[RIP00002] - Reward for contributors to the launch of the Realtoken DAO

DRKTT

D'ailleurs des discussions ont bien avancées sur une première proposition (fil discords FR + EN): pouvons-nous d'ores et déjà la proposer?

Il y a encore besoin de l'affiner, de trouver tous les bénéficiaires, de travailler année par année (de 2019 à 2024) un outil est en cours de dev pour recueillir toutes les informations mais rien ne presse sur le sujet (le budget pour cela ne peut pas être débloqué avant le 1er janvier 2025), tâchons de faire les choses bien avant de soumettre ce proposal.

Roulyzen

Michael-RealT
Merci pour ton retour, ca se sent que tu es toi même un passionné dans ton boulot et une source d'inspiration pour la communauté ! ;-)

-RP-

CTn
Hi CTn,

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback and for acknowledging the contributors' work on the DAO launch.

1) Volunteer Participation: To clarify, the contributors involved were not selected by any individual, nor were they appointed based on personal connections. They volunteered organically to support the launch, proposing tools to resolve challenges, driven by their interest in contributing to the DAO’s foundation. I believe their contributions were an outgrowth of community collaboration rather than a selection process.

2) Evaluation of Contribution: This DAO launch and the initial rewards proposal are intended as a one-off measure. With the foundational tools now in place, I trust future contributions will undergo careful review to ensure resource-efficient and merit-based recognition assessed by the DAO participants themselves.

3) Indeed! Today’s proposal is specifically designed to give the community a voice in deciding on the reward allocations. Every community member has the opportunity to participate and vote, ensuring transparency and collective agreement on how resources are distributed. In the future, everyone will be able to raise proposals (not only Michael)

4) Moving forward, we might need to define criteria to help guide future rewards and recognitions, ensuring fair allocation while managing expectations around what constitutes a "significant contribution." I believe real passionates will continue to volunteer without expecting any rewards. However, it does not mean they shouldn't be rewarded at all if we really appreciate their valuable work.

Niklas86

Michael-RealT as much as I understand, this proposal is about handing out a reward to the people who laid foundations for what REG DAO can be, can become. How would we even discuss being able to vote on contributions to the community if it had not been for some brave people to set up a Wiki and fill it with initial content; set up a forum where we can discuss things?

There's always the option to create a proposal to scrap the Wiki and Forum from community use if it's not what we want (I like having those but, at the end of the day, a DAO decision becomes a collective "our" decision)

Michael-RealT

Niklas86 as much as I understand, this proposal is about handing out a reward to the people who laid foundations for what REG DAO can be, can become. How would we even discuss being able to vote on contributions to the community if it had not been for some brave people to set up a Wiki and fill it with initial content; set up a forum where we can discuss things?

There's always the option to create a proposal to scrap the Wiki and Forum from community use if it's not what we want (I like having those but, at the end of the day, a DAO decision becomes a collective "our" decision)

Yes that's it, and since the DAO is the community, at RealT we wanted the tools to interact in a structured way, to participate to be controlled by the community.
This allows the community to better appropriate the DAO, legally it is less complicated to explain that RealT is only a contributor like any member of the community, and this allows the community to emancipate itself from RealT.
It's not because you no longer live with your parents and are autonomous, responsible for your actions that you no longer love your parents and no longer interact with them, here it's a bit the same thing, RealT created the beauty of this universe in 2019, now the community is taking off

Michael-RealT

NickFR D'ailleurs des discussions ont bien avancées sur une première proposition (fil discords FR + EN): pouvons-nous d'ores et déjà la proposer?

Probablement la semaine prochaine ou la suivante tout le monde pourra poster sur Suggestion, le fais de limité nous permet de bien finaliser le fonctionnement et suivre toutes les discutions, rendre le plus accessible possible au moins chevronner même si cela leurs demande déjà un effort non négligeable

Michael-RealT

CTn 1) The process by which these three contributors were selected raises significant questions. How do we know they are not friends of Mickael and did the mentioned work? Without transparent criteria for selection, there is a risk of favoritism, which could undermine trust in the governance process. The community deserves clarity on how these individuals were chosen to participate in this initiative.

