Request For Compensation (RFC)

Contributor Profile:

I am a YC Startup School graduate with a master’s degree in Politics from the University of Exeter. Previously, I served as VP for Investment Banking at a boutique agency before embarking on my web3 journey. Over the past three years, my work has centered exclusively on blockchain governance. Please refer to my CV and this work sample for reference.

---

Scope Of Request:

This request for compensation is for the tasks assigned to me via the HoS GitHub Kanban Board

---

Task #1 : Proposal Template

Subject Matter Expertise (Proof Of Work):

1. I have read, indexed, analyzed, and created databases for 579 DAO proposals in 2024 (147 from NEAR Protocol and 432 from Arbitrum).
2. I also developed a memo drafting tool for House of Merit members in the NDC.

---

Definition of Done (as per GitHub):

---

Work Delivered

---

Task # 2: Conflict of Interest Policy

---

Subject Matter Expertise (Proof Of Work):

• Core contributor (grant winner) in the NDC Constitution Working Group for Near Foundation.
  • Drafted a theoretical dissection challenging the Small Group Method, leading to its removal.
  • Provided critique and draft assistance on every governance framework and constitution version.
  • Authored the “Agent-Structure Dilemma” identifying missing links in separation of powers, with several recommendations integrated into the governance framework.
• Served as governance analyst for NDC, supporting multiple policy memos.

---

Definition of Done

Note: Uploading to the website/voting on the final version is outside the agreed scope.

---

Work Delivered

---

Summary Table

---

Works Not Invoiced

• Conflict Resolution Mechanism: Novel web3 proposal, with complete tooling and process flow.
• Attendance, participation, and engagement in over 80% of Twitter Spaces, office hours, and other community engagements.

---

All compensation requested pertains solely to issues specifically assigned to me via GitHub.

If additional documentation or references are needed, please let me know.

I’ve had the opportunity to review both of these deliverables and I believe they are more than enough for the current moment, and for the next few years of House of Stake. But more importantly, the process of creating these policies in the open and diligently incorporating feedback from others in the community, has been exemplary.

I believe that the hourly rate is maybe somewhat cheap for this type of work, and the amount of hours for each item seem reasonable to me.

I also think that House of Stake needs to have a framework to reward contributors for their contributions, and one that can do so fairly and timely.

I agree with @paulofonseca 's comments here. I’ve only reviewed, and can only speak to, the CoI policy at this stage, but I agree that the process by which it was drafted, reviewed, and community comments incorporated in the open is indeed exemplary.

But I think it’s important to note that we do NOT currently have such a framework or a compensation policy in place. And in its absence, as a rule we will not be retrospectively compensating contributions of this kind. We strongly encourage contributions of this kind, and of course contributors should have the option to seek fair compensation for their work, so to address this shortcoming, for the time being we’ll be sourcing contributions only using the Bounty framework on NEARN, which allows us to specify expectations, an amount, and conditions for payment upfront. You can see the HoS NEARN page here:

nearn.io

House of Stake on NEARN

Check out all of House of Stake's latest earning opportunities on a single page.

To reiterate, and for avoidance of doubt: contributors should not contribute work upfront and then seek compensation after the fact. We simply don’t have a mechanism in place to evaluate work and retroactively assign compensation. We don’t have agreed-upon rates, etc., so the Bounty framework seems the simplest and fairest option at this stage.

As a one-off exception, and in recognition of the good work done here, I agreed to compensate @UhthredB for his work on CoI. The details including the tx receipt are visible on NEARN: https://nearn.io/dashboard/listings/hos-coi-policy/submissions/1/. Uhthred and I discussed the situation yesterday and both agreed on the need for explicit upfront agreement about terms and expectations for future contributions.

All of this is, of course, ultimately in the hands of the HoS community. If the community decides to put in place a contributor covenant, to pass proposals to this effect, etc., then it’s welcome to nullify anything I’ve said above. But for the time being, in the absence of any such policy, this is how we’ll operate.

Don’t hesitate to reach out or reply here if any of this is unclear.

L

I finally had a chance to review @UhthredB 's work on the proposal template. HSP-001 relied heavily on this work. I just completed the Nearn bounty for this work as well, payment happened here: Near Transaction 6t2uavRcxv2HcUhAvTNTXMyXNbJDZSDCWLScorWKx87s | NearBlocks.

Same caveats as above! Consider this a one off.