The GhostsProject Council was created to guide the development and direction of the Ghost token and ecosystem. However, as time has passed, some council members have become inactive, and there are concerns about the value they are adding to the project. Additionally, council members are receiving a stipend that some argue is not proportional to the work they are doing.
To address these concerns, it is proposed that the council’s stipend be reduced from the current $300 to 1-2 Ghost NFTs, which will make the value of Ghost the incentive for their work. This will also incentivize council members to make choices that increase the value of Ghost. Additionally, council members will be required to submit a report on their work intensity and what they have been working on for the past 3 months. This report will allow community members to evaluate the suitability of the council members.
And then we can also discuss how the community ensure that the evaluation of council members is fair and transparent.
Moreover, there is a broader question of whether the existence of payment for the council is necessary at all. Are there other governance structures that could better serve the needs of the GhostsProject ecosystem? For example, replace them with volunteers?
Overall, the re-discussion of the existence of the GhostsProject Council raises important questions about governance, incentives, and accountability in decentralized ecosystems. It also highlights the need for ongoing evaluation and adaptation to ensure the project’s success.
The Ghosts Project Council was created to make our proposal process much easier and simpler. To make our proposal process easier, first we tried to break language barriers, allow non-native English speakers to complete the proposal process by having councils do if for them.
Despite this, we have yet to receive proposal worthy comments. So we plan to write discussion/proposal periodically and this would be councils’ KPI.
the cycle is still under discussions to prioritize quantity vs. quality, but sure it will be start with in March.
Councils are preparing for the next Ghogame with WGs and planning IRLs (details will be posted). after all these events, if holders still think Councils are somewhat meaningless then holders would vote “no” on next Council payment proposal.
Is it possible to get metrics related to point-motivated games like Ghogame? From what I’ve seen in Web 3 over the past two years, this kind of game and discord activity is one of the dumbest things most soft-rug projects do as a last resort, because it only slightly increases simple traffic in the discord and does nothing to promote the project’s own brand value.
Am I the only one who feels that the process has been made more difficult and complicated by the council members? Can the minutes of the meetings between council members be made transparent? From what I’ve heard, many council members are ‘hardly’ doing any Web 3 activities and councilor activities anymore. Instead of rhetoric, let’s have a legitimate discussion about the issues at hand and ‘reasonable remuneration’.
At the end of the day, the viability of the DAO and the brand itself are more important than any monetary compensation. It’s great that due process is being followed and that discussions can always be revisited, re-discussed, and amended if needed.
At the end, It would be more than just a point based discord game. and what process has been made more difficult? can you be more specific?
if anyone willing to replace one’s position, where were they when we were voting?
if there are good number of volunteers then why didn’t they write any single discussions?
Given the DAO’s participation rate, this structure is not well advertised or promoted within the community. It is the work of paid WGs and Council Members to discuss more and create a better structure, such as the delegation system, etc to encourage participation.
Taking advantage of that ‘opportunity’, several council members were elected, and they became quieter than even before.
If the work of the Council Members interferes with their contributions as primary members of the DAO themselves, would this structure be right? Where are all the Council members?
Have they raised at least one discussion or initiative in the previous three months? The people who should be examples didn’t do anything, So who are you even calling out.
You think this structure is right, and Think it generating 1 or more value due to spending 1?
This is a proposal for reconsideration. do you disagree to this and just want to shut it down?
No, I want us to look back on the past 3 months, review Council members’ Recap, evaluate the performance during that time, and reorganize the structure itself if necessary.
And one of the methods is to pay treasury’s Ghost instead of current payment and want to see how to improve it’s value.
Similar to stock options, this helps with motivation and financial management. Tokenomics of many projects follow this also.
giving treasury’s ghosts only increase the liquidation, some what like printing more money, not sure why it’s more beneficial to the holders, instead of buying it at the floor.
Disclosure: I am a member of the Ghost project council.
If I had to summarize the discussion, it would be two things.
councils are paid too much for the work they do.
there would be more incentive if the salary was USDC + ghost NFTs.
the council’s salary is too much for the work they do.
I agree with #1 to a certain extent. Since the current council’s term started on January 1st, there hasn’t been much in the way of proposals and votes, so I think it’s fair to say that their salary is too much for the work they do. We’re considering expanding the role of the council. And I think it’s a very reasonable concern to raise, and would be a good idea to put the council’s salary up for a vote, just like the current WG budget adjustment vote.
there would be more incentive if the salary was USDC + ghost NFT.
For #2, I think we need to discuss “incentives for what” first, which is related to the council’s KPIs.
I think the proposal is meaningful if the KPI of the council is adjusted to “improve the floor price and increase the trading volume of ghost projects” instead of “review and manage proposals” as it is currently. I think something that could increase the incentive in the current state of Council R&R would be if they were paid per proposal reviewed instead of a monthly salary.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on this discussion. Here’s my little thoughts on what’s raised by you.
I agree with #1 to a certain extent. Since the current council’s term started on January 1st, there hasn’t been much in the way of proposals and votes, so I think it’s fair to say that their salary is too much for the work they do. We’re considering expanding the role of the council. And I think it’s a very reasonable concern to raise, and would be a good idea to put the council’s salary up for a vote, just like the current WG budget adjustment vote.
According to what I understood, the background of starting to thinking of expanding the responsibility and authority of the council members, is to make it easier for the council members to be willing to do more events or campaigns to encourage community members to participate more on discussion, and to let them write more proposals for GhostsProject DAO. If that’s correct, how about the council members to open internal-discussion to find members who can willingly change their position to do those things that has mentioned? I believe there will be a great idea for the better structure within that.
For #2, Yes it would be really important for us to discuss and talk about what’s the KPI of the council members.
In my humble opinion, For a DAO that has tradable tokens for voting, I think the KPI should always be the price of those tokens. Directly and in-directly.