Reduction in Number of Keeper/Guardians and Pay and adding a fixed cost for support.

Draft Proposals
41

Hi Prof,

just my tldr on all this would reject the proposal if it doesn’t meet Sparkly’s requirements.

This is crucial and this is very important on the roles being handled by mods. I understand the cut for councils and the other proposal as it make sense based on the workload being provided.

Internally Mods / Guardians / Keepers or whatever you call them are a different work load and has much higher range and strict range of metric. [ I remember someone did not respond on 1 inquiry from a user in discord and that whole benefit was not acquired for the whole month, that is stupidly savage but that is their environment ] even if its a volunteer work it has already came up as a job for others.

consider easing your restrictions from places you didn’t fully researched from. I really appreciate you taking a step forward to help LG but again. I would reject this proposal if it has not met the requirements sparkly requested from your proposal.

2 Likes
42

We mods highly appreciate comments like this.

Again, we are very much open reducing the amount of the reward vs the current workload of the mods now that the core game is shutting down. Currently, the remaining LG employees are with agreement with sparkly’s comment.

But by the looks of it, the author’s reasoning is inclining more towards emotion instead of rational thinking. The head of the mod team already commented but the author doesn’t want to change anything. Whatever we explain, author seems like firm with his random figure proposal to change the mod team.

Like you said, giving restrictions on something the author didn’t fully researched from is hilarious. It’s not if someone asks, we answer type of work. If it’s that easy then why not everyone from the mod roster eligible for the reward. Thought DAO discussion even council members should be rational in decision making. What I’m seeing is:

  • Author proposed to reduce MRP by slapping random figures
  • Community mods is in agreement with the reduction of figure but make it reasonable and ask for the head of the mod team for more information.
  • Author agrees to wait for the info
  • Head of the mod team is in disagreement with the figures (other LG employees agree)
  • Author but then decided not to change.

Instead we focus on a better proposal to save treasury, we attack grant proposals that is not even contributing to the declining price of CU ever since. Even dividing the community because of such insane proposal (again, the reduction in figure is okay, but at least make it reasonable) We’ve been here for almost 3 years.

I just hope council members not only weight to judge this proposal for the sake of reducing the amount of the mod pay.

Again we are in agreement with the reduction but make it reasonable as suggested by the head of the mod team.

1 Like
43

Hello Keizer,

Thanks for the comments, yet I worry that you may not have reread the proposal? I made all the adjustments the day before yesterday with Sparklys feedback, except for the $2,500. After speaking to sparkly, she also understood the math behind the $1,500, which is fair given the work that will be available to mods in October. Also she mentioned that there were a number of mods that didn’t want to continue anyways.

If there is any specific point you would like me to adjust pertinent to Sparkly’s comments, please let me know. Speaking generally does not help me understand what more you would like me to change, though I appreciate your input.

Kind Regards,

44

What does emotion have anything to do with this? There is 0 emotion here and pure rational, maybe you are the one being emotional. Also, you are saying nothing has been changed, my response to you is what from the responses do you still want changed besides the figure? I made sure to allow the LG CM to big their team regardless of number of mods and I removed that restriction. So either you are not trying to read and just want to type or not sure what your issue is at this point. So dont try to twist this and act like a victim please.

Also, just fyi and for the sake of transparency. I don’t know if this was being said to save face or something, but LG members that were suggesting to reduce amount to $2,500, in private conversation was saying that we dont need all mods and would be more than enough with 1 keeper and 2 guardians, I disagreed with that I felt like having a bit more made sense. So ignore the image trying to be portrayed here from LG members, either they are trying to save face or trying to win favor in some capacity. This is why I wanted the whole conversation to be public, but it seems like some people in public like to lie to win favor or something.

Again, if after October you feel like there is a lot of mod work to be done, which most likely there will be 10% of what you do now, then just put a proposal to raise the pay and take it from there. You literally have a grace period of 1 month (the whole of Sept), so even in September while the game is down, you still feel like the amount of work is justified for a higher pay then just submit the proposal in Sept and have it pass before Oct, which is when this proposal takes effect. Why are you making it seem like this is a proposal that is sealed in iron and there is nothing you could do about it.

