[bisq-network/proposals] Change policy for compensation requests (#38)

chirhonul notifications at github.com
Mon Sep 10 06:37:53 UTC 2018


I agree with the proposal and the comments made above - currently we have very few committed contributors, and if the project is socially centralized, i.e @ManfredKarrer and few others do all the work, the project will fail, so while we are navigating between two reefs, currently we are more likely to sink due to the lack of contributors.

Comparing working on bisq with a normal day job shows difficulties in the current model - if developers had to explicitly specify the value they produce and make sure it was delivered to the company's customers continuously before getting paid, compensation would be more stressful and less predictable. Even for consulting jobs, there is typically an up-front negotiation for a contract for certain number of hours, or a specific delivery.

Apart from the specific proposal here, I would also consider ways to create proposals with expected BSQ compensation that pay small percentages of the expected amount for milestones for larger projects like the redesign or DAO. Maybe even worth considering "patronage" models where there is a semi-centralized fund, which ideally stakeholders can vote on for the DAO, which can issue time-limited grants to contributors to supplement their compensation apart from any specific project. I do understand the motivations behind the current model, but it also needs to be empirically validated in terms of what actually causes people to show up and do the work.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/38#issuecomment-419804353
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180910/deb86b62/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the bisq-github mailing list