Priority time incentives

Incentive approach for addressing priorities using time based compensation


Priority time incentives mean the proposals will detail out how a priority is going to be addressed and what time they will need to make progress on addressing that priority. This incentive approach could work without the ideas and tasks involved being planned out. However for this example we will assume that proposals always have a plan of what will be executed. The only guarantee this proposal is making is that a certain amount of time will be directed to addressing this priority and that it will be achieved through different peoples contribution efforts. The contributors involved are not being mandated to spend an exact amount of time on a specific idea or task within an idea that they have planned out. Instead they are required to provide proof of their contribution efforts to showcase what has been achieved over a period of time. Proposers would submit another proposal to request future funding for addressing the same priority once the allocated time from the previous proposal has been used up.

Moderate budgeting complexity (Score - 3)

The budgeting complexity would inherit the same complexities as the idea time incentives approach. On top of this there is even increased complexity due to the following:

  • Budget planning complexity - Proposals that have multiple ideas for helping to address a priority would have increased complexity in trying to add estimations about how long it could take to address a priority. Priorities do not necessarily need to have an exact quantifiable outcome on whether they have been addressed or not which only further adds to this complexity of trying to estimate how long it might take. One easier approach could be to plan out a shorter period at a time and to then review how much more effort is needed to address a priority after each period of execution.

  • Execution scope risks - There should still not be a high risk of having unstable distribution of incentives if they are distributed based on contribution time however there is an increased risk that the scope of execution could increase or decrease due to an increasing amount of surrounding factors as well as changing factors for each ideas execution. There also might be situations where the priority being addressed becomes less important and other situations where other priorities become far more important.

Moderate voter decision complexity (Score - 3)

The voter decision complexity would inherit the same complexities as the idea time incentives approach. On top of this there is even increased complexity due to the following:

  • Ease of understanding - Proposals with multiple ideas in them for addressing a priority would increase the complexity for the voter to understand whether these ideas can be executed in any estimated time period. The larger the amount of scope the higher the complexity is for fully understanding whether the compensation duration and amount is fair and reasonable.

  • Ease of comparison - Attaching the incentive to priorities can increase the scope of the proposals which can increase the total differences and overall complexity. This will make it even more difficult to compare proposals with potentially vastly different budgets and scopes.

Moderate governance complexity (Score - 3)

The governance complexity would inherit the same complexities as the idea time incentives approach. On top of this there is even increased complexity due to the following:

  • Size of compensation risk - Proposals looking to address a priority could be of a larger size if they are intending to execute multiple ideas. If excess funding is requested beyond the initial contributors involved in the proposal there is a higher risk that these funds could be misused. The larger the amount of funds being requested the more that there is a need for transparent and verifiable usage of funds.

  • Community moderation complexity - If there are multiple ideas being executed to help with addressing a single priority there is a higher amount of complexity for the community to moderate this incentive approach as it could be more complex to share disapproval towards some of the execution efforts and approve other efforts if it’s all combined together into single decisions.

High game theory risks (Score - 2)

The game theory risks would inherit the same risks as the idea time incentives approach. On top of this there is even increased complexity due to the following:

  • Proposal details - Addressing a priority can take a larger amount of execution effort which could result in allocating a larger amount of compensation in a given proposal. The larger the scope of a proposal the more risk there is that the estimated times it takes to execute something are exaggerated or purposefully estimated incorrectly. This should mostly be picked up using a verification approach of individual contribution logs however the risk of potential abuse happening would still be