Also, if this proposal doesn’t pass, I could absolutely careless, just let the whole project bleed out and you’ll receive $0 forever in the next 3 months. It doesn’t matter to me; I’ll just move on and not look back here again. I am doing what I think needs to be done, and if others disagree, then that’s fine. This is the whole point of a DAO, this isn’t a dictatorship where whatever I put in the proposal goes. I made all the changes that felt like they actually made sense, so don’t make it seem like I ignored all changes, the only one that doesn’t is the budget. If most of the mods leave as some already wanted to before this change, the “salary” wont be changed too much for the remaining ones, but yes it would be reduced. But I refuse to be pushed around by people trying to gain favor, be liked, or politicking. This is the proposal I’m pushing for the vote. Vote yes or no and ill move on from this one after the decision is made by the DAO, and I will not be putting up another similar proposal because that would go against what the DAO wants.

45

Mods should be helping for free with hope of airdrop from team. Community is tiny there is no need for so many mods in the first place. Funds shouldn’t be used to financially support a group of people from impoverished countries, while we dont even have a game.

Are mods even necessary along with community managers? There are not a lot of messages sent in the discord in the first place even in non english channels

If you’re here for your love of the project or will already be on discord anyway then stay around. If you just wanted an easy paycheck, that pot might be out of gold.

1 Like
46

2.5k per month is not that big. you are fighting with pebbles over the people whom have expertise with that specific subject. what’s an additional 1k to maintain in your proposal?

2.5k is just literally 1 person monthly salary to a professional standard office worker. why are you stinging up on this? you have a team that will support these languages and if in turn comes back up you will need to find another team again for this. which is completely ridiculous.

Do you really think this is THAT much huge chump change to encourage moderators on the project? . since when did councils discuss such folly value to be a critical factor of the whole project? it doesn’t.

I understand its a difficult proposal to lay upon everyone here. The moderators are also in agreement that they can accept cut offs. but with you to not adjust that 1k when you already won the hearts of other proposals I think you need to re-consider this more because many people are affected. you’re throwing several people who wanted to spend time on this project to help players instead of just leave.

You didn’t also realize that you’re already one of the reasons why some moderators wanted to leave the project. giving that small value at least helps.

You lack research on what these moderators go thru. right now that the project is already at it lows. to keep the people’s confidence up you also need to keep the people who are supporting new players regardless of how low we are.

An additional 1k per month from your original proposal wont kill the project. You already reduced it from 5.5k. while you cut off councils 50% . you cut off the funding for moderators for 72% and threatening to even kick some people off. :sweat_smile:

I would like sparkly’s terms to have atleast 2.5k by this you give also the CM team some leeway to discuss future incentives to moderators to balance it out.

1 Like
47

We (or just me) are not trying to play victim here. We didn’t even bother to comment before sparkly dropped her statement about this proposal to drastically lower the figure. Like you said, you want everything to be transparent. These are the information that are open to the public. LG employees who commented here all said the same. Not sure about whatever discussion happened via DM. What was here is what should be taken as their formal comment. So that is where I based my reply. It’s your job to ask them why their comment is different from what you know (from wherever you guys talked) Again I’m not looking at any outside information, everything is based on what’s inside of this draft proposal.

Now that you mentioned, we also could care less if this proposal gets pass or not. CU is facing a more major problem. We are bleeding in an alarming rate, we went from 1.5m liquidity down to 760k (as of this writing) in less than a month. We don’t even know if the project is still alive in a month or two (because CU might reach 0 soon)
Personally, I chose to stay regardless cause I’ve earn so much in CU and help me on so many things. But shitting on mods through this ridiculous proposal is something I would not let easily slide.

You can check and you will know where the sell pressure is coming from.
With no demand for the $CU token, reaching 0 is inevitable. That is why I comment we are so focus on attacking the grant proposals. (all 3 of them that you drafted) when this should not even be the main concern.

But regardless of the outcome on these 3 proposals, if the main issue is not tackled, then what’s the point anyway?

