Validator DAO Term 1 Funding Request

Oh so it is all my fault, thanks for the clarification.

1 Like

Have you even read the thread? No, because if you did you would see that they have not been transparent in the slightest and have consistently changed things to suit their narrative.

You are talking about something you have absolutely no understanding of what is going on. If you do then please start from the beginning and read VDAO1 and not just Harmony’s… That is a very bias assessment.

And what, because someone is nice to you , you can trust them?? Not a good idea in the real world my friend.

I hope you get your grant paid!

3 Likes

Hello friend, I base myself on what I have been able to read in this post. If there is any other place to read on the subject I would like to see it. And at no time do I blame you for anything, the truth is, if so, I apologize because it was not my intention. Not because a person is nice to you you have to trust him, I just commented on my first feeling. For this reason, even though, for example, they granted me a 10k grant in Denver, until I receive it, I remain cautious. I think that is appropriate. That’s why I say you always have to stay with the result when you put an end to a song. I do trust Harmony and I share their ideals, that’s why I decided to join them. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to have the same opinion as me, that’s why I respect all assessments.

4 Likes

Hey @Jimbo_JCR.one

I have no issues with those timesheets being treated the same as the other set.

That being said - I, personally, am stepping away from this conversation and I am going to let someone else from the DAO Ops team manage it. It has become apparent that my involvement introduces a certain level of toxicity that harms the discussion of the merits.

Thank you, again, Jimbo. I personally apologize to you for all the heartache this has caused.

  • Sam
5 Likes

Finally something we can agree on here! Before you go, Sam, can you point the community to a link for your time sheets over the last year. It’s concerning that this took you 9 months and all we got was a unacceptable solution to a non-complex situation. You pay your bills, it’s at simple as that.

5 Likes

RETURN OF VDAO1 PAYMENT TO HARMONY

After much discussion the current Validator DAO governors have voted unanimously to return the recent 161023.45 ONE sent from Harmony to the current DAO multisig wallet (Harmony Blockchain Explorer) for payment for VDAO1 governors.

As evidenced in this thread, and also discussed here, there is much on-going discussion concerning this long-standing topic. It has not been resolved. Therefore the current VDAO has sent the 161023.45 ONE back to Harmony (Harmony Blockchain Explorer) for the following reasons:

  1. It is not within the VDAO mandates to resolve payment conflicts between parties with prior arrangements and disagreements on proper pay.
  2. The payment was made to the current VDAO multisig wallet which is not what the validator community voted on (VDAO1 wallet multisig is listed on the proposal that was voted on); the link is in this thread. To maintain the confidence of the validator community it was deemed necessary to return the funds for proper distribution outlined in the passed proposal.
  3. The current VDAO consulted with the 5 governors of VDAO1 and informed them of the decision to return the funds to Harmony, to which all agreed upon.

In summary, the current VDAO has remained true to the community vote regarding payment of VDAO1 and believes any further involvement clearly does not fall into the scope of the VDAO mandates. We sincerely hope a true and open line of communication can be established between VDAO1 and Harmony that will result in an amicable solution. A Harmonious solution if you will.

5 Likes

I will make just this one post here since i have decided long ago to not get involved in the harmony drama anymore.

While i have my own personal view on the provided work sheets, i think what harmony did here is wrong. If you approved the sheets, they should have been paid out to match the $ value at the time of payment, in full, and you just switched it to when the timesheet was submitted, making the payee carry the price volatility. That in itself is a big stab to the back, not just for these guys but for the whole harmony community. I have never in my life seen someone pay out the amount due half a year or more later, and make the payees take the cut for price volatility. If this was between companies, you would pay default interest on top of the full amount and probably some more.

PS: this is not transparent, fair, or makes community trust harmony team. Might want to think about that and the approach taken in this case.

13 Likes

The issue is really tricky:

timesheet completion date (which can be “managed” as to when to submit) vs. timesheet approval date (which can be “managed” as to when to approve)

Maybe should set a policy when a timesheet must be submitted or completed and approved. Then, take the average price from the submission to the approval dates?

Let’s take the middle way. For instance, for Mars Initiative’s timesheet, maybe take the average price from 9/15/2021 (submission date of incomplete timesheet which Mars showed the compliance with the requirement and intent to ask for payment) to 3/3/2022 (approval date when Sam approved or accepted Mars’ timesheet.) Hopefully, the impact to both Harmony team and Validator DAO1 on the price volatility is relatively squared.

Peace :slight_smile:

1 Like

Too many sausages not enough buns.

1 Like

Harmony has donated 960,622 ONE to the Validator DAO since November .

Not sure what to think about these large sums payed to these DAO’s from the point of an investor.

