Amendment to the 2023 1st half GhostsProject WG Payment Budget Proposal

Ideation
1

Proposed Amendment:

This amendment proposes a change to the payment structure of the 2023 1st Half GhostsProject WG Payment Budget Proposal that was previously approved by the DAO. The change is necessary to motivate the Working Group to continue their work as the very existence of the DAO is at risk due to the decreasing value of Ghost NFTs and the reduction in the Creator Fee.

In order to address this challenge, this amendment proposes a decrease in the payment rate for the Working Group members. The proposed new payment structure is as follows:

David (Level2, Discord WG) = $500 per month + 3 Ghost NFTs from treasury
JM (Level2, Marketing WG) = $500 per month + 3 Ghost NFTs from treasury
Vault (Level2, DAO WG) = $500 per month + 3 Ghost NFTs from treasury
Yuuya Key (Level 1, Moderator) = $300 per month + 1 Ghost NFTs from treasury
in the form of 3 Ghost NFTs that were originally priced at 0.1 ETH. These incentives will help to motivate the Working Group to continue their work and ensure the DAO’s sustainability.

In conclusion, this proposal suggests an amendment to the previous budget proposal for the 2023 1st half GhostsProject Working Group Payment Budget. The proposed amendment is to decrease the stipend for each member of the working group from $1,000 per month to $500 per month and provide 3 Ghost NFTs that were originally minted at a price of 0.1 as incentives. The purpose of this amendment is to motivate the Working Group to continue their efforts as the existence of the DAO is at risk due to the decreasing value of Ghost NFTs and the reduction of the Creator Fee.

1 Like
2

Worth to consider as the Creator Fee war is going wild.

But how reducing the stipend rate to $500 and affording 3 Ghosts NFT is correlative with motivating and continuing the work? I can thoroughly understand the suggestion if the rationale is about reducing the payment considering the market/macro condition and tightening the spending of the treasury but not sure how significantly or relevantly the alteration on the payment structure is correlative with motivation part.

Shouldn’t the suggestion rather include the proposition of what’s the alternative option that can be executed to increase the value of ghosts with reduced stipend expense rather than focusing on motivation part?

3

Did the current system work effectively? My assumption is that WG may be satisfied with earning $1000 without putting in significant effort. However, receiving payment in Ghost tokens could provide more motivation, as their value and your performance could make 3 Ghosts worth more than a reduced payment of $500. I believe that many community members are eagerly anticipating an increase in the value of Ghost tokens.

In my opinion, genuine “contributors” who are invested in the success and future of the GhostsProject DAO should have been transparent and vocal about reducing their budgets. Unfortunately, not everyone prioritizes the greater good over their self-interest.

Additionally, I would love to ask that the WG seriously consider holding an emergency meeting and restructuring the current system. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter too.

4

why don’t we buy it at the floor? that would be much more beneficial. so WGs would get $1,000 and 50% of the payment they should purchase ghosts from the floor.

5

That method not immune to self-trading, wash-trading and market manipulation.

And our Treasury already has Ghosts to do so.

6

it’s self-trading / market manipulation if and only if we force them to do so, but if they willing to spend their own $ to buy it , it’s not

7

Actually no. They can spend their own USDC to purchase their own ghosts in other wallets, or they could find some people to do it together.

8

Plus, since OpenSea and Blur have 0% fees, and you can only pay 0.5% Creator Fee, this is easier than ever before.

9

is there any rules where I can look up? not sure why it’s impossible. it’s more beneficial to the holders than giving treasury’s assets.

10

May I give you an example? Suppose there are two WG members, A and B.

Let’s call A’s anonymous wallet A’.

B’s would be B’.

A buys ghost from B’ with 50% payment.

B buys ghost from A’ with a 50% payment.

Both received USDC and also Ghost NFTs. In the end, the total quantity is the same.

However, in the transaction it appears that they ‘willingly’ purchased the Ghost NFT. This is because not all wallets are KYC verified. So it is very difficult to prove this and these methods have many side effects.

Rather, you can use the Treasury’s ghost to pay for it, and if you need it later, use the Ghost Treasury’s funds to purchase the ghosts from the floor.

The increase in liquidity occurs when a WG member immediately sells a Ghost. If they liquidate it before reaching the target amount as they set as motivation, it will be difficult for them to receive good reviews from the community.

Alternatively, We can consider disqualifying them and their roles if they sell ghosts within a term or within a set period of time. Is this better?

If they want to become a proud WG, they will focus on building it and raising its value.

11

first isn’t purchasing the ghosts using the treasury violates market manipulation?

bet many holders would rather choose sweep the floor monthly rather than giving out treasury’s assets which will not affect floor price. if so can we add this options to the proposal?

Also can WG and Council choose what ghosts they want to get? or it would be random? and if so how?

12

I don’t think there is an issue with ghoststreasury.eth as it is not a Contract Deployer, I think we can request research from the WG on this.

And you talk about the assumption that paying ghosts to WG members lowers the floor price.
Which only happens when the WG sells ghosts immediately. If they do that, that’s not a good look for the WG, is it? Like that would be like WGs working for a project that they don’t believe to make it. LMAO

If we see that happens, we (including me and you) can demand the impeachment of the WG or an explanation. If they don’t believe in the potential of ghosts and think that 2-3 ghosts aren’t better than $500, wouldn’t it be better if they don’t take on this work? Because it wouldn’t be sustainable.

13

alight, it seems like there would be no other options.
do you want to write it as a proposal format or you want us to write it
(it’s up to you, if you want us to write it down, we would copy our “proposal amendment word to word”) and do you want council and WGs vote toto be separated?

14

I want more people to discuss about this here first with time.
Then we will be able to get them comments and ideas for a formal proposal after.

But so far, I don’t see none of them members here speaking opinions.

I think this can also be a criterion for evaluating their legitimacy. We will see.

Thank you for your time, sharing your perspective.

15

I will do my best to gather more holders’ option as much as possible then we can talk more about in detail

1 Like
16

Thank you. I’d be grateful if you could share the two forum discussion pages and the full text of our discussion on replacing both WG and Council Members’ payments
(especially the reasons I gave for why voluntary floor purchases by WG and Council Members wouldn’t work) in multiple languages if needed.

17

I do agree with reducing the WG fees within this bear market and replace it with other form of incentive like Ghost NFT as yammo stated.

1 Like
18

I believe that implementing a payment system for the WGs based on their performance rate, which can be rated by other DAO members every month, could be effective.

By doing so, WG members will naturally showcase their work each month and strive to improve their ratings from other members. This system would also eliminate concerns about how the WGs are contributing to the project.

*In my opinion, Yammo’s suggestion is quite good as each NFT can serve as a governance token within the DAO. Instead of providing dollar as incentives in the DAO system, offering NFTs as payment could motivate the WG to work harder and increase the floor price of the NFT. Furthermore, if the WG decides to sell their NFT immediately, it would lower the floor price, and their next month’s payment would automatically decrease, which I believe is an excellent idea.