Trial Budgets for the 3 new WGs!

The votes for the 3 trial WGs have begun!

Remember, these are not full workgroup budgets. These trial WGs are aiming to be funded for a few months, to see if they can find good synergy w the community, team and the rest of the WGs before proposing a full budget with JUP for long-term alignment.

Vote Now: https://vote.jup.ag

Voting & ASR Notes:

  • These votes carry ⅓ weight for Active Staking Rewards. This means that voting for all 3 votes is equivalent to voting once. This is to prevent dilution for previous voters of other proposals.
  • You can vote for all 3 ongoing proposals.
  • Rewards are not dependent on what you vote for, so you will receive rewards regardless of your voting option.

Summary of Trial WGs:

Catdet Working Group:
The Catdet Work Group (WG) proposal is a strategic plan to enhance culture within the Jupiter community by empowering the Catdet corps: crucial agents in cultivating an environment where people can learn, grow, and co-create. This proposal details initiatives to extend the community’s influence, improve engagement processes, and foster a supportive environment for learning & interaction.

Key Points of the Catdet Working Group Proposal:

  • Mission and Operations: Grow the Catdet corps and ensure all community members feel loved and valued.
  • Role of Catdets: Central to community culture, defined by traits like helpfulness and openness, and vital in onboarding new members.
  • Expansion of Catdet Culture: Guidelines for selection, regular activity checks, and expansion of roles beyond Discord to other platforms.
  • Process Improvement: Vital in improving selection processes for Catdets and defining community member roles more clearly through community input.
  • Activities and Projects: Introduction of weekly updates using AI, trial groups like the Catdet X Army to boost visibility on social platforms, and community-driven classes, workshops, and events to foster learning and interaction.
  • Budget Request: Total of $69,000 for community initiatives and core contributor compensation over a five-month trial period aimed at fostering significant community involvement and feedback. (5 core members @ $1.8k/month each for 5 months, plus $24k for community contributor payments)
  • Future Initiatives: Potential landmark event at Solana Breakpoint, more expansion on classes and workshops, as well as other community-driven ideas to further solidify the Catdet’s role in the community.
  • Core members: Julian, Easy E, Cas AKA TheGreatOBO, Catoshi, Rolex Gold

Trial period success is defined by involvement by the wider community, as well as measurable growth of individuals within the community (skills acquired, content created, etc.)

Full proposal here: Proposal: Catdet Workgroup - LFGrow!

Planetary Clip:

Web Working Group:
The Web Work Group (WWG) is proposing a trial budget to maintain and ensure up-to-date integrity of key web resources including Jupiter Space Station (product oriented guides and docs) and Jup.eco (a community focused resource). The WWG is tasked with facilitating contribution for these resources between the team, community, and other WGs. This group seeks to address challenges like information overload, resource fragmentation, and sub-optimal engagement that currently hinder the DAO’s operations.

Key Points of the Web Working Group Proposal:

  • First and foremost: Revitalization of the Jupiter Space Station; bring it up-to-date.
  • Introduction of the Jup.Eco concept: A platform developed to centralize DAO communications and resources, enhancing accessibility and engagement within the community.
    • Core Features and Innovations:
      • Searchable FAQs
      • Catdet & Work Group Content Corner: Centralizes all DAO communications.
      • JUP Notifications & Calendar: Maintains a unified calendar of events and notifications.
      • Onboarding Guides & FAQs: Streamlines the onboarding process for new and existing members.
      • JUP Socials & Blog Dashboard: Serves as a unified communication outlet.
    • Potential Future Development:
      • Work Group Directory: Facilitates sharing of work status updates and transparency reports.
      • JUP Grants Listings: Provides a community-accessible board for R&D needs.
      • JUP Ecosystem Legends: A hall of fame for significant contributors.
      • JUP Talent: A new talent service to bridge traditional and Web3 employment.
      • JUP University: Upskills community members on DAO systems and other technologies.
  • Financials:
    • Provisional Period Budget: A total of $84,500 requested for initial development and operational costs. These costs are as follows: $56k for 2 full-time members, and one part-time member, as well as $10k for a content contributor pool, $3k for general infra expenses, and $15k retroactive compensation for feature planning, scoping, and auditing existing resources over the past 6 weeks.
  • Core Members: Sir Nay Nay, Antimatter, Hanko (part-time).

Trial period success is defined by successful establishment and adoption of 2 crucial resources for the community: Space Station & Jup.Eco, as well as effective community buy-in, co-creation, and collaboration with other WGs.

Full proposal: Proposal: Jup.Eco & The Web Working Group (WWG)

Planetary Clip:

Reddit Working Group:
The Jupiter Reddit Working Group (JRWG) seeks to establish a commanding presence for Jupiter on Reddit, a platform with 1.212 billion monthly users. The group aims to empower the community, facilitate open communication, and significantly enhance brand visibility within the DeFi space on Reddit.

Key Points of the Reddit Working Group Proposal:

  • Goals: Strengthen Jupiter’s presence on Reddit to attract and engage crypto enthusiasts and DeFi newcomers.

