This proposal aims to settle the February/March Emissions
Context
Early March, February emissions were put to an onchain vote that did not pass.
At the time the emissions proposal included Membership Emissions, A Market Maker Loan, Skill Role Emissions, Contest Prize Emissions, a Pandas (Chinese Community) Growth Grant and Grauda (Indonesian Community) Growth Grant.
45.9% of Voters were infavour while 54.1% were against.
As per onchain comments there were several reasons people voted No
- Errors in the Emissions model
- Disproportional Emissions for individuals
- Issues with the emissions distribution as a whole
Several commenters noted they were voting no on the expectation of a revised proposal be put up to address the issues with the proposal.
Emissions became a regular agenda item in DAO Calls throughout March, Apil, May and into June.
To my knowledge membership emissions were skipped for February, the growth grants for the international communities canceled as those sub-communities departed, the Contest Prize emissions were put to a seperate on chain vote which passed and I am uncertain of the fate of the proposed Market Maker Loan.
The Skill Force Emissions became a focus for much of the discussion and new models were put forward.
On 26 April, @DyNite and @Dim_Selk put forward a revised proposal on discourse that sought to address the problems members had raised with the original proposal and issues that were brought up during DAO calls. Their revised proposal was for 1.26 Million $Grape and had input from SubDAO’s and SubDAO representatives to deem what seemed fair emissions for the work that had been undertaken.
@DeanMachine reviewed this emissions model and put forward a counter proposal that modified Dim & DyNites suggested emissions model $Grape amounts based on an overall view of contributions to the DAO and Community as a whole
On 01/05/2022 the two emissions models were discussed and the majority of the DAO Board voted in favour of the Dean’s modified emissions model. There was talk of minor revisions that would take a couple of days to be finalised
Discussion starts 51:40 - > ends 1:04:20
A comprehensive emissions model was later in the works by @Arximedis which may not have been finalised
Membership emissions remained on the DAO agenda for the rest of May till near the end of June, before dropping off the list.
For the last while the issue seems to be raised once a month by different individuals wishing for it to be addressed.
Proposed Action
Put the Modified February and March Emissions model to an on chain vote
By putting the February/March Skill Force Emissions to an onchain vote we should be able to settle any current or future complaints on unresolved emissions relating to work done by community members for these months.
This modified February and March emissions model gives $Grape amounts to skill role members for the efforts they made during that period. The amounts were decided by SubDAO’s and SubDAO representatives to reflect what seemed fair emissions for the work that had been undertaken by each member. An executive view was taken to modify the numbers to reflect overall efforts of members between SubDAO’s and based on their input to the main DAO.
In total the combined February and March emissions in this proposal are 1.23 million $Grape. ~60% less than what the Original February and March emissions would have been based on the 1.51 million $Grape that had been raised for Skill Role emissions in the defeated February Emissions model.
(Members ChoboSwaggins, Zhing Richard and Libra have been removed from the emissions model having been sent $Grape privately from Whale’s Friend. Whale’s Friend declined reimbursement instead requesting any excess be sent to the Grape treasury)
Further Details/References
Original Proposal:
The proposal included:
Membership Emissions of 748k $Grape
A Market Maker Loan of 833k $Grape
Skill Role Emissions of 1.5295 M $Grape
Contests payout of 500k $Grape
Pandas Growth Grant of 50k $Grape
Grauda Growth Grant of 50k $Grape
For a total of 3.608 Million $Grape
The comments were mixed with several noting errors and expectation of a new proposal to address issues:
Messages from members requesting updates:
