We need a cap as long as we have no way to factor in that a member with two Skill Roles can’t produce for both roles what a member with just one Skill Role can when said member works 24/7 in the capacity of this one role.
Let’s make an example.
Assumptions:
There are 2 subDAOs
Each subDAO has 3 tiers: A, B, and C where A is the tier with the highest emissions
Every subDAO individually decides on their tiers:
– subDAO 1: Tier C= >2h, B= >3h, A= >4h
– subDAO 2: Tier C= >1h, B= >2h, A= >5h
There are 3 members: Member X, Member Y, and Member Z
Member X works 6h for subDAO 1 (Tier A)
Member Y works 10h for subDAO 2 (Tier A)
Member Z works 4h for subDAO 1 (Tier A), and 5h for subDAO 2 (Tier A)
Member X would get maximum emissions for his role from subDAO 1.
Member Y would get maximum emissions for his role from subDAO 2.
Member Z would get maximum emissions for his role from subDAO 1 and 2.
I hope this simple example illustrates the problem. Although Member Y works 1h more than Member Z, they get way fewer emissions because only Member Z has two Skill Roles and happens to fall within Tier A for both subDAOs. And because every subDAO decides individually on tiers, this leads to an imbalance. This imbalance gets even worse when there is a 3rd subDOA involved.
Now you can argue that the tiers in each subDAO aren’t set properly. But that’s exactly my point. What is the correct measurement here?
Do we assume that someone who works full-time for 1 subDAO automatically is Tier A and everyone who doesn’t isn’t?
If a member puts all their efforts into working for a subDAO, how could they possibly be able to do the same for a second, third, or even fourth? Should therefore be the member with the most effort be the one who serves as a benchmark for everyone else in this subDAO?
What is if there are two subDAOs where it is easier to get to Tier A than in a third subDAO and there is a member with Skill Roles for the first 2 and another member with Skill Rolls for 2 and 3? Does this mean that the first 2 subDAOs need to change their tier structure? Is full-time always Tier A, regardless of the fact that there might not be a single member in a subDAO that fulfills this criterium?
A cap solves the purpose of having a simple and mostly fair system while not being forced to compare work across all subDAOs.
I also outlined my idea of calculating emissions for members with more than one Skill Role ([Discussion] Adjustable emissions Cap - #14 by CryptoPawz) and there are also other ideas in this thread that don’t require a cap.
A cap is a crude solution to the problem posed. The real problem is that the subDAO has poorly structured their tiers – a person who works twice as much as another are both in the same tier. The solution that doesn’t impinge on other subDAOs is clear: make another tier, or raise the bar to be included in the tier.
In fact, this is the solution I already explained in response to your post before.
…if each subDAO can adjust the amounts each tier receives themselves, they can accurately account for how much of a difference in time and effort there is between each tier.
You write as if this is incredibly difficult or even impossible to do, but we already have two subDAOs that have implemented it successfully. Each subDAO will know best how to measure the value contributed by their members. And if you think we can’t even do that because it’s too hard, then perhaps we should just pay every single skill worker the same amount.
Community creators and researchers have a tiered model. We put in the effort to differentiate between members based on how much work they put in. So at the bare minimum they shouldn’t have a cap. If other subDAOs feel like they need a cap, that’s up to them. Again, this should be chosen at the subDAO level, not at a global level. There’s no need to compare across subDAOs. Each subDAO is unique, so we should expect them to be organized differently.
In other words, since theres been a lot of suggestions, opinions and arguments on this particular topic and there’s yet to be a viable solution yet, I’d say a vote could be the deciding factor while further data is being collected and other models explored, I would also like to add that holding too many roles can reduce efficiency, the more work you have, you’re more likely to do better in some than others, instead of a cap, maybe there should be a limit to the number of role acquisition too, if you’re having 5roles, and you’re working individually on all 5 aspects through out 1month, I think there’s high probability of unequal output. We need a model that will ensue consistency considering all the factors involved.
I don’t believe there is anyone who hold multiple roles here and don’t turn up… that’s also part of the reason we have leaders of each subDAO who report those who doesn’t turn up to work.
I for one haven’t seen a role with inactive individuals who get emissions.
If a person has “too many roles” (i.e. they are receiving too much from some subDAOs for the work they put in), their emissions should be reduced or they should be kicked out altogether. In general, the more roles someone has, the more likely it should be that they are in lower tiers in each subDAO; it will be incredibly hard for them to produce the highest quality output in every subDAO they are in. But only each subDAO can know what tier a member should belong to. Enforcing a Grape-wide rule (such as a cap) eliminates the possibility for any nuance at the subDAO level, and as I explained earlier this misaligns incentives.
The more I read what others write, the more I become convinced that in fact it’s tiers that should be enforced, not a cap. It elegantly solves all the “problems” that have been put forth. The only downside is that it requires each subDAO to put in the work of defining tiers and assigning members to them.
