As “respectful” as you are trying to be - I don’t know if I have ever seen such a gross misrepresentation of an action I have taken.
I don’t know if you actually read the justification - but based on the above statement, I can only conclude that you didn’t.
The amount of ONE calculated for compensation has ZERO to do with the all time high or the price of ONE at ANY time… The ONLY consideration that was made was “when was an acceptable timesheet submitted?” Which is to say “when did the DAO governor submit a true accounting of the work they are asking to be paid for?”
I then went to historical data and found the average for that day. This is why Jimbo was paid at an average of $0.13 whereas Patrick was paid at an average of $0.305… (pretty sure that was all explained above.)
Harmony has funded the Validator DAO to the tune of $210,890 USD
Actions do speak louder than words. We have not shunned the VDAO. In fact, it is one of the highest funded DAOs in the Ecosystem. Harmony has NOT ignored your requests. We have, in fact, spent a significant amount of time reviewing and addressing the concerns that you have raised. We have not paid you directly because that is the role of the DAO - not Harmony. But we have funded the DAO.
@Maffaz - I have a hard time responding to this post… for a few reasons.
#1 - you are correct. I made a plan that, fundamentally, could not work and could not scale. The initial plan for the Validator DAO was conceived BEFORE the $300M Ecosystem Grant fund was even established.
I never expected so much work to land on only 5 shoulders. I believed, in error, that the Validator DAO governors would pull together the Validator community and share the burden amongst them to achieve their goals. However - that did not happen. At the very least, those early governors were able to benefit from additional delegations to their validators that their prominence in the DAO gave them. I saw - immediately after the election - that a number of the governors added “Validator DAO Governor” to their handles… which I 100% approve of… but that did give them a competitive advantage in gaining delegations.
#2 - I am not sure who scheduled it… but every few days I have seen the Validator DAO twitter account repost that medium article. I have felt - several times - that I should go in and take it down as it no longer represents how DAOs are working in Harmony. Based on your liberal quoting from the article - I think I will. It is important that we reflect the current state of affairs. For your reference, here are the DAO Funding Guidelines.
#3 Regarding who gets paid what… The Validator DAO community clearly voted that EVERYONE should get paid. The analysis I did was simply justifying an ADDITIONAL grant to the VDAO. Harmony has donated 960,622 ONE to the Validator DAO since November. The vote to fund the VDAO1 compensation was completed on January 31st. It is in the hands of the VDAO on paying out what the Validator community has approved.
Unbelievable we LOST delegations due to putting more time into the DAO than promoting our validator… It gave us ZERO edge as we have stated numerous times.
I have felt - several times - that I should go in and take it down as it no longer represents how DAOs are working in Harmony.
You mean Erase history? To cover your tracks?
The Validator DAO community clearly voted that EVERYONE should get paid.
I think you need to re-read the vote and NOT everyone is getting paid @Wenneson and even those that are “getting paid” are not getting fully paid for hours due.
I believed , in error,
You screwed up and you expect us to bear the consequences of your actions??
and it is not sharing the burden that is the issue here. We worked for 5 months based upon YOUR promises of being funded. In fact, you stated we were already funded.
We have done NOTHING wrong here. The amount of crap you have thrown money at with zero in return and one of the few that have actually made some incredible achievements in the DAO space and you treat them like dirt.
The stress and anxiety you have caused me, my family and VDAO members over the last 9 months from something we put our heart and soul into is enough to continue for as long as you like.
So you just keep trying to change the narrative, re-write the past and we will continue to speak the truth.
@Maffaz Wow, I think that saying: “The stress and anxiety that you have caused me, my family” are harsh words, I will tell you that stress and anxiety for this topic I see no need. In life everything works the same, you have to bet on something but in this case, if you don’t receive the promised financing you don’t have to cause those states either. First, because along the way of that financing, a thousand things can happen for which you don’t get paid and until then you can’t put yourself in a state of stress and anxiety for a simple “promise”. I think reaching that extreme is up to you, but I don’t think Harmony is to blame for it, since you’re the one who has to know how things work and know how to manage emotions.
I think that @Sam has given a transparent explanation and assuming the mistakes made, for which they should try the problem resolved and in peace. You also have to understand both points of view and of course I understand that Harmony used to have a structure and a way of working that they have had to update and there are several things that can lead to this type of situation. But speaking of what people understand and instead of repeatedly criticizing mistakes, you have to go straight to find solutions and create harmony among all. Harmony is a great blockchain and it is offering financing opportunities that can help many of us, with which it is necessary to understand that their workflow increases and they are a bit approached and come late in the procedures (I myself have a DAO request and I was awarded a Grand that I have not received yet) but the important thing I think is the ending, understanding where both parties are and seeing how the songs end when we put the last point. I traveled from Spain to ETHDENVER and personally met the entire Harmony team, they are the type of people who seek to keep everyone happy and avoid problems with which… If both parties want to stay on good terms, they will surely end up understanding and solving .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
It is not within the VDAO mandates to resolve payment conflicts between parties with prior arrangements and disagreements on proper pay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.