make an educated estimate on this. The remaining fauna members should state the work that they plan on doing for the upcoming month and ideally give an weekly update in the check-in channel so the 1hive members get an idea of the work thatâs being delivered. Based on this we can make an selection on which fauna members we want to reward
for the proposed work, the others can be put on inactive untill there is a need for additional moderation.
I feel like right now the majority of the members of 1hive have no idea where the funds for fauna funding are actually being spend on and feel itâs not worth it.
Thank you, my wording probably was too harsh using the word scammers but every concern and post got ignored or deflected & i got irritated.
At least knowing that you share some of the same concerns and are also thinking about changing the monthly payouts etc is enough to know that it will change in the future and not that people are trying to keep what they are currently getting.
I was being sarcastic.
I didnât know at that time I was being considered.
Tbh right now Iâd rather not have it.
I canât believe the hate that Fauna is getting.
I think everyone should be getting more Honey all the way across the DAO.
Give value for value, increase velocity, and improve the drip.
Iâm not interested in being a target.
I just got out of a house where I was abused by not one but two housemates, and all I want right now is some peace and to be able to put my nose to the grindstone and get some work done.
If Iâm being hounded and scrutinized, Iâm not interested.
I think there isnât a huge difference between a clique and a coalition, Its actually a feature and not a bug (imo) that people can join together and support and fund the things they think are important, even if they represent a minority of stakeholders. I think that property is necessary to ensure that there is broad stakeholder representation, and avoid issues where most votes have near 0 probability of having an impact on decision making (see Banzhaf Power Index).
So far I think Conviction Voting has worked fairly well, in that we have seen instances where people have coordinated to make it more difficult to pass proposals by abstaining when it seems like proposals are being passed too easily and without sufficient support, and we have also seen the opposite, where people stop abstaining to allow proposals to more easily pass where there is less stake actively participating in the system.
I think itâs possible there are improvements that could be made to conviction voting, such as making it disputable (which should happen with the release of Celeste), or perhaps allowing downvoting of individual proposals in some manner (possibly making downvoting quadratic while upvoting remains linear weighted). But I donât think that we have seen such abuses actually happening, even in the case of the hypothetical scenario where fauna members were to all support this proposal and no other members were to add their support, I wouldnât consider that abusive because from what I can tell the proposal has been presented in good faith. And if, again hypothetically, we suspected that it or some other proposal were to be put forward that was not in good faith, that would be something that we will be able to escalate to Celeste where it could be evaluated and resolved by a larger group.
Ok. This is what you think. As a HNY holder and someone who does 24/7/365 operations 3 will get you some coverage but it wonât be 24/7/365. Almost canât be because even if these 3 people are in the different 8hr timezones - theyâd have to be on 8hr 365days a year to manage that. And they will have to scan multple apps. Not practical from a people point of view.
If one pays this like a job even at $5/hr there are 8760hrs in a year - at $5/hr is 43.8k or at current $200 HNY 219HNY/yr/person or 18.25HNY/month. You say 3-4 people. I say it will more likely be 5-6.
I also disagree regarding quality. I donât think $5/hr is going to buy any decent quality but perhaps you donât care about that.
I have to ask honestly @linca here what your target is? How much $$ are you going to be willing to pay a month for moderation. How much will you âdoâ it for. I do the math here and unless we get 3rd world workers working for sub $5/hr (in the first world $5/hr doesnât pay the bills) I donât see how any decent moderation coverage with reasonable quality is going to come in much under 15-18HNY/month unless HNY hits $400.
The above literally is the dirt minimum with HNY here at $200 in my mind without just giving up entirely on doing paid for moderation and just leaving the forums part of the time unmoderated. At the time of the 1Hive on-rush a lot of people stepped up and put in a ton of hours of work and that is kind of what is being asked for - previous work.
Right I think we are agreed we donât need 10-12 - probably more like 5-6 working something like 1/2-2/3 time at that $5/hr.
so that is 2.25-3K/month 10-15HNY. I think 15HNY is the minimum and thinking more like 18HNY: 15HNY for members and a 3HNY budget for them to reward others and/or accomplishments. Let them allocate the 3HNY 20% bonus on top of the 15 as they see fit.
But lets use this 15-18HNY as the future budget unless you think we should just get rid of moderation⌠As a stepped down Fauna, 1Hive member (HNY owner) I am probably going to stand up against that. Given the vision (at least as I see it) - all of the communication channels are going to need some manning. Now if you see buzz taking all this on. Ok - I donât care the name of the swarm with moderation/communication responsibilities - the time involved and HNY value is still the same.
Whether people can be paid members of multiple swarms. I think we should just allocate budgets and let the swarms decide for themselves the best use of the funds. Then after the fact HNY holders can judge with their vote. The idea that community members could just vote themselves funds (as sandpiper discusses) is an important point for discussion.
sandpiper also comes to the same conclusion regarding number.
and a good idea.
and a final important point.
I think it is also important not to alienate people who are already here and have done work. @lkngtn has made a good point in the past. Part of HNY allocation isnât just getting work done, but also distributing it to people who probably are going to be contributing community members in the future as well. Iâd rather have someone who at least did some work with enough HNY to be a celeste participant than someone who just bought their way in but that is me and as a stepping down Fauna member.
I mean, itâs hypothetical in the sense that fauna members have generally operated in good faith, and so have not done this, but itâs easy to see that itâs well within our collective power as stakeholders with current conviction vote parameters. I do agree that celeste improves this system though and flattens the voting power in the realm of these disputes.
I never said i wanted no moderation anymore, i just said 10+ Fauna members is too much especially when everything is so quiet at the moment, could still add more again when it gets busy again.
And i said make a form where people can say what the expect to receive and how much hour of work they can provide with a minimum of 750$ for example (that was so an example to show that i donât want to implement this to abuse people and let them work for 1$/hour so we should decide a minimum payment even if we ask how much do you expect to receive.
As for sandpiperâs suggestion of 6ish moderators and improving the payment system iâm all for that and thatâs way better than 10+
As for the last part, someone who buys 10 000$ or 20 000$ of HNY has as much worth as someone who moderates for 3HNY a month, âjustâ buying your way in is a bit lightly said when we are talking of such amounts, if nobody âjustâ buys their way in it also wouldnât be good for HNY.
the 
coin wen 
lambo crowd, donât misunderstand me).