Recently, some creators have expressed some unhappiness with the existing Coordinape-based payment system.
We will discuss here the problems we have encountered and the solutions a group of creators have explored.
The Current Coordinape Problem
The Coordinape system can be summarized as a system where the creators involved in a client project are given “GIVES” to distribute to their fellow creators. Each give carries with it monetary value (USD) and is a fraction of the total client budget.
The problem arises when new creators do not fully give out their “GIVES” or allocate them in a non-systematic manner, introducing skewness to the payment of the group members.
Project managers have explicitly mentioned how these “GIVES” are to be given out in formal channels as well as through DMs with erring creators.
Still, the issue persists today.
The following is a list of problems that we have encountered over several projects:
- Creators giving 0 GIVES / did not participate in the Coordinape circle
- Creators giving GIVES only to people that they have worked with
- Creators giving partial GIVES (using game theory, creators that give partial GIVES stand to benefit more relative to those who give out their GIVES fully)
- Creators giving more GIVES to the person who onboarded them/their friend
- Creators giving more GIVES to another person for outstanding work done in another project/CRE8R DAO internal work
- Creators giving everyone the same amount of GIVES regardless of the work done
- Creators giving more gives to collab projects (because shared between various people) than for individual projects
- Creators not explaining their work and being underpaid for that
- Creators over-describing their work in order to get more GIVES
The DAO has implemented a few solutions. But like all solutions, they have their drawbacks. In addition, a few members of the DAO have brainstormed other solutions. We will be detailing them below.
Solution #1: Weighted GIVES
Weighted GIVES involve tweaking the existing Coordinape system in such a way that certain individuals are given more GIVES to distribute relative to other individuals. The motivation behind weighted GIVES is to give experienced creators more GIVES than newcomers as they are more active in the DAO, know who the other creators are, have a better grasp of the value of each piece of content that is produced, and are more attuned to the value of the GIVES.
There is a problem when creators do not give out all of their GIVES. Various formula adjustments were tried but no solution was found yet.
Solution #2: Self-determination of payment
Another method that the DAO has employed is to individually enquire from each creator how much they think their work is to be valued. This would require a switch in the current process where we “book” creators in advance in order to be able to respect the client budget.
This solution does not work if creators are given the freedom to produce content for a project. We could end up with a situation where the client budget is not able to pay out each creator at a rate that they think their work is to be valued at. Hence, we need to define in advance who would work on a project and to disqualify others once the project budget is reached.
Solution #3: Fixed price for some creators that do regular content. Coordinape payment for other stuff
This method involves a mix between Solutions #1 and #2. There will be a fixed remuneration for creators that do regular content. Once regular content creators are paid for, the surplus budget will be disbursed to everyone involved using Coordinape.
This is a time-consuming process and burdens the Project Manager to both establish the fixed remuneration rates for regular creators and the logistics to facilitate the subsequent Coordinape Circle.
Solution #4: Expert Rating
This involves the creation of a committee of project managers with experience to understand, read, discuss, and evaluate each piece of content created for the client. Project managers are in constant communication with the client and would be in a better position to judge what makes a good content. In addition, project managers would have gone through multiple rounds of project management and would have seen a breadth of content to make informed judgments.
This method involves trusting the committee of project managers to be objective in their judgement.
The project managers decided to try out Solution #4 for creators involved with the Vader Protocol project. It was quick to test, reduced the workload for creators (so that they can focus on content creation), and solved most of the current issues. It will be tested on a few more epochs and feedback is welcome.