Title — Reduction in Number of Keeper/Guardians and Pay and adding a fixed cost for support.
Abstract
Since the treasury does no longer have the funds to sustain expenditures of a large team. I believe that it is time to reduce budget for our support expenses while trying to also focus on covering support in different timezones. The budget cap for support would be set to $1,500 monthly in total, giving the LG CM the authority to distribute this amount based on the merit program they have set. Since the game will be coming down for an unknown time, the work required by Keepers/Guardians will also be less. This proposal is to take effect immediately after the month the snapshot is completed. This would mean, if the snapshot is taken on Sept 5th, Keepers/Guardians will still get paid for the whole month of Sept and will remain the same in numbers. Then it would take into effect On Oct. 1st, 2024. This would be ethical since they would have already done some work in September, even though it would be a week worth of work.
Motivation
The motivation to write this proposal is to reduce CU treasury expenditures to the bare minimum since the treasury does not have much more funds left. For the good of all the CU community, we need to reduce our treasury burn rate as much as possible to survive this next period. If we are able to survive this period and flourish again, then another proposal may be submitted to justify the changes of increasing the team. Right now we need to put the survival of the community first.
Details
Since we currently have a large number of Keepers and Guardians, Laguna Games CM will select from these existing candidates first. If there is no interest, then they may select from members of the community that are interested in these positions.
Existing mods may choose to keep their roles as volunteers if they choose so without pay.
While also providing the timezone each individual selected will cover.
Support Salary Expenditure cap:
The salaries spent on discord support roles shall be capped at $1,500.
In an instance where the members of the support team would like to propose an addition of an extra support member, the Support Expenditure cap shall remain at $1,500 and the individual monthly salaries will be diluted/reduced instead.
In the event where CU sees a large revival and requires much more support, a new proposal may be submitted to increase this cap.
Conclusion
This proposal would reduce our monthly Keeper/Guardian expenditure from $5,500 - $7,150 monthly + bonuses to $1,500 monthly. Which is much more sustainable given the current conditions of the treasury. Additionally, with the downtime of the game, I believe that this would provide CU with more than enough support needed at this time.
Proposal is pretty reasonable if we take the perspective treasury wise. However, it is also good to note that the CM team is now a one man team (@SparklyUnicorn )
Based on the proposal I would want to ask how did you come up with how many keepers/guardians to retain? Did you seek data from the one handling the moderator team?
With the current passed proposal and by the time we have an outcome to this current counter proposal, we are now left with remaining 4 months to go until it expires.
In my opinion, reduction of payment is reasonable. But reducing the team should only be decided by the one handling the team which is @SparklyUnicorn as she knows what should be retain and what is not based on their future plan to CU moving forward.
Valid proposal about valid concerns, we should reduce at every level and we currently have too many guardians/keepers but the effort do not have to only come from them and also from everyone else like Ethereal said, the big boys have to do their part after living like kings if they want to save the game.
Shared my opinion firstly on uniwu.me proposal here. Hope you guys find the difference between Treasury and Ecosystem Fund. Those are different sources.
similar with what project? I was a Mod in BombCrypto ~3 years ago and was getting about 1k$ per month, and yeah it was 3 years ago.
Considering that initially neither Guardians nor Keepers didn’t receive any payment for quite a long period, correct me if I’m wrong, for the first year of the project? As I said, we should be careful with people who are still there after latest events. I doubt we want to leave scorched earth trying to save pennies after 500k$/month was a cost team spent and no one tried to stop it.
I agree with Illest, as Sparkly is the last CM member, would be great to gather a mods+CM+Nanessa+Prof meeting before posting not just an idea, but proposal itself.
True, we’re not technically shutting down the idea of this proposal but should at least follow a better procedure than blindly submitting a proposal without consulting the right people or the person handling the moderators’ job.
It’s like bypassing a lot of people for the sake of trying to salvage what’s left without even considering the pros and cons of such actions.
If team cant afford me anymore I am fine with this. Helped before for years with no pay. I wont be able to help as much without ban button for scammers and wont be able to help in all ways to limited access to channels. Happy to retain mod access with no pay or whatever you all want. Other mods clearly have seniority over me and should be given position in discord over me. So axe me first. And decide to give me access to help for free or not.
Since all of this getting paid in $CU and from Ecosystem funds, what if that person continuosly staking his payments then how it will be going to affect the treasury ?
Given the current state and the treasury, I agree with the rationale behind this proposal. In our current situation, reducing expenses to create more room for sustainability is indeed necessary. However, regarding the current proposal:
This proposal merely reduces the number of MODs and their salaries in a rather blunt manner, which might not be the most beneficial approach for this game.
