Coordinape: Should the MSC (Market Strategy Committee) group be compensated separately from the 'content creation only' group?

Min Starting price is 15k as well so it changes things. Only time we will ever do less is if its a repeat client who has been with us on the 10k rate and in the case of Genomes we have extra incentives as well to share out. Note we are not getting 15k because Gabriel had the balls to just up the price ( good example of MSC working for the DAO).


this is a good idea overall.

I’d like to make some comments.

For instance if there is a separated budget for MSC then work make for this (Sales calls, pillar content ,usually interview or AMA, strategy meetings, project management, admin work, KPI related work, etc.) should be clearly separated for work made by creators.

For instance, in the current epoch for Degen, (this is not personal, just because i spotted it).

For Fugu we have: Pillar interview production work

This work shoul not be on that side of the project. As you wrote above, pillar content, is part of MSC. There is also a “1 interview with ChiChi” , should it also be part of MSC ?

On that same idea, people will need to allocate more carefully. Because if someone from MSC also create another content, this member will be in both group (and that’s ok) but then people should only allocate for this given content. Let’s be honest, based on the epoch we already have, some people do not allocate properly. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t value the work of others, or because they allocate based on friendship , but this is something to keep in mind.

The other point. Currently, this looks ok. But the more client the DAO will have, the more the DAO will probably increase it price and more creators will join. When a good workflow will be found, the work made by MSC should be "relatively " straight forward. And we may not need to hire more people in this group. So it means more revenues for MSC.

On the other side, more creators, means less revenues for creators.

It also seems that, members of MSC are considered as core members based on the recent draft for CRE8R token allocation/distribution/tokenomic. So this group, will also receive a bigger share . Basically this group is the group you want to be in ! Not a big issue now, but it’s something that should be kept in mind if the idea is to growth the DAO.


To answer to the main question which is " Should group be compensated separately from the ‘content creation only’ group?", I’d say absolutely.

But i think it needs some modification:

1.The % we wanna allocate to the MSC should be flexible.

2.Sale needs fixed % allocation.

To my first point the issue that I have is, we are going for a fixed % and not considering the fact that like the content, quality of the work that MSC group does also can vary project to project.

To my second point, we need sale and sale needs clear incentive.

so to wrap it up, I mean for example we allocate 10-15 % to sale and 20-25% to MSC based on the quality of their work.

the %s are just for example, DAO need to decide on those.

The important thing we need to figure out in case we’d agree on this, is that how we wanna assess quality of the work that MSC has done. this needs to be discussed further.

1 Like

I just wanted to comment on what you said about MSC members being core members of the DAO. Anyone can join the MSC group. They just have to take the initiatives. If no one takes any initiatives, then some of us, myself included, might actually feel a bit obligated to take on the role. Frankly there are times when I wish I could just make content and not be worried about managing a project and would really love for others to take some initiatives if this is something of interest to them.

Also, the Pillar production work is different from pillar content because it’s editing/graphics work. Usually the person/people who conduct pillar interview/AMA will often be part of the ‘market strategy’ discussion, which makes them part of the MSC group. Another thing you mentioned is: Gabriel’s interview with ChiChi was not considered a pillar content for Degens. This is because it was conducted closer to the end of our campaign and it did not serve the ‘foundational’ part that the Pillar content should be.

However, I hope it’s obvious to everyone that any of these is up for debate and if the consensus is to rework the structure, what roles the MSC team should play, % allocated to the MSC group, etc anyone is welcome to come up with a different plan.

Cheers :smile:

1 Like

These are all very good points. Maybe the content creation only group can vote on the % allocated to the MSC group before every epoch? Just an idea.

Oh this is good. Serves as a check and balance thing.

This seems like a few proposals:

  1. vote to see if msc continues (probaby one or 2 more after degen to have a gauge of this experiment)
  2. vote to see if budget within msc is internally allocated or what. I like passive’s idea that sales shld be fixed. Imagine a long running campaign over 5 epoch. The sales and admin part might get smaller over time so do we have the flexibility to adjust as we go along? These are points to consider.
  3. vote to see the % allocation for msc, how should we decide the % for each epoch.