I agree with what is said, it is legitimate to ask the question.
I would answer that for this vote it is a vote of confidence in RealT, and that the method would not be viably replicable over time on a large scale.

The v2 of the governance system should resolve these points of trust, the mechanics will change significantly because people will be identified by their NFTs, and will be able to certify the work done with cryptography.
so in the future you will make a payment to an NFT that will be able to prove the work done.

In the meantime we must have a little confidence or refuse this proposal or the future ones, it is a choice of the DAO.
Personally campaign for the preservation of the right to anonymity, but we must put in place safeguards.

As for the "selection" there is none, I simply at one time asked a question to these people, asked for an opinion by their presence and activity, they answered, the exchanges and spontaneous contributions took place like water flows in rivers. But that's just my word....

Michael-RealT

Kel Jln While I agree (and I think everyone does) that work should be rewarded, this proposition puts us in front of some kind of a "fait accompli" situation. RealT selects (we don't know how) some people (we don't know who) for a job (we don't know what), and then asks the community to reward them (on an unknown basis).

While the aim is to prove work can be rewarded & to encourage people to dedicate themselves to the DAO is interesting, how it is implemented still is problematic for me.

Since I trust the community, you (Michael) & RealT enough to put up good work, I'll be inclined to vote favorably to this proposition.

Thanks for the comment, it would be nice to take the time to read my previous answers, I answered in detail to these questions, if 1000 people come to ask the same question without reading what was answered then I will spend my days copying and pasting the answer.

Michael-RealT I agree with what is said, it is legitimate to ask the question.
I would answer that for this vote it is a vote of confidence in RealT, and that the method would not be viably replicable over time on a large scale.

The v2 of the governance system should resolve these points of trust, the mechanics will change significantly because people will be identified by their NFTs, and will be able to certify the work done with cryptography.
so in the future you will make a payment to an NFT that will be able to prove the work done.

In the meantime we must have a little confidence or refuse this proposal or the future ones, it is a choice of the DAO.
Personally campaign for the preservation of the right to anonymity, but we must put in place safeguards.

As for the "selection" there is none, I simply at one time asked a question to these people, asked for an opinion by their presence and activity, they answered, the exchanges and spontaneous contributions took place like water flows in rivers. But that's just my word....

Michael-RealT

CTn 2)How do we know that the combined efforts of these three contributors were necessary? It is possible that a single person could have accomplished the tasks at hand. The DAO should evaluate the actual impact of each contributor's work before deciding on rewards, ensuring that resources are allocated effectively.

Measure the work to be done, the tests, the deployments, the configurations, the translations, the proofreading, and ask yourself how much time it could take for one person, what skills are needed to do all this.

If you want to measure all the activities of all the contributors, I wish you good luck, people are in the 4 corners of the world can use AI, pay other people to do a task, copy the work of another, there are many ways to cheat.
This is why it is necessary to differentiate a gift for voluntary actions, and therefore voluntary work should never necessarily give a reward, the reward should not be too large, not be systematic, and only for work that cannot be monetized by the people who provided it.

For work defined as remunerated it should be fixed before the start, it must be clear on the expected result and frame the exercise well.

Michael-RealT

CTn 3) The DAO should not operate on blind trust. Community members need assurance that decisions are made fairly and transparently. If Michael has the authority to propose rewards for individuals he selects, this could lead to a perception of bias and cronyism, where only friends or associates benefit from DAO resources.

I totally agree, that's the long-term goal, but at the launch and up until now you have given a lot of trust to RealT with the RMM in particular, in theory we can now do exactly what we want with the contracts, we have total control of the treasury, you have trusted us and we have honored it.
The goal with the implementation of the DAO is to move towards what you describe, but to get there, we will need to talk to each other at times, it's not blind trust, there is a 5-year history of things said, of action, and of speech

Michael-RealT

CTn 4) Establishing a precedent for rewarding a select few could lead to expectations for compensation for all types of volunteer work. This may complicate future governance and resource allocation, as disputes may arise over what constitutes a "significant contribution," further eroding trust in the decision-making process.