This represents a significant change for MRP. I believe that before drafting such a proposal, it is essential to consult with other key participants in MRP to gather more professional opinions. For example, we could seek input from Sparkly, who has been mentioned.
Personally, I suggest that we significantly reduce the salaries within MRP but strive to retain the number of MODs. The value of MODs goes beyond merely responding to queries in the mod support channel; they also engage actively with players, facilitating the exchange of ideas between players and the team. I believe this interaction is beneficial to the game’s development.
Your third point is still possible with the proposal, by the way. As it mentions, if the Mod team wants to increase the number, they can, but it would just reduce the salary of the existing mods since the cap is $1,500.
Also, I see many comments pertinent to “I should’ve spoken to the mod team first” or “I should’ve spoke to Sparkly first”, where I do respect all of you for your work and Sparkly too, I prefer this to be a public discussion that is very transparent from the very beginning to the whole community. I think right now the community wants full transparency wherever they may get it especially when it comes to finances.
Thus no, I don’t want to consult every single person individually in the MRP, I want it to be a public discussion where anyone is welcome to discuss it. In case you believe there is something flawed with the proposal, please feel free to explain to the public the work that goes in that we do not understand or know about.
I am also absolutely wanting to hear from sparkly too in case she believes something from this proposal needs to be changed, remember this is a draft proposal and not a final one.
Why dont you tell us here the pros and cons of these decisions. Why does it need to be discussed privately?
This is what I do not understand. You guys want to have private discussions, where the whole point of a DAO is to have transparency and public discussions.
So lets discuss what you want changed in the proposal instead of critiquing the process of how you believe I should be submitting a proposal. If there are things that the community agrees with you on, I would be MORE than happy to change them. I have no personal interest in this proposal. I just believe it was necessary for the project as a whole.
I hope the selection has nothing to do with seniority, and instead we finally start focusing on merit and performance based systems. We aren’t a government organization that operates through seniority. You were an EXCELLENT mod.
Please don’t try to twist what we’re trying to imply here. We are simply asking if you did ask the head of mod team for guide or even idea how the moderator team works for you to better draft a proposal on how to save or cut expenses on the moderators’ current passed proposal and what are the reasonable numbers of mod team should be laid off. We didn’t even said the current roster of the mod should be included in the discussions.
Having basic knowledge like how many can be remove specially now that they are down to one.
You just show up with 3 proposals without basis, just as what you think is currently needed to do to save some money because of the current status of LG.
Again, we came here saying we are not trying to shut down your proposal as it was very reasonable.
It’s like coming up here saying LG should laid off 70 employees and retain only 10 with only this specific pay without even knowing how LG works. Would firing 70 employees still gonna work? How or why is it possible/not possible? Then the guy you need to consult first is the CEO, right? But that doesn’t mean you need to talk to the whole 80 employees.
English is not my first Language but I do hope you get our idea about consulting sparkly first so the draft proposal would came up better than just spitting random numbers without basis.
There is no seniority per say. The other mods were who taught me everything I know. I owe them a great deal. Also respect them greatly. I still have a lot to learn from them. When I need help they are always there to help me when I dont know answer. I may talk more in chat. But I would be nothing without them and consider them a greater asset then myself. I can always help. I am sure they will too. But happy to get the axe for them any day.
Like everyone has agreed here, this is a reasonable proposal given the events that has transpired over the course of this month.
And i agree with @Illest that @sparklyunicorn needs to be consulted so the community can iron out the details. We also don’t know the Teams plan going forward, as this will give a better understanding of how many moderators the team will need.
Also are you proposing this as a new Reward program or this will override the existing proposal.
But to answer some of your question, removing mods based on timezone is not feasible. To give you an idea, moderators were hired based on the needed language support. These are the current active language channel, some even have their own discord server like me and invoko as to giving support to our current role in being a moderator
Illest - Filipino
Invoko - Russian
Patrick/Onngusta - Chinese
Deadshot - india @flamzy - I forgot what he handles sorry brother
As for B, terra, and mahatir. They are what we deemed as senior moderators cause they were hired when CU discord is at least with 300-400 members. But none is above anyone else. We are all equal. We just differs based on the language role cover.
Edited: I may not be able to answer in a few hours, tho I hope any questions can be answered by any of the current mod roster if you have any questions and clarifications
I think some things here need to be ironed out but the reduction portion is something that need to be considered. if there is a consensus with everyone i would agree with this proposal.,
Would love to iron out some details, which is why this is a draft proposal. If there is anything specific you would like ironed out, please provide your suggestion specifically to the proposal and what you would like changed so that could be discussed by the community too.
It also seems like many want to hear from Sparkly as well, so that would be great too to hear what she may like to see adjusted. Also, very valid when it comes to the teams direction and what they may need. I did ask some team members and they let me know that the reduction is valid.