Equal emissions for all members was recommended for subDAOs at the start for the sake of simplicity. We are now more than 2 months in since inception, so it seems like it’s about time to move to a better system that rejects the naive assumption that members of a subDAO all put in the same amount of work.
I concur to @Durden’s opinion.
Another helpful approach might be: Each individual should have a max of 3 skill roles or most preferably 2 for high efficiency and also to eliminate the complaints of one being underpaid based on his/her efforts.
How :
The activities of individuals with multiple skill roles should be observed to know the roles they have more work inputs and the areas they perform less.
After much consideration, I too tend to believe that the key is the correct structure of tiers within every SubDAO and that a universal cap or adjustable cap does not address the issue if incentive or lack thereof, in fact it might negatively affect it.
Therefore, I think it is of paramount importance that every SubDAO adopts a tiered approach to their emissions, one that should be ideally tailored to each SubDAO’s needs, in order to maximize incentive and eliminate instances of people doing the minimum work (in one, two or however many SubDAO they may belong). That way performance will be the key indicator and lead metric towards ones emissions, regardless of the number of roles/SubDAOs they are involved.
SubDAOs should be left to independently decide on their tiers, constantly fine tuning, adjusting and monitoring them for efficiency.
I really think that the idea of an adjustable cap would need to be overly complex to be fair. The equation to calculate emissions for a community member would be polyparametric.
So, even though I like it as an idea, I believe we first need to assist SubDAOs in determining a tiered system. We need to upkeep a meritocratic environment, and if we are successful in doing so, maybe there is no reason for any cap, as @CryptoPawz mentioned.
Decentralization, in the way SubDAOs are experiencing it, requires a dynamic approach, and tiers allow for adjustments and self-policing throughout epochs. The introduction of councils and reps will also create a continuous feedback loop that will keep tiers fair.
I am happy to assist any SubDAO in introducing/optimizing their tier system.
As promised, here are the stats for emissions, discourse, and discord activity
I think this data is extremely useful, yet I am aware of its limitations. Do not worry about your own standings here, but focus on how it paints a picture of involvement and how emissions should be relative. We can also ideate on how to track the missing parts of the picture
All else being equal, equal distribution to everyone is better than random bonuses to some, as humans tend to dislike randomness. Would you prefer a million dollars or a 50% chance for two million dollars?
But then as I argued above, tiers > equal distribution.
I’ll be setting up a vote for this – this could possibly be a 2 part vote
Vote 1 – Do we need a cap on skillrole emissions? A cap is a number we choose to be the maximum emission per member per epoch (this includes consideration for a fixed cap and a variable cap)
Options:
Yes
No
Vote 2 will only happen if we vote to keep a cap. At that point, we will vote on options for calculating the cap
I vote No cap, but emissions should be based on how many each person held during the last epoch emissions… meaning if you got 5k grape and sold all, you should be capped.
Want to put us all on the same page, and i think this would be best described as voting yes for a cap and suggesting a variable cap based on percentage of holding from previous epoch’s emissions
So if someone sold 100%, there would be a different emission than if someone sold 50% for example?
Just to point out one effect of a cap based on how much sold from the previous epoch, it would prevent the main GRAPE holders from participating in the protocol owned liquidity bond buying. Normally, to avoid getting diluted by everyone else, you would sell half your GRAPE, create GRAPE-USDC LP, and exchange that for GRAPE bonds. But if you are penalized for selling your GRAPE, you will have to wait for a steeper discount to make it worth it. But it won’t reach that discount because those with no skill roles have no problem selling their GRAPE. So the non-skill roles will get all the inflationary benefits from bonds while skill roles just have to watch as they get diluted.
tl;dr Grape would have contradictory monetary policies.
Regarding this whole topic, it’s my impression that few people are thinking about second and third order effects, and only think about the first order effect: “Penalize selling → less selling → price go up”. We should be thinking very carefully about how incentives will be affected.
I will likely vote against a cap. I’m convinced by arguments in this direction, particularly those of @Durden. Furthermore, I am naturally inclined to incentivize people who contribute at high levels to continue to do so. I feel that a cap disincentivizes such people (though I see hard workers like @Favour and @Tariqstp1 are pro cap). Putting a cap on someone who contributes at a level above the ceiling just seems unfair to me. SubDAOs should be strict in how they manage tiers. If someone isn’t contributing at the level of their tier, the solution is simple. Problem solved, I think.
Are you proposing a solution, on how we get everyone to hold there grape? Or reasons why there should be a cap? The idea here is actually not bad, if we are all trying to get Skill role holders to hold onto their emissions. The idea of a cap my seem unfair tho to those with more than one role, and always show up. But I feel there is a better solution, max role can or should be 3 (excluding those holding the Crew role and team members) which is outside team members and crew members, max role should be 3.