It is obvious that there will be some espor, but if we are clear on the fact that the work does not give right to bonuses, or that the community accepts this process of bonuses but simply votes with courage no for the rewards that are not justified then there is no real problem.

It is therefore necessary to define a clear framework on what can possibly be subject to reward, and in no case a vote once yes, is not a judgement of prudence, a vote is a decision at a given moment in a market of conditions and for a specific thing.

Here in case the establishment of the Forum and Wiki

LightRider

i agree with some arguments, i saw before.

We don't have any information about the amount of works they've done. it's difficult to evaluate a reward then.
moreover, it wasn't in a contract to reward the volunteer with Reg tokens.

I would see more a proposal for Frédéric Pitot ( i know we can do both but i think it's more legitimate)

Michael-RealT

LightRider i agree with some arguments, i saw before.

We don't have any information about the amount of works they've done. it's difficult to evaluate a reward then.
moreover, it wasn't in a contract to reward the volunteer with Reg tokens.

I would see more a proposal for Frédéric Pitot ( i know we can do both but i think it's more legitimate)

Fred's site is not part of the responses with the DAO budget, there is a special budget of 4.3 Million REG (community budget) allocated for past rewards.
There are discussions on Discord to allocate these REG, it is the community that must decide on the distribution, here it is a proposal for a particular event, for which RealT appreciated the contribution of the 3 members of the community, the amount of work cannot be quantified because there was no note on this subject, it is after spending 2 months working with them and seeing the result that we decided to make this proposal

smallpmous

The sum is quite small and I assume much lower than the cost it would have been for paid word. I fully agree.

anon

Again, I can't read most of the replies. We should have only one language for the DAO (and english is NOT my first language either). Should I start replying in portuguese or in spanish????

Doesn't make any sense because doesn't help with discussions.

While I do think that contributors should be compensated, I don't think that they should be paid with REG tokens that they can dump in the market. Maybe they should be paid in stables, a small reward.

Why would they have 5x my voting power? Also, I would have liked to contribute but I didn't know there was an opportunity to do so.

Furthermore, payments for contributions should be proposed and agreed by the DAO BEFORE the contributions happen, and should be paid according to market rates and not in REG tokens.

Michael-RealT

anon Again, I can't read most of the replies. We should have only one language for the DAO (and english is NOT my first language either). Should I start replying in portuguese or in spanish????

Doesn't make any sense because doesn't help with discussions.

While I do think that contributors should be compensated, I don't think that they should be paid with REG tokens that they can dump in the market. Maybe they should be paid in stables, a small reward.

Why would they have 5x my voting power? Also, I would have liked to contribute but I didn't know there was an opportunity to do so.

Furthermore, payments for contributions should be proposed and agreed by the DAO BEFORE the contributions happen, and should be paid according to market rates and not in REG tokens.

You can't read the messages, I can't read your messages either, I don't speak English.

Stop bending over and move on

Nemesys

CTn
I totally agree with this post.
I would add, that, while I support the idea of this proposal, I would require that the names (or their username) of the three contributors be made public.
If this is a DAO, which goal is to make community decisions and work together, there is a need for transparency. And while the sum in question is not significative, I would insist, on principal alone, that the DAO not pay any unknown party for a work that has not been previously sanctionned by the DAO.
The recognition of these three contributors would then not only be a financial reward, but would also bring them credit for their works in the eyes of every member of the DAO.
Of course, if these contributors would rather remain anonymous (which is understandable), that is not a problem, but in that case, I would not agree to give any reward, again, on the principle of transparency.

Je suis totalement d'accord avec cette publication.
J'ajouterais que, bien que je soutienne l'idée de cette proposition, je demanderai, comme condition sine qua non, que les noms (ou leurs pseudonymes) des trois contributeurs soient rendus publics.
Si c'est une DAO dont l'objectif est de prendre des décisions communautaires et de travailler ensemble, il y a un besoin de transparence. Et bien que la somme en question ne soit pas significative, j'insisterais, par principe, pour que la DAO ne paie aucune partie tierce non-connue pour un travail qui n'a pas été préalablement approuvé par la DAO.
La reconnaissance de ces trois contributeurs ne serait alors pas seulement une récompense financière, mais leur apporterait également du crédit pour leur travail aux yeux de chaque membre de la DAO.
Bien sûr, si ces contributeurs préfèrent rester anonymes (ce qui est compréhensible), cela ne pose pas de problème, mais dans ce cas, je ne serais pas d'accord pour accorder une quelconque récompense, toujours sur le principe de transparence.