  1. Yes, agree, I think we should run a couple of more epochs in this format and see if there are things we need to tweak or improve on.
  2. Agree
  3. This can be done with cre8rs participated in the epoch (so not involving the F100 because only cre8rs participated in the epoch are affected by this %. Thoughts?)

(3) yeah, probably a good way to start is to assume pple are super busy and we only involve them when truly necessary.

We can probably revisit this topic again after a few rounds of experience when everyone has a good idea of what’s happening.

1 Like

The issue i have with this is also the reason i think its good.

people give GIBs based on their overall observation of people’s work. So if someone does MSC stuff, they will still get more for their content stuff as a result. its just the nature of how people will vote. we can ask people to be partial and assess the content only, but people do them and you do you, and all that.

on the other hand.

sales calls are not super easy and are certainly out of the mind of many people giving GIBs. so they tend to be neglected in the GIBs.


Say Ceazor does, an AMA as pillar for MSC, then PC cuts up that AMA into a clip. where do we draw our lines. Does Ceazor only get MSC, and PC gets Content circle? What if PC and Ceazor discuss the clips?

To consider.

who are the ones that are usually getting undercompensated from a single circle.

the sales, and the PM>

so, we could explore taking 10% of the total and giving it to them to split as they please. The sales person could also be the PM. and might even be a good one for this, as they have a clearer understand of the desires of the client, hopefully.

To answer some of your questions:

  1. Ceazor will get compensated for the Pillar content in the MSC group and PC will get compensated in the Content Only group. Why? because people who makes the pillar content creates the foundation/frame work for all the other content made for the project. Also, quite often people who are involved in creating the pillar content is also involved in strategy meetings and should be paid in the MSC group.

  2. In terms of allocating 10% to Sales & PM, do you mean they get included in the content only group + 10% (of total budget) to split? or 10% to Sales & PM only, and 90% to content only group?

  1. IT was just an idea…

Sale and PM are put aside and share 10% and the 90% is left for all types of content, including the pillar content.

10% to be shared between sale & pm seems very low (Gabriel mentioned the industry standard for Sales is 20%) but if that’s the number that everyone agrees on then I have no issues.

In terms of PM work, it’s behind the scene like admin work, hours spent in meetings & answering questions on discord and via DM, connecting with clients, etc. People who only make content can do their work, walk away and not have to worry about the project anymore. PM is stuck with the project for an entire month and sometimes longer. But maybe that’s just how I think PM work should be done. Maybe just simple admin work is enough to be considered PM work.

How about we try this?

  1. For the next Coordinape epoch, the pillar content (creator + production work) is included in the content creation group.

  2. The MSC group will consist of people who participated in sales, strategy and admin/management work.

  3. The % total project budget allocated to MSC will be decided and voted on by all participating CRE8RS in the epoch.


I like this because personally I don’t think pillar should be in the MSC.
on the other hand I still think sale should be separate and be clear.

1 Like

I, too, agree that the Pillar Content should be included in the Content Only Group. It was originally included in the MSC group for Degens Farm (our first experimental epoch) because the people that did the sales call + strategies happened to also be the ones that did the Pillar content interview.

In this case the PMs work needs to be documented, i dont mean something fancy that would waste his/her time. in the end ppl need to see behind the scene work so they can allocate properly.

We have to keep in mind not to complicate things and add unnecessary stuff, if anyone things anything can is extra mention that. we need things to be as simple as possible

one more thing i think its worth mentioning, everyone should be aware that they can be PM or be part of strategy group.

Yup, I think this has been made clear. ie. Bowtiednerd has volunteered to be the PM for Infinity Skies.

I agree with not complicating things.

What are some examples of PM behind the scene work that should be mentioned or documented?

I mean if we want participating CRE8Rs in a epoch decide on the % that MSC gonna get, they gonna need some documentation to based their decision on. Maybe something like this:(Likert scale)

  1. feedback from client 1 2 3 4 5
  2. Sharing new info on client 1 2 3 4 5
  3. Job board 1 2 3 4 5

Those are just examples