Thanks for your feedback! On the top of what @Eloquent said above, I would like to echo @SEyob and quote him with the reference to the GIP-16. I also do appreciate, that you “acknowledge the reporting requirments are on a go forward basis, but I’d just like to emphasis the word of caution. It’s pretty easy to make demands and paint those who don’t want to kneel to your demands as being bad actors. So would suggest wording things more collaboratively”.
The community management serves in the very best interests of the Goldfinch community. Hence, we should collaborate all together and do our best to mitigate any undesired consequences of the wording we use to communicate inside the community.
1 Like
Hi, @mans9841! It’s doubly nice to see comments from you, as a 1st cohort proposal creator. I’ll try to answer your questions in a well-reasoned way.
- I want to agree with you right away that things before and now are not the same, which is why the management structure has changed both in terms of the number of Community Management members and the number of hours: instead of 11 people who spent 125 hours per week, we propose 5 people who will spend 87.5 hours per week on this. We have reduced the number of hours by nearly 1.5 times, while improving the quality of Community Management staff through J.B.'s experience in real-world finance and knowledge of protocol. Mcegor, Eloquent, J.B. were approved by the proposers through a pre-agreed and announced selection process, including the parameter of good knowledge of the English language. Knowledge of Russian is an optional bonus, which allows us to maintain the largest language community at the same time. I think this is what optimization is all about.
Japanese/Korean members are not included, first because there was an idea to make grants to support language communities as said @Eloquent, and secondly in the above statistics in the specification column is the answer… That said, I think all the current local moderators (Ambassadors) have done a great job! But again, perhaps with the introduction of the grants system will be grants to support language communities. - Why 2 Community Managers? This question came up in the first election as well. The answer is very simple: first for interchangeability, and second Community Managers focus on specific tasks, although they have common responsibilities. One focuses more on Community Relations, the other more on the “technical” component of management processes, but they are interchangeable.
- Regarding reporting - that happens as part of Community Managers responsibilities:
- Creating and describing engagement processes and coordinating their implementation using various tools (e.g. Notion);
- Keeping track of all Community Management tasks;
- Evaluation of the activity of Community Moderators according to the reports in notion.
and as part of Community Moderators’ responsibilities:
- Reporting progress / work being done using tools proposed by Community Managers (e.g. Notion) once a week at least one day in advance before the regular meeting with the rest of the Community Management. - Backpay
4.1 I’m not quite sure why you want May 31st to be the current mandate expiration date, if the first cohort’s mandate was given on March 14th, 2022 and lasted 3 months?
4.2 Backpay calculation from the previous proposal doesn’t fit to the current situation, because the previous calculation was made for the phase after Flight Academy and before the election of 1st cohort Community Management, that is, at that time there was no previously approved pay-for-performance calculation. Now it is there, approved as part of the previous proposal. What is the basis for changing it, if Community Management, after the expiration of the mandate, simply continued to work, performing the same duties, for another 1.5 months?
Regarding the fact that individual members of the community have not participated in the life of the protocol lately after the expiration of the mandate of the first cohort… Perhaps we should evaluate their activities in the last month and a half, for which backpay is proposed. But I believe that no deadline for the duties of the current Community Management has been broken, the reasons for absence were valid and in case of emergency the absentees would certainly get to work (this has always been the case until now), so if there are no critical objections on this point, I would leave the current calculation unchanged.
2 Likes
- If I’m not mistaken before token launch we had 15-18 members in Community Management, now it is proposed only five because of the decrease in activity of a large number of members of the community, who participated in the life of the protocol only during the incentivized program and disappeared after it. So I think we are talking about the same thing and moving in the same direction.
- I’m not quite sure what 80% of the DAO we’re talking about? Could you share some statistics and examples?
1 Like
@J.B. here. I agree that it is important to measure one’s activity in Discord (or any other community channel) but this does not fully capture any given member’s contribution to the discussion inside GFI community. It is hard to quantify qualitative parameters. As several people have already mentioned, quite a bit of work can go into formulating a proper and informative response to what seems even like a simple question. Before formulating a response you may also have to research a given topic in more detail to provide an exhaustive response. This takes more time than what may seem like from the side.