  • Key Responsibilities: Manage a high-quality Jupiter subreddit, curate relevant content, and foster robust community interactions.

  • Utilize Reddit as a place for content aggregation.

  • Expected Benefits: Enhanced community engagement, increased brand awareness, and valuable feedback from users to refine Jupiter’s offerings.

  • Three-Month Trial Budget: $68,000 covering a lead moderator ($6k/month), a full moderation team (4 members), and additional contingencies like graphic design and bot maintenance.

  • Recruitment: Seeking passionate community members and experienced redditors to join the JRWG and drive its mission.

  • Integration: Align the JRWG’s efforts with Jupiter’s broader marketing strategies for cohesive brand messaging.

  • Core member: Weird City, recruiting more contributors (aiming for 4 members)

Trial period success is defined by establishment of the Jupiter Subreddit and meaningful measurement of growth and engagement.

Full proposal: Proposal: Introducting Reddit Working Group for Jupiter

9 Likes

The budget for the reddit working group is outrageous.

6 Likes

Yikes to all 3.
Reddit is cesspool, flowing full of people that cant leave their political view at login, instead if you dont agree you are bashed or banned. Budget is way to high for 1 person to be semi named. (To much trust me bro)

Its really only between the other 2 and each has a (Trust me bro) team member.

6 Likes

Reddit Moderator budget is too high, and there’s no time limit on when to attain the goals for the Jupiter Subreddit. It’s best to have it time bound, even with first month or so pro bono.

Really excited for the Web Working Group ! But there’s no time limit either for the resources to be implemented. Only the Catdets have a Time Window, which I find great.

4 Likes

All three of these new proposals ask for large sums of money with nebulous returns. I’m certainly not against dev pay in the first one, but the inclusion of hefty backpay (for relatively few extensive github updates through that timeframe from what I can see) is worrying. These other two things all have a “trust me, bro, it’s for the culture” vibe, which usually ends up just lining the pockets of certain people while draining the community coffers. We apparently need five salaried moderators for Reddit? Really?

The feedback on the Catdet program also feels loosely defined and more of a leadership/connections seminar. These are big budgets for connection building. We have to focus on things that will provide obvious benefits from a tech perspective that provide measurable returns, not throw money at things like Reddit.

State how you will use metrics to define success or failure in each of these instances. If we reach the failure state, are any portions of the budgets returned?

5 Likes

I agree 100%. These are all essentially “pay me to upkeep something that already exists and will take minimal effort.” The Web group could encompass all 3 of these groups (eventually) they shouldnt be separate and pay should come upon performance. We dont need to pay people for these things… ESPECIALLY when we arent even sure they will provide value.

AND who are these people? The community should vote to form the group and then CWG should interview candidates to head each group. There should be 0 “trust me bro” group leads. This is a decentralized business, i want to make everyone here lots of money, but I surely wont waste the money we have to fund groups that, while potentially important, lack purpose and value this early on.

3 Likes

Nearly every mid-large size organization in the world employs teams (usually specialized agencies) to manage their presence on social media so it’s very reasonable for Jupiter to be allocating budget for this.

These B2B services are usually far more expensive than people realize. The budgets outlined here aren’t that out of line with developed nation contract standards.

The process for choosing social media teams is a solved problem. Organizations put out an RFP (request for proposal) and multiple teams make proposals for the same work, the organization picks the best proposal. The process is renewed annually or biannually and ensures healthy competition among service providers.

regarding Trial Budgets:

why ask for such a high amount of salaries? i mean, we are just starting. for me, the proof is in the pudding, and as of now we hardly can see let alone eat the pudding.

the intentions are good, as they should. but really, can we get away from the vague talk and specify what we need to build a fair structured DAO?

humans are, by nature, greedy. and as soon as money and recognition are at play, so does the power play enter the room

ofcourse there are many people whom don’t act like the above mentioned but i wouldn’t put my money on it (pun intended) that our DAO would steer clear of that

all in all, i was disappointed this week by many LFG and other hyped texts in the general discourse.

will ponder on last week and hopefully return with better outlined thoughts, cause this one is a spontaneous first.

have a good day all,

marja

1 Like

Not sure I understand the rationale for weighting all three as one. You should have to continue to participate in every measure to get full benefit. Early voters that unstaked and walked away should be diluted.

3 Likes

After carefully reviewing the funding proposals from each working group within JupiterDAO, I have decided only support the Catdet WG and not support the rest at this time due to several concerns:

  1. High Budget Requests: The proposed budgets across the working groups are quite substantial. These requests are without clear justification on how these funds will drive tangible benefits for the Jupiter ecosystem.
  2. Lack of KPIs: The proposals lack clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which are crucial for measuring the effectiveness and impact of the working groups. Without these metrics, it’s difficult to ensure that objectives are met and resources are utilized efficiently.
  3. Uncertainty in Time Commitment: The proposals do not specify the expected time commitments from working group members. This omission makes it challenging to assess whether the budget requests are proportional to the effort and expected outputs.

