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.