I believe that as GFI protocol grows we will be seeing increasingly more queries in our discussion forums from people working for or representing institutional investors. That investor demographic is key to taking DeFi projects to the next level in terms of capital deployment. With my background in TradeFi and an understanding of DeFi I believe I will be well positioned to foresee and address their questions. That being said, I will pay the same level of attention and expend the same level of effort to address any question from any GFI community member.
I believe this proposal is a step in the right direction for GFI protocol growth and for informational quality of discussions in our channels. I feel honored to have a chance to make a direct contribution to GFI community and I look forward to an opportunity to work with you guys.
2 Likes
The decrease in activity from February to March can be explained by the fact that the flight academy appeal form was opened right after TGE and people were actively discussing it. There were also a lot of questions about the token claiming process, retroactive rewards, etc. The vast majority of these discussions took place in January and February 2022, after which people had their questions answered and their interest in the protocol decreased because they were essentially not interested in the protocol itself, but only in the rewards.
The second decline in activity was due to the market crash. After the collapse of UST, the insolvency of 3AC and other negative events, people are much more cautious and wait for more favorable market conditions to continue their crypto-related activities. And this problem affected not only the Goldfinch community, but also the market as a whole.
Of course, we could at any time attract new members to the community or bring back old ones who participated during the flight academy by announcing new contests and GFI giveaways from the treasury for creating memes, tik-tok dancing, etc. But what’s the point if we have a lot of community members who are in the community only for the sake of easy money and airdrops, but not to participate in the protocol itself? It was a good step in the initial stages to spread the word about the protocol, but now we need a different approach.
I believe our main goal is to attract valuable members to the community, and here quality is more important than quantity. I think that one person who contributes significant liquidity to the protocol as an LP or as a Backer will be much more valuable than 50 people who come here and have no interest in the protocol.
And I also think the members of Warbler Labs have the same vision, which is why GIP-14: The Credit Analysis Pilot Grant focuses on the qualitative contributions of protocol participants, not the number of those participants.
So I believe that community performance should first and foremost be evaluated based on protocol metrics. And if you open Dune, you will see that before the market collapse, TVL, Active Loans, Protocol Revenue and other metrics were showing growth month after month.
Yes, growth has slowed down now, but, as I have already said, this is not a problem of Goldfinch, it is a problem of the market as a whole. I don’t know when the market will start to recover but in my opinion the community management structure in this proposal in terms of the number of participants, the list of responsibilities and the number of working hours is optimal both for the current stage of protocol development and the tasks available at the moment, and for the future, if during these 3 months the market will begin to recover and it will be necessary to increase our activity.
3 Likes
Look, I don’t take it upon myself to evaluate everyone’s work personally in relation to their functional responsibilities.
I did not assign tasks or monitor everyone’s work.
These questions are more for the leaders of your stack.
You had a team, there was some kind of agreement within the team and the distribution of roles.
I can only look at the situation as a whole from the perspective of my experience.
And also subjectively as a member of the community.
As for the functional duties and the professional level required to perform them ,in my opinion, the compensation for the work of a moderator in the discord, given the workload is very high.
I’ll say it again, given the size of the salaries for simply moderating, you’ll defend your decisions in any way you can.
But there is no point in arguing with the result.
Yes, you can tell me that your duties are simply to answer questions and make sure there is no spam.
But again, about 1500 posts a month on the server, taking into account gm and conversations between members.
1500/30 days = 50 posts per day.
50 messages / 5 = 10 messages per day per moderator.
Ie to review 10 messages a day you spend 3.5 hours and it should pay as 3.5 * 40 = $ 140.
$14 for each message you read.
As for the number of responses, there was shown stats at the start of the proposal
1 Like
True. Because we had to produce GIP-08 is very short amount of time and anticipating that the protocol TVL and community engagement will grow, we had 11 people. It was not perfect but was a great teamwork. But as we know, TVL of protocol has been stagnant for some months and the global macro outlook doesn’t look quite good for forseeable future as Fed is just going to implement another 0.75 raise in face of growing recession risk. I believe all community members should watch out burning the reserves from treasury without any siginicant purpose.