As a reference for better structuring, I suggest looking at the Arbitrum Treasury and Sustainability Working Group model, which operates with a clear and transparent payment structure of about 100 ARB per hour. This model could serve as a valuable benchmark for JupiterDAO’s working groups to ensure accountability and proper alignment of compensation with contributions.

However, I am open to discussions and willing to reconsider my vote if these concerns are adequately addressed. I am particularly interested in seeing:

  • A more detailed justification of the budget requests.
  • The establishment of clear KPIs for performance evaluation.
  • Clarification of the expected time commitments.
1 Like

I’m curious where to find any discussion about creating and funding working groups and would like to learn more about selection processes that leads to proposals like this been pulled out for voting. I want to believe it is not just your decision @0xSoju?

What these “working groups” asking as salary is outrageous, I can’t wrap my head that someone is voting yes. Would be nice to get more statistics about how are unique wallets voting, than 1 bar with votes count.

Came here to say exactly that. The community as a whole could probably do just as good as a job without the 68k price tag.

Soju is not responsible for selecting the proposals that go up for vote.

My understanding of the basic process is:

  • Proposal is submitted here on the forum
  • Community comments and discusses
  • Core Working Group (CWG) takes note of the discussion
  • Meow weighs in with his thoughts

Currently, it’s the CWG and Meow that decide which proposals are put up for vote.

As for the salaries, that’s highly subjective. That said, I would ask, what is your time and energy worth?

As for voting statistics, it’s something that has been brought up several times and many are in favor of. Ideally, a community member with the skills would create and post a dashboard as a proof of concept. From there they could submit a proposal for funding to maintain and improve the dashboard over time.

Salary is not subjective, it should be always cost effective for the amount and difficulty of the work, qualification/specialisation necessary, average salary for such position and amount of eventual candidates meeting the job criteria.

Moderation of chats or forums doesn’t require any specific qualification or education, therefore should be bellow average salary level.
Majority of the people at comparable moderation positions are working for 1000 USD or less / month, some of them in multiple discord servers / forums. There are dozens if not hundreds of moderators comments on X they would take half or less of the approved salary.

As Jupiter DAO works in international environment, different salaries requirements from different parts of the world should be considered. Applying US salary standards is simply waste of money.

Worldwide average income for comparison:

2 Likes

I think i disagree with your entire premise. If we follow your reasoning, we should limit all WGs and all proposals to regions where the average income is very low. We would be lowballing our labor costs and targeting underdeveloped regions to do our work for us while we reap the majority of the benefits.
That does NOT sound even close to the Jupiter ethos. We are not a Fortune 500 company…in fact, we should be as far from Corporate America as we can get.
the value we are seeking is the value of an engaged community growing an ecosystem. Not skilled labor we can exploit.
I’m a firm believer that the value we are receiving comes from the act of a community sharing it’s talent to build a great environment. it’s the willingness to contribute we should be rewarding, not paying salaries. And if you accept that reasoning at all, then skill based compensation should not be the focus, but instead, focus on rewarding an engaged community. If we pay only what people are worth in their personal careers, then a small group of people who live in the western hemisphere would be getting paid significantly more than the rest of the world for the exact same effort and commitment. Instead of focusing on What people are worth in their regions and then creating a complex system to pay them and keep compliant with all relevant jurisdictions, simply reward their willingness to engage and grow the community.

The argument that we should overpay for basic moderation roles because it aligns with our community ethos is fundamentally flawed. The reality is that moderation of chats and forums is not a highly specialized task and does not require extensive qualifications. Therefore, it should be compensated appropriately, in line with industry standards and global averages.

The idea of using inflated US salary standards in an international context is a gross missallocation of resources. There are countless qualified moderators who would willingly work for significantly less, often juggling multiple forums for around $1,000 per month. Ignoring this fact and choosing to overpay is not just imprudent; it’s wasteful.

Moreover, the notion that we should disregard skill-based compensation in favor of vague rewards for engagement is both impractical and unsustainable. This approach not only undermines the principle of fair compensation but also risks creating an inequitable system where a small group of individuals disproportionately benefits.

It is essential to ground our compensation strategy in reality and ensure it reflects the true nature of the work and the global market standards. We cannot afford to indulge in idealistic but impractical compensation models that ultimately do a disservice to our community and our financial sustainability.

2 Likes

I’m certain that Wells Fargo would completely agree with all your points. The issue is, this isn’t Wells Fargo…this isn’t even a business. This is a community owned DAO that has a specific orientation. This orientation, or Ethos is all about growing our community and brand. It’s about empowering our community and rewarding them for their support. These are standards that are meant to be championed.
I am pretty sure that I’ve never heard @meow mention a single time about exploiting our community members that happen to have been born in a region with minimal economic opportunities.
I’m not really advocating for any specific standard, but i do believe we need a universal standard that covers every member. I know that i would never support any initiative or idea that marginalized any portion of our community.

@Austyn @loothore907 i wonder if this is being over analyzed… the marketplace will find appropriate compensation. People will apply, state their compensation requirements, and the jup team will weigh this against their qualifications. Another candidate might underbid the previous or not. Its fun to play sims, but the dao wont be able to control everything…