5 Likes

My thoughts as an outsider for what it’s worth…

Firstly, this has been handled appalling by Sam/Harmony. Promises have been made and not delivered, trust has been severely shaken, if not broken entirely. The fact that you thought you could be a DAO manager signing off timesheets and felt you had better things to do over nine months than resolve this festering issue shows a lot about you as a professional and a manager. I actually feel angry about this and have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, this whole reimbursement setup is a mess. Why are DAOs not being funded upfront, with the governor’s managing the treasury? Why are they not generating their own income? i.e. initial investment being used to generate staking rewards for instance, which would define their budget?

If you don’t trust these organisations to be decentralised and autonomous, then hire people the “traditional way”. Just don’t keep up the pretence of having DAOs.

7 Likes

Personally, I think that the pay is exaggerated. Those DAOs are becoming more like easy money making.

I will annoy a lot by this comment, but that is my opinion.

Once there are no more funds then what happens? On the long term this is not feasible. No one will want to be part of a DAO.

7 Likes

I can assure you, at least in vdao, that i don’t know any governor who has ever done anything less than expected and has had the full support of the other serving governors and indeed the validator community every step of the way.

Maybe this is because the validator community is quite close knit in general.

More to the point, if you read the vdao charter, anyone, governor or community member can vote no confidence in any governor if the feel a governor is taking liberties.

Daos are expected to maintain funds after the initial grant but this dao was a core dao setup with the express intention of making harmony decentralised and supporting the core of the protocol, the validators.

Validator dao was promised one already allocated for staking with validators to get new validators bootstrapped and to be self sufficient from the rewards generated of ~500k a month.

Another thing that never materialised and something also detailed in this thread.

We did not make this up, this is Stephen Tse vision and goal for 10k Daos.

We took that seriously and created a true dao which the community had control, not the governors and not Harmony. Here we see harmony trying to assert authority and try to control the vdao.

Harmony wrote articles telling the world this AND that the dao was funded on 11th June 2021. No funds were received.

The vdao should have received 4.5 million one from rewards only by now and never ever have had to rely on any funding from harmony

Even with zero funding, vdao1 achieved an incredible boost to the validator community and to harmony in general.

For vdao1 this meant using our OWN funds and resources to get things done.

Imagine what we could have achieved in 9 months with that funding? Imagine all of this unnecessary time spent being used for furthering the goal of decentralisation.

7 Likes

I actually agree with this, i was against having so many DAOs and they get a really really good hourly rate at 75$/h. Note that while we worked with harmony our rate was way way lower than that and those that are with harmony from 2019 know how much work that was and how technical it was. So yeah the DAOs get paid too much (imo) too.

BUT, given the terms that were given, they should have still been respected here in this case no matter what anyone thinks of the rate being high etc.

Now im really out :slight_smile:

8 Likes

I do kind of agree with this, but I think it misses the point to a degree.

Why is Harmony even setting the pay rates for governors of an “autonomous” organisation?

4 Likes

Can we all stop assuming bad faith?

I know Sam works tirelessly. It’s understandable to be unsatisfied with the current outcome, but I don’t think it’s fair or useful to accuse him of, or imply malfeasance. I understand entirely that some (possibly all) members of VDAO1 are justifiably frustrated with what has happened and is happening, but I don’t think accusing him of anything gets anyone anywhere. I’m not saying this to be condescending, I would probably be just as, if not more, frustrated, and that would affect how I think and communicate. You worked hard and did good things during uncertain times and were told you would be paid and you haven’t yet, ill feelings are entirely justified, just not helpful. I’d like to think you and Sam, in the end, have the same goals, just different ideas of how to get there.

I understand Sam’s concern about setting bad precedents around timesheets, transparency and accountability, however I think going through with the compensation as he listed it and not revising it would set far worse precedents, ones that fundamentally revolve around trust.

The community has to trust that Harmony will honor their agreements and do what they said they were going to.
Perhaps my understanding of the timeline and facts of events is not accurate, but after reading the threads I am under the impression of the following:

1)VDAO was formed, and a set amount of funding was assured by the Harmony foundation.
2)Part of that funding was intended by all parties to be used to pay elected governors for their contributions.
3)Governors were elected, and began work, in accordance with stipulations and requirements that were given to them at the time.
4)At some point after work began or was completed, a stipulation for timesheets that the VDAO governors were either not made aware of before work began, or had not been given the specifics of prior to beginning work, was added.

Assuming all 4 points above are correct:
I understand the timesheet specifications and stipulations being done with the interests of transparency in mind, however I will say this.

Adding any stipulations for payment to work that has already begun OR completed under a different set of expectations is a MUCH worse precedent to set in my opinion than any that would be made by paying the governor’s at the original set rate, or accepting timesheets that are vague because they had to be created months after the time was spent due to requirements not being formalized.

It’s perfectly reasonable to apply even very strict timesheet requirements in order for payment to be distributed for any work done AFTER those requirements were made and communicated. Applying it retroactively to any work done prior would not be considered reasonable in any work for pay transaction I’ve ever done or witnessed in my life, even with the best intentions set behind the new requirements.