I’m just concern that you as a council, you’re putting random figures and proposing solutions that you didn’t study. You don’t even know what the mods are doing. You are so focus that there will be no new comers for us to do some work when it’s just a superficial of what mods are doing and just want to cut budget based on what you think is right just to somewhat “save” CU from sinking.

Lastly, if I’m talking through emotions, I’d be talking about different things from what I heard from who and start talking irrationally.

This will be my final comment. I’d be firm to say that whatever the head of the CM wanted to happen that she posted HERE is what I want to happen. Hopefully the other council focus on what was said by the one handling the mod team and not focus on just wanted to cut the budget. Again, we’re not shutting down the idea of cutting the budget, we just wanted it to be reasonable.

48

Let me just clarify a few points that is not true.

  • “You did not do research” - Incorrect, I sad down with 6 founders from different communities to ask what they paid mods. Most didn’t pay anything and said we give them benefits in the form of airdrops or whitelists. The MAX a community paid their mods was $200 a month, this is where I come with my $1,500 budget. So please stop saying “you didn’t do research”, just because illest said so. Additionally, I sat down with Sparkly on discord for 1 hour to understand in depth the work of the mods and what their work would look like for the next phase until a game comes out, and that is where the changes to the proposal happened, after I met with her. The reason the budget didn’t change, is because the amount of work that will be required is absolutely minimal in our next stages. As people above have said, there is barely a community, who exactly are they modding… also who are these new players you are talking about that you think will come into our community when the game is down?
  • Making it seem like I’m being “stingy” with $1,000. You know this is not MY money right? This is the people’s money going from the treasury to them. Every dollar they take, could have been a dollar allocated to either rewards or something the DAO may find worthwhile. I placed a $1,500 budget based on the WORTH of the work being done, most of them will be afk for months (and they are not to blame) but because there will be nothing for them to even do.
  • The original idea was to cut costs in all avenues, I have no issues reducing councilors to $0 as well, as a matter of fact, I’ll go do that now. For me, as long as you bring actual reason for budgeting purposes then I am more than willing to listen, but if you are just asking for charity “whats 1k to you and blah blah” with 0 reason, then no I wont budge. Go to any work environment and tell them to give you an extra raise for no reason and see the response you get. With Venticello’s proposal, the new direction made sense and was rationale, hence I withdrew the whole proposal even if it costs us 2 eth a month because it actually makes sense and there is value there. If you were able to justify that $1,000 then I have no problem making any change, but all I saw was “just give it to them because they have been here for a while” “what is 1k to you” and so many reasons that don’t make sense. This is money taken out from the people’s vault to pay for services, where this service in most communities isn’t paid for and is done by people that actually have a passion for the project and not their paycheck first. I’m glad we were able to pay mods and insanely high price for a while, while we had money, now we are broke and its time to go back to reality.
  • If I was the reason some mods decided to leave then this is great, these mods cared about their paycheck and didn’t really care about the project or community. They cannot see we are in a dire situation, and if ever we recover and have excess they could easily ask for another “high” paycheck and people would most likely want to give it to them.

Again Keizer, I do appreciate your feedback, but you also need to realize that there is going to be 10% of the work left for mods to be done in 2 days when the game goes off. There will be no new players to help, there will be no content creation they can help with, we don’t even need any transcriptions done to townhalls. We are in extreme bootstrapping phase again, we are now a startup that is broke.

Keep this in mind as well… the XAI grant cant even cover the LG expenditures at its current price moving forward… what do you think is going to happen then and where is this money going to come from? You need to understand the situation we are in. I would’ve had 10x more respect if 1 mod suggested cutting all salaries for the next 2-3 months and then returning to normal, but no, nobody even was willing to do that because the paycheck comes first before the survival of the game (editing this part for fairness: TT was the only one willing to do this and mentioned this, speaks volumes of TT and the kind of passion you want mods to have).

49

what do you mean just @Illest said so. i dont care about what he says. im talking on my standpoint.

since you want this transparency, this proposal you submitted was just a one liner inside the council, that you’ll submit a proposal. feels like some one “dm’ed” you to run this proposal because you were down really bad.

There was not even a topic for this inside council and next thing you knew you have the 3 lined up perfectly with a proper abstract. no issues from @lgManicUnicorn.