Cogatos

I agree with that reward, but I'm sharing the same feeling than some other members regarding the transparency : contributors have to be clearly identidied

LeTouLouSain

CyberSapyen
entièrement d'accord

Kel Jln

While I agree (and I think everyone does) that work should be rewarded, this proposition puts us in front of some kind of a "fait accompli" situation. RealT selects (we don't know how) some people (we don't know who) for a job (we don't know what), and then asks the community to reward them (on an unknown basis).

While the aim is to prove work can be rewarded & to encourage people to dedicate themselves to the DAO is interesting, how it is implemented still is problematic for me.

Since I trust the community, you (Michael) & RealT enough to put up good work, I'll be inclined to vote favorably to this proposition.

AlexRLT

Bonjour à tous,

Je fais partie des personnes concernées par cette proposition.

Concernant la transparence sur l'identité des personnes impliquées, comme Michael, je laisse le libre choix aux deux autres personnes de s'exprimer ou non.

Pour revenir sur le travail accompli (sans dissocier les tâches de chacun, car il s'agissait d'un travail commun et non de "missions individuelles"), voici une liste non exhaustive de ce qui a été réalisé :

Sélection de la plateforme pour ce forum.
Support d'annonce et de discussion
Sélection de la plateforme de vote.
Création du contenu des différents supports.
Mise en place de l’infrastructure (hébergement, backup, etc.).
De nombreux tests avec divers cas d'usage pour anticiper d’éventuels problèmes.
De nombreux appels avec Michael pour construire ce que nous avons aujourd'hui.
et j'en oublie surement… les évolutions et changements ont été nombreux en 2 mois ( voir plus )

Il n'y a pas eu de sélection préalable de membres par RealT. Nous sommes déjà des membres actifs autour des projets communautaires, et nous avons partagé nos idées avec RealT (qui a laissé la porte ouverte aux initiatives sur ce sujet).

C'est ainsi que nous avons commencé à travailler pour établir une base permettant de lancer cette DAO.

Même si je m'éloigne un peu du sujet de cette proposition, il est important de souligner que cette base est évolutive. Nous n'avons pas le "monopole" des décisions ! Cependant, nous avons maintenant une base solide pour débattre et construire un processus durable pour cet écosystème.

Et pour terminer sur ce hors sujet, toutes les contributions communautaire qui ont permis a l'écosystème de se construire pourront faire l'objet de proposition! une allocation communautaire est justement prévu a cet effet.

Nous n'avons rien demandé en retour et apprécions évidemment la reconnaissance de RealT.

Evidement, il ne faut pas voir ces actions comme un "job" pour la DAO exigeant une rémunération... Chaque choses en son temps mais il sera intéressant d'avoir une structure solide à moyen terme....

"step by step" comme on dit 😉

Merci à tous !

PhilP

AlexRLT
Le second des mousquetaires contributeurs, à cette première version de la DAO, est votre serviteur ;-)
C'était facile à trouver, ma signature étant sur le tuto du wiki DAO (comme sur ceux que je produit, depuis un moment sur le wiki communautaire).
J'espère que ce nouveau wiki, permettra une contribution plus large. Les traductions en 4 langues, méritant notamment d'être corrigées par des natifs.
Gardez pas loin le pdf "guide pratique", il devrait très prochainement vous servir pour le vote sur Tally et l'application d'incentives ...
Bonne découverte.

Sigri

AlexRLT +1 pour l'ami du dessus, et voici le troisième luron !

Pour ma part c'est la partie recherche et déploiement, mise en place de l'infrastructure et tout ce qui s'en suit, et malgré le retour fonctionnel que vous avez, on bosse encore tous d'arrache-pied afin de continuer à maintenir et améliorer les outils pour la DAO.

Hâte de voir la suite et l'évolution de tout cela 😉

« Previous Page Next Page »