Further, I think setting the pay date of a volatile asset at the accepted date of the timesheet would only be acceptable if payment were distributed at the accepted timesheet date. The accepted timesheet date is a seemingly arbitrary one if it isn’t the same date payment is distributed. If you accept my timesheet in November, but don’t pay me until now, basing it on the conversion rate of a volatile asset 4 months ago is not reasonable, unless I agreed to it in November, and also understood I wouldn’t be paid until now. That is not the scenario here.

Doing it based on the accepted timesheet date also leaves too much room for gamesmanship on both sides, and it can fall too far afoul of the original pay rate as to be grossly unfair for either party. Even though I do not think gamesmanship is what’s happening here, it seems like a pointlessly abusable and overly complicated way to approach the problem.

I think there is a simple and elegant solution to prevent that from being an issue going forward, which I will outline at the end of my post.

Based on the 4 points I outlined above, here is what I would suggest.

VDAO1 governors are paid at their original rates ($75/hour) with a conversion rate of ONE that is based on the average of the 1st of Jun and the 31st of August. This would be approximately $0.105. 6% is added to this as interest, based on 8 months of staking. This is significantly less than any penalty would be for being 8 months late on fulfilling any net 30, 60, or 90 contractor pay. While I understand they were not contractors or under such an agreement, I think representing it as a show of good faith and an apology for the tardy the resolution of this matter is appropriate.

Including Mars Initiative at 120 hours, this would result in a payment of approximately 439,142.86 ONE, today’s equivalent value of approximatley $55,000 for work that originally totaled a USD value of $43,500. This is a difference of +278,119.41 ONE from the payment Sam sent that was returned, and a difference of +24,857.14 ONE if they had been paid last year when the work was done. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

Is 278,119.41 ONE worth it to the Harmony foundation to send a message to the community and governors that they will honor agreements made in good faith? I think it is. I understand the original plan would not scale, and needed to be altered. There’s nothing wrong with having to change the structural plans you originally envisioned. But I think paying people what was originally set up before the structure was changed is important.

Furthermore, any timesheets going forward should have an option for payment to be made at the conversion rate of the time of work, or the conversion rate at the time of disbursement. I think the default should be to pay at the conversion rate at the time of disbursement. The person doing the work can check an option that they would like to be paid at the conversion rate at the time of work as this is a riskier option. Since I worded that a bit awkwardly, basically, if I did work for Harmony yesterday, I would have had to submit a timesheet to them outlining the work done that day. By default I will get paid at whatever the conversion rate is when they do pay me. On submitting my timesheet at the end of the work day I could opt in to being paid at the conversion rate as it was when I did the work.

Thank you for reading my novel. I hope this gets resolved in the fairest way possible for everyone.

4 Likes

Thanks for the detailed reply and support.

This thread and ones prior shows bad faith, no assumptions from me.

Never doubted Sam works hard and it is a shame that he , and / or harmony have some kind of issue with funding vdao1, the FIRST dao, have been outright ignored many times for 9 months.

We all have the same ambition, decentralisation.

Harmony decided this, not the governors.

Literally every other dao and many projects have received funding and attention but not vdao1.

Why do you think this is?

Even worse, it was published that we were already funded and had access to staking rewards. No funds were ever sent and having questioned many times, including 3 times in this very thread, the fate of those funds remain a closly guarded secret by Harmony with questions outright ignored.

We calculated a fair average which is detailed in summary at the top of this post with daily detail in the timesheets.

It was calculated more than fair.

I am serving my 3rd term for vdao and i have never had harmony scrutinise timesheets for us or any dao. This phenomenon is specific to vdao1.

Governors and the community are expected to oversee payments which is what vdao1 and other daos have been told.

Yeah I’m just too dumb to scroll over/expand table and was only basing it on June-August. I think our numbers for that period are somewhat similar. Assuming you actually took the true average for that period rather than just my average of June 1st value + August 31st value, I’d say your numbers are more appropriate/accurate.

3 Likes

I agree, 75$ per hour seems logical when u fund dapps cause that’s how much devs take to develop and not go elsewhere.
But on funding dao teams, maybe harmony needs to reconsider the pays given out so they can actually go through their 10k daos vision.
At this pace it is not sustainable and most daos have achieved almost none of their goals.

5 Likes

The only goal the vdao has not achieved is reaching 200 elected validators, although we managed to hit 170.

This is without the bootstrapping funds that we never received whose rewards will sustain vdao indefinitely and would likely have achieved more than 200 elected.

4.5 million rewards have been generated from this fund since vdao1 was elected and < 1 million have reached vdao.

What happened to these funds is a question that is consistently ignored by harmony, including 3 times in this thread and 2 in the previous.

I don’t know what other daos have or have not achieved as they cannot be grouped into 1 entity but as a community member your voice is just as valid to raise any issues with any individual dao.

Harmony decided the rates, not the daos but the community can vote to change this at anytime through the governance process.

The rates for devs are set higher than daos.

2 Likes