First there is a lot here, really appreciate how much energy and thought went into putting this together! Going to just go ahead and add my thoughts to the discussion based on reading through this post and some of the other related discussions.
At a very high level my feelings can be summarized as follows:
- I agree with the sentiment expressed by some others on this and other threads, experimenting with compensation structures for individual contributors is something that I think largely should be within the context of a swarm.
- However, we have limited resources and I’m not sure we can realistically support multiple swarms, especially if these swarms are already feeling like compensation is low and needs to increase in order for them to effectively retain contributors and produce valuable outputs.
- The details of the compensation structure seem interesting, some of it I think is difficult to judge right now without a bit more clarity on the the proposed restructuring of honeyswap tokenomics
I think the issue of limited resources is the most important and it is called out pretty clearly in the post already:
But I think it’s important to further emphasize that because our treasury is held in Honey, it is incredibly reflexive. Our budget increases dramatically when price is increasing, but it also decreases dramatically as prices fall. 1Hive is inherently long Honey by design.
As a result when we think about budgeting expenses, we don’t just need to think about the dollar value of the Honey in reserve, but also the liquidity of the market, and the likely impact of marginal increases or decreases in outflows relative to inflows.
The sense I get is that if we feel that the level of compensation in swarms needs to increase in order to attract and retain the type of talent we need to have contributing in order to succeed, we may also need to focus our resources more narrowly, at least in the short term, to keep our outflows in line with what the market for Honey can reasonably support.
I don’t want to derail this too much by getting into what/where we should narrow our focus on, but I think that’s something that deserves a fair bit of reflection, discussion, and certainly its own thread.
As far as the compensation structure as an experiment for the tulip swarm, a few elements stood out to me:
- The rates in for freelance work seem high to me, I’m aware that rates can be extremely high in this industry, but I’m not convinced this is the norm.
- I think a base salary/stipend + a variable bonus (vesting) seems like it a reasonable experiment.
- Premium allocation and vesting doesn’t seem clear to me, it seems to indicate that vesting would be backdated for existing contributors to the date they started, but it also indicates you have new premiums each month with a vesting period starting when it was allocated.
- Its hard to really evaluate the details of anything related to compensation in HNY/uComb and how it relates to this proposal without a bit more resolution on the proposal to restructure the relationship between 1hive & honeyswap and HNY & (x,p,u,m,?)COMB.
- I don’t think we should conflate the tulip swarm governance with honeyswap governance, Gardens seems to be a much better choice for allowing token holder governance over a protocol than moloch because it doesn’t require permissioned membership to participate and can use celeste for dispute resolution (whereas moloch’s rage quit only works for dispute resolution in the special case where all of the assets of the dao are liquid and fully divisible). It doesn’t seem problematic to me to use moloch strictly for the Tulip Swarm itself (in the way that we use the colony now if its a better fit for the workflow).