Compensation Cycle 4 - Contributor Commitments Ratification Proposal

The beginning of May 2022 marked the start of the fourth Warcamp Compensation Cycle.

16 contributors elected to commit to contributing to DAOhaus for the duration of this fourth Cycle (May and June, 2022).

HAUS Price

This Cycle, the effective HAUS price used for HAUS base compensation distributions will be determined by the 30-day TWAP (see this workbook for a calculator) at the time of distribution each month. The same price will be used across both Commitment and Retroactive Tracks, taken from whichever track’s distribution proposal is created first.

Contributor Value Levels

Given the delay in beginning the ratification process for Cycle 4, the DAO (during Warcamp all-hands on Monday, May 30) has collectively chosen to honor the Commitment %s and Value Levels proposed by each contributor, at face value, without the typical review process. This decision was made to enable the DAO to focus its attention on developing and coming to consensus on expected substantial improvements to the Compensation Program for Cycle 5 and beyond rather than on debate and dispute resolution for Cycle 4.

As a result, Value Levels in Cycle 4 are to be considered provisional, and do NOT represent a new baseline from which to evaluate Value Levels in Cycle 5 and beyond.

Additionally, contributors who wish to change their Commitment % or Value Level for Cycle 4 – such as in response to feedback received from other Warcamp members – may do so by responding in this thread by EOD Thursday, June 2. This post will be edited to reflect the latest elections at the end of that period, just before being put up for the typical ratification proposal.

Cycle 4 Contributor Selections (Provisional)

Contributor Commitment % Value Level HAUS %
adrienne 80% 5 5%
Amos 70% 5 5%
Avi 50% 4 5%
Bau 90% 3 10%
Dekan Brown 100% 5 15%
earth2travis 100% 5 25%
Jeremy 75% 4 50%
Jord 100% 5 30%
JP 66% 4 10%
Keating 50% 5 10%
Sam Kuhlmann 100% 5 15%
Santiago 70% 4 40%
Scott 10% 5 50%
Spencer 90% 5 35%
UI369 100% 4 28%
vengist 70% 5 15%

Hey all, I realized my commitment percentage is wrong – it should be 50%. Thanks!

First, I want to thank all of the Paladins (and others) for the work being done on this difficult topic. I’m glad that we’re starting to put things in place to improve this process.

That said, I’m going to drop my value back to a 4 from a 5, but I wish to add more context to this decision.

I set myself as a 5 based on the work I’ve done to move v3 forward, and I averaged around a 4.55 (I think?) in the anonymous feedback survey. I’m dropping back to a 4 since I didn’t definitively come out closer to a 5. I didn’t receive specific feedback, and I’ve provided my own feedback about the approach as well as Coordinape via the survey sent out this week.

I know we’re already making improvements to increase fidelity in our evaluations so that they’re more objective. I think it’s highly difficult for folks to evaluate less visible work, and I’ve decided to not increase (well, decrease to initial value?) until the objective methods (that are likely already in progress) are in place.


1 Like

Hey everyone, after taking some time to think about my own contributions at DAOhaus over the course of the past month and heading into June, I am reassessing my value level and wish to change it back to a Level-3.

My average value-level as assessed by other contributors was a 3.5 and for that reason, along with personal feedback that I received and am grateful for from @spencer, I am changing my self-evaluation back to a Level-3.

I would second everything @_jp said in regards to how this is being handled and am looking forward to a higher-fidelity process being introduced for cycle-5.

There are certainly some learnings DAOhaus can take away from this process going forward, I will list them briefly below:

  1. Introduce feedback mechanisms only after they have been thoroughly vetted by a working group and garner signal from the DAO.
  2. Don’t wait on providing your colleagues feedback, if it builds up it might end up skewing your perspective of your comrades.
  3. When providing feedback, evidence the feedback you give to contributors, pointing to specific examples or opportunities for growth.
  4. Do not introduce organizational wide conversations on burn rate or runway unless the organization is pre-empted and prepared to have that conversation.
  5. Don’t exclude any contributor from the process, keep Retroactive & Commitment Track processes as uniform as possible.

I expect there will be a ton of learnings we take-away from this going into the future (hindsight is 20-20), and I hope we can continue to be honest with ourselves and our peers without degrading the amazing culture we have created and fostered within DAOhaus.

It will always be my dream to see & let a thousand DAOs bloom, and I am hoping that as a contributor you all will see that my contributions are as valuable as personally believe they are.

For now, I take the DAOs decision to heart and will focus on refining my contributions so I can continue to improve the value being added to DAOhaus and the DAO ecosystem at large.

Thank you!

P.S. @spencer could we decrease my HAUS allocation to 10% ? (thanks!)

1 Like

whoops, sorry! Will fix

Will also edit op to incorporate adjustments from @_jp and @burleebau

1 Like

May compensation proposal is live:

May time weighted average price (TWAP) for HAUS was $7.54