Then when you submitted this proposal you have to edit it because you never talked to @SparklyUnicorn in the first place and you’re telling me now that you did made your research back then? lets admit that you didn’t. if it was that much of a research then you would have contacted Sparkly in the first place to make the initial arrangements. lets cut the crap.

You didn’t. I honestly felt like someone told you to pass these proposals to avoid the smoke. but thats another type of politics inside LG.

my point stands . if its not 2.5k I would not approve it. it’s stingy. and again not Treasury. its an Econ fund. there is a difference and its not councils fault in the first place why the project is in deep “shit” . you want something real. you should put out something real as well. if you’re so fast to hit on the moderators and guardians like this then why not also create a proposal on a Decrease of LG salaries too to 50%. lets see how Manic handles your proposal. lol .

I feel like you still did not see where this is coming from and if your point is to originally cut cost then start from the ones that caused the problem not the ones that will be affected by the issue.

I think its pretty established to say we have to cut cost. all agrees to this. even me. you being stingy will not make things better for those who are. might as well everyone who are not happy with this leave. just remember. you are the one who set the proposal. not us. i hope you can sleep at night with that 1k you cut per month.

and since we are in the line of transparencies I remember there were Beefs between Nessa and the Moderators. back then there were politics that Nessa was complaining about the salaries of the moderators compared to them and I remember that every time Moderators will submit proposals in here there was always a consensus about that specific person wanting to reject the proposals with ridiculous requirements.

they didn’t care about the project if they leave?!? lol seriously tho. im not sure where you’re putting that tho. can you also ask LG to work on this project for FREE? :sweat_smile: Internally we both know where you made your mistakes and where this proposals stems from.

This is my final response on this thread.

If i dont see 2.5k I will say this is not Sparkly’s requirement and I will not approve it and so should other councils. its simple as that.

1 Like
50

Another accusation just because you feel like it with 0 evidence. This will be my last response to you.

  • Nobody from LG told me to submit this proposal.
  • The reason I did not discuss it with council is because I wanted the discussion to be done here and not decided by council only.
  • I did do my research regardless of what you think has been done.
  • The edits to this proposal has been done, which is proof that I was not hard fixed for any of these points and I allowed this discussion here to direct all 3 proposals.
  • If you don’t want to pass it, then don’t, this is why we have a council and you are allowed to not pass it. I’m not forcing you to pass anything.
  • Even if DAO does not wish to pass it, that is also fine. I just made a proposal that I believed is right, I am not going to nor able to force anyone to do anything. I am doing my part and that’s all.
  • Also, you keep accusing Nessa as if she had ANYTHING to do with this (again fake accusations with 0 evidence). Let me tell you, Nessa has NOTHING to do with this proposal other than help me with the formatting so that I could get it passed. I don’t know if you have any form of bias here because you are friends with mods or what, but stop your baseless accusations left and right without any evidence.
  • Lastly, if you are suggesting a 50% decrease in LG salary why don’t you draft one as a council? Why is it all talk with 0 action?
51

There was not even a topic for this inside council and next thing you knew you have the 3 lined up perfectly with a proper abstract. no issues from @lgManicUnicorn.

Hey, Keizer. I usually just let things roll off my back but this seems like your personal frustration from having your proposals rejected due to the format. I need to clarify this for the sanctity of the process.

The truth is that, Prof wrote everything perfectly format-wise and content completion-wise that it only took Prof one try to get approved. The format is right there, and easy to follow. All well-written proposals get the same treatment.

A quick forum search will show you who were involved in that incident of salary comparison. And yet you chose to spread the wrong information. Unfortunately, it wasn’t me. At the time, the only hand I had in the discussion is reminding the CMs to respond with an impact report. I do remember the incident though.

PS: Something to note is that, I was also the first to get the mods rewarded prior to token launch with NFTs and I was also the first to ensure that a reward program is in place prior to turning over the CM team to move to Governance.

I personally have no personal feelings regarding this proposal as indicated above apart from letting the mods keep their roles as it was meant to be a voluntary role. I’d hate for the DAO to take people’s Discord roles. For the reward, this is something the DAO will have to think discuss. Also, I don’t know how I got involved here, halp.