If to be paid by DAO, in current macroeconomic situation, I cannot support more than 20 hours for Community Managers in total and more than 20 hours for Community Moderators in total. Hours may be shared between managers and moderators. However, when proper grant program comes live, anyone should be able to submit proposal to the grant committee for other stuffs as requested in the grant program.
Another issue is that GIP-14 Credit Analysis Grant Pilot, has significantly less budget than the current proposal and community members have pointed that out.
1 Like
@mans9841, thanks for your comments 
! I’ll try to respond in a reasoned way.
-
Here are some thoughts on your argument about TVL. First of all the protocol hasn’t started to earn less according to Protocol Revenue, 30d: $79,569 - on the date GIP-08 is made public (27 feb) vs $115,253 - on the current date of GIP-17 (25 jul).
Total 3 months costs on CM according to GIP-17 was proposed to be 39,300 USDC + 1 680 GFI = approx. 40 980 in USDC. This sum is 30% less in USDC, if to compare with GIP-08. At the same time we decrease the amount of Community Management from 11 people to 5 people (50% less as well). If you compare 3 months’ costs on new community management cohort with the protocol revenue you will get at this ratio of 40 980 equivalent in USDC/ 345 759 USDC in Revenue (115,253*3) = 35%. But we acknowledge, that the protocol revenue should be increasing. Hence the ratio would be more favourable in the future.
Find here some more statistics. The average CM salary in the market is 3 250 USDC. Hence, GIP-17 is in the market. Moderators are supposed to earn 25% less then average for CM. -
As for FED. This news came up long time ago In February, when it became known that FED would launch a monetary policy to curb inflation by raising interest rates and further withdrawing liquidity from the financial system. However, no one was mentioning it when we proposed GIP-08, because most of the decline in the risk markets had already occurred because of the anticipation of it. Everyone knows the golden rule “buy rumors, sell facts”. These rumors were anticipated and were already included into the market valuation.
Moreover, the credit squeeze and rising discount rates (including in developing regions, which are currently the focus of the protocol) are likely to increase the likelihood of marginally strong companies turning to Goldfinch. Now traditional banking system looks very unattractive. It’s a win-win situation for the Protocol. -
As for the Pilot on Memos. According to GIP-14, each Credit Analysis Memo will be compensated with 1,000 USDC. We believe that every MEMO will take no more than 20 hours to be done. Hence the rate is 50$ per hour. However, the average salary for Mid-level Credit Analysts is ~53 000$per year or 40 000$ net or 3 300$ per month or 20,6 $ per hour (4*40 hours weeks). GIP-14 doesn’t have any reference to the market average at all… However, I acknowledge, that it could be fine for a pilot project, if we want to boost new activities inside the community.
However, we are ready to hear you and that is what we propose the following number of hours for Community Managers - 30 hours per week in total and for moderators - 30 hours per week in total.
Hence the whole management team will be spending 60 hours in total per week for the server. In other words server will be monitored 8 hours per day in case we will be working in shifts.
In this iteration we propose the current rate for Community Manager to be ~2700 in USDc quivalent (GFI+USDc), despite it’s 17% below the market average of 3 250$. The rate for Moderator is twice lower and it will be ~1300 in USDc equivalent (GFI+USDc). The difference between these numbers and GIP-17 now is 12 216$ (GFI+USDc) or 30% economy from initial 40 980$ (GFI+USDc) in GIP-17. Hence, now we have 28 764$ (GFI+USDc) for 3 months for all 5 CM members.
The backpay is also will be recalculated. Not it is 19 769 USDC instead of 23 650 USDC (16,5% less) and 1396 GFI instead of 1650 GFI (17% less).
Info in the link means that you are working for Discord inc. with MAU 56 million users.
Feel the difference…
Thank you @parallacs for the comments. The onus is on proposal authors to decide further steps.
I’m sure we haven’t seen much of what these contributors have done and they have undoubtedly contributed a lot, but the amounts they want are incommensurate with their efforts.
My suggestion is $500 a month.
That’s a typical community manager’s salary.