Being overpay is just as much a sin as underpay a worker. The DAO was made up of people who volunteered the opportunity to play a banker, and now all of a sudden, volunteers demand compensation of upwards 2x to 3x the standard industrial pay in the US; probably 5x to 20x the standard industrial pay international. This is unjustifiable and is setting a bad precedent which will cause DAO to become uncompetitive in the future when the core units eventually will expand by 10x or even 100x. A check and balance should be implemented at the beginning in order to mitigate the risk of unrealistic expectations and cost overrun. Check and balance is a complex issue that token holders do not have the capability nor the capacity of tackling. This should be handled by a professional HR company/team that represents the DAO/token holders long term interest. Therefore, I proposed DAO, either independently, or work with other DAOs, to contract a HR company to specifically tackle this complex issue.
I believe that this is in the hands of each CU, in their budget they present a breakdown of salary expenses, if they seem very exaggerated and not in accordance with reality, we can ask them to review if they still do not meet our expectations, we can reject the proposal.
This is what happened for example with https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip39c2-sp9-strategic-marcomms-core-unit/
Now with a better breakdown of everything we hope it will be approved, in the end the MKR holders are not so stupid to shoot themselves in the foot.
This could be a good idea. However, there needs to be a clear differentiation in order to attract the right talent to the DAO.
Of course at a rate of $15/20 is going to be able to give individuals in developing countries a living wage.
However, for those in developing countries, especially in industries such as business and law, this is severely underpaid, and will not sustain most individuals living in capital cities such as Cape Town, London, Brussels, Washington, Singapore, Canberra… hubs where it would be prudent to have members on the ground, especially in relation to moving towards branching Maker’s products with RWA.
A solution could be to have a base rate and a modified rate dependent on the living wage of the situated country.
I think we’re talking about the same thing, just different approaches.
The answer to why it’s important to adjust wages to the price level in a given country is simply that the purchasing power of that amount is different in different countries.
If we are talking about McDonalds salaries, then here -in the worse half of the EU- a McDonalds worker can only dream of 15-20USD/hour wages, because he/she would rather get 5-7 USD. And that’s within the EU…
Here is an older, but good study about a possible EU minimum wage policy. If you scroll down to the 7. page, you can see that there is more than 10x difference between the lowest and the highest minimum wage. You can also see that they did not want to introduce a uniform minimum wage for all countries, but a minimum wage NORM, which “could establish minimum wages as a certain percentage of national median or average wages.”
But I don’t want to mislead this discussion.
Of course it’s not about the specific minimumwages, it’s about the wage ratios.
I understand and appreciate the philosophy of equality, but let’s not be under any illusions: competition will exploit the wage differentials to gain a competitive advantage over us with cheaper labour force.
Now I do agree with you.
I totally agree with you, nowadays we have to be competitive in different areas, I think the debate here is how reasonable it is that by country or by work they are rewarded in a worthy way, that is my opinion.
You know, it seems to me that this has all been discussed at some point in history. It’s the same music as before, but the instrument has changed. I think people with good ears understand that, and they are taking action on this.
I belive that the money is secondary from this point of view, the personal well-being is the most important. I say all this on the side of a project that is applying for the title of “global central bank”…
If we really have to take into account that emotions are what drives us to a large extent to make decisions on a daily basis. That is why we must understand above all Maslow’s pyramid as a pillar of our needs and center of our objectives in a personal benefit (not to be misunderstood I mean the inner not the material).
Shoo! Shoo! I never wanted to hear about this again after psychology class
All traumas are welcome, unburden yourself partner
Truly hope this is a joke. If the DAO goes down the “flipping burger” direction I can tell with close to 100% certainty. It will attract no one skilled AND experienced. Definitely no one with the skills to help taking the protocol to the next level. It’s already one of the lowest paying protocols in DeFi and well below tradFi rates. Going further down that route is suicide guaranteed. If you want grads/high schoolers running a multi billion dollar financial hub, then it’s the way.
So the work we did @Alefcripto and @Lozadaluis12 in Venezuela to think of being as known was 200 DAI per month, was not an optimal work? we must understand the contexts bro, I assure you that although it would be very good what we raise we talk about maybe leaving bases and salaries in related country, as we speak salaries like this will not be attractive in hong kong, camberra or any other first world city. But otherwise we have countries in Latin America where there is very good human talent.
I absolutely understand your point of view, this should not be the goal - sorry if my previous posts have given you this feeling - but you also need to understand the point of view of others.
Some people see it that way because they live in a very different world from yours. Both of this worlds are exist and if we really want to build an open and transparent, global DAO where different perspectives can work together, these issues cannot be swept off the table, no matter how frustrating for both sides. However, if we show each other why and how the part of the world we live in works, we can - at the cost of compromise - create a well-functioning organisation in the long term.
Creating a good code, it is the biggest job. Partially, its your job, and everyone who owns MKR / DAI has given you the confidence that you will do it well, whatever it takes. And you’ve done a very good job, there are huge opportunities ahead.