52

Since I am still open to changing the budget if you could provide a reason instead of accusations and calling me stingy, I want to put this point here so it doesn’t get mixed in all the text. Also, to get back to the point and instead of making this personal and focused on the topic.

$1,500 budget. I spoke to 6 founders and 4 of them told me their mods work voluntarily and they get airdrops or project assets. 1 said they give $100 a month and airdrops/assets. The last one said $200 with airdrops/assets. Originally I proposed to keep 5 mods (which is still a lot for a community our size), and so $1,500 / 5 = $300 monthly. This is more than ALL the communities I contacted by 50%. This is my justification for the number and why I don’t want to change it without actual justification besides “just because” “or they deserve it”. They still are getting 50% above market value.

This is why I keep asking for reasons. Just justify how and why you came up with $2,500 and I am more than willing to listen. Overall, what I have been hearing, is that they have gotten used to getting an extremely high salary for a mod role (which is great while it lasted, and I even voted yes in the last proposal when I thought we had the money), but right now we just need to get to reality and bootstrap for the new few months and spend properly in all avenues.

53

I said I’m going to reply as final here but yet here we are.

I dont have any personal vendetta against you when you dropped my proposal multiple times that was frustrating but no.:rofl: i’m done over that. I’m not the only one talking about this. maybe you missed that fact that there are others who just dont speak up on this issue and that if its not a narrative LG wants you would delay, gaslight them its a bad idea, push it back, as much as you can so that the proposal passer will get demotivated.

You don’t have to defend yourself here. we are discussing about the proposal and not your reputation. I gain nothing hitting you here.

@Prof No personal vendetta against you too. you’re the one who started putting the word “stingy” here. so own it if it makes you. in my view. we are fighting over a just a thousand dollar here. see how that is so stupid in a replacement of several people whom are already here. knows the environment and already has the skill set. and thats not how I see CU as THAT poor. its disgusting imo. unfortunately disgusting. yet here we are.

just letting you guys know what you’re doing. if thats what you think is right then good for you. I respond here because this is what I think is right. I don’t gain anything defending the mods but on running a company. i’d rather keep the ones that are already battle tested than to just run start fresh with a new mod and re-train them again etc etc. I believe in manpower importance.

I gain nothing over this conversation and again. I will just reject this proposal if i dont see it as fit to the CU Brand. You can hit as many angles as you want for your own narrative anyways. for what’s it worth thats what you think is best.

good luck!

54

Must do research before post about eCosystem Fund and CU Treasury Fund :wink:

55

Cool very valuable insight there. Speaks volumes.

56

i don’t see why we need to spend money on these positions. change my mind.

57

These positions should be an honorarium volunteer position with $0. Staff on the company doing this would get a salary but the community members in any community I have been I have not gotten paid. Doing this is because you want to do it.

Maybe we do some community assets or a staking badge but pay to me is out of the question and not necessary to non-staff community members.

In addition we have too many people doing this for the volume of active remaining users.

Lastly, all channels should be locked down from non-holder and 1 general channel with no ability to post links if you are not a holder, along with the information channels … only.

58

Remove all mods not employed by LG. Most are casuals and weren’t very knowledgeable about CU. Paychecks for them is charity, its been enough to live off of. At least hire some professionals if we’re going to pay. Having both CM’s and moderators are way too much. Sorry SEA mods its time for real job

59

The council has completed their September 15 review session and based on the results, the proposal has been queued on Snapshot for the official DAO vote.

Reduction in Guardians/Keepers Rewards
https://snapshot.org/#/lgcryptounicorns.eth/proposal/0xf1c19b4be16291747b3236be59a02e35201cbdd37599193f55e1700556d26932

60

Hello, everyone.
The voting period for CUIP-054: Reduction in Guardians/Keepers Rewards has ended with the following result:

Result: Yes

This amends the reward structure of the approved CUIP-051 - Community Support & Knowledge Sharing. This shall take effect for all support efforts done from Octobers. This proposal does not change the validity period of CUIP-051.

Thank you.