Although it sounds utopian, but on the other hand, we are trying to build a good community here alongside the code. I feel like if we don’t discuss and solve problems like these, it’s just a modern recreation of the old system with new faces in leadership.
We’re not rivals, we don’t mess with each other, we’re all interested in the success of Maker, and everyone here is trying to contribute to that to the best of their ability.
Soon you will feel the FLOW just stay with us…
I don’t agree with this statement. I see so much discussion about the price/compensation levels for engineering talent. I believe that we pay the market rate for critical/strategic talent, whatever that might be…and it’s not only about engineers. Let me be clear, we are running businesses (core units) that need to achieve/deliver strategic objectives. Facilitators, leaders, product, marketing, biz dev, etc. of Core Units need to have MAJOR fucking experience (and outside of crypto) to pull off what we are trying to accomplish with this project. 95% of the people that we want to hire are not in this industry. Think about it. When you don’t know what you don’t know, it’s a perilous place.
I’ve spend the last 30+ years in product and engineering delivery and what seems new is always something that has been recycled from the past. Decentralization is the way that people work together (communicate/collaborate) and hopefully, share some sort of common belief. It’s simple and pure and lets keep is that way.
I’m curious, what is the fear here? I sense a scarcity mentality. To massively grow the Maker protocol, we need to think differently. And we need to move FAST! Pay and incentives are a rounding error at this moment in our growth. I’d rather pay someone $200 hr than $20 since I expect more, way more, from people I hire. Personally, I don’t care where you are at since I only care about value delivered. If you can do the job and produce results, so be it. To think differently introduces geographical biases which I don’t buy into.
To complement on this topic, here is a post from a widely used ML library creator that puts a bit of perspective on the scarcity and race to the bottom mentality. If you can bring skills and experience that can make the protocol grow while being robust from both an engineering and risk perspective, then right there is the value you create. That value is compensated, regardless of jurisdiction.
I very much agree with you on this.
A global labour market - a global wage level does not yet exist (I hope it will become a reality soon). For rapid growth we also need quantity of quality labour. As far as I know, Maker is currently facing a shortage of talented and skilled workers, as is the whole industry. As the available workforce becomes scarcer and more expensive, attracting new talent into the industry becomes an increasingly important priority.
The question is: can we now afford to ignore global wage differentials in the current competitive environment, when our competitors will exploit them to grow cheaper and faster?
Plus, the balance between wages and revenues must be maintained in the long term.
Even if we talk about payments now in terms of rounding error relative to our revenues, will this still be the case later?
Interesting post, thanks for sharing.
It’s worth taking the time to read the comments, because they offer interesting -and totally different- points of view from highly qualified people like the author.
For me, we have to understand what we can influence today while staying laser focused on growing the protocol. The engineering community for smart contract engineers is relatively small and everyone talks. While some engineers will work more cheaply, the good ones know their value and will ask for it. Just about all of leading companies in the DeFi space are competing for the same engineers. That is our current reality and supports my prior comments.
I’ve hired product and engineering talent for several decades. A tactic to help with our hiring challenges is to recruit from outside of the crypto/blockchain industry. Sure there will be a bit more training upfront but it helps us increase the supply of engineers and just not draw off of the same pool that everyone else is using. I believe looking at this as a long-term program is in our best interest. It’s why I am proposing two temporary slots in the CES core unit to help with this effort, MIP39c2-SP12: Adding Collateral Engineering Services Core Unit.
The big question is, how do we attract and retain new engineers and other key people into our ecosystem? First I have to create opportunities which is a central concept of the CES core unit since we’re not onboarding a fully populated team. Next, I have to provide market rate compensation, benefits, and incentive structures so that I can attract all levels of technical talent into our industry, and last, I need to reduce the risk for working in this industry. The last point is tricky since it’s one thing to work for a startup (and most of us understand those risks), it’s another thing to work for a startup in the DeFi/crypto industry. It’s one of the reasons I’m trying to build in some level of predictability in the CES core unit by working on cycles representing a quarter, 1/2 year, or full year. Plus, the early execution of most core units will be around establishing the core unit, hiring people, and learning how everyone will work together.
Without growth, there isn’t a conversation about what happens in the future. The best answer is, we’ll figure it out. Why do I say that? I worked for Microsoft when it was a $400M USD company. I can’t tell you how many millionaires (and billionaires) were minted in the following years due to the rapid growth of that company. Now we’re in 2021. Are millionaires still minted at Microsoft? Sure but probably not at the same rate or timeframe as in the past. As companies mature, they provide many opportunities for solid talent to work at these companies with above average compensation and greatly reduced risk. If we execute correctly, we’ll follow the same path.
As a primary focus, it must be on scale and growth of the protocol. Let’s focus on that vs. we only have a certain amount of money to spend. We can get more money to spend if we have to and thinking anything less is scarcity mentality.
Thank you for writing all this down, it clarifies a lot for me.
I would add that transparency is an important goal, but we must not forget that it also raises new problems. But as you say, we’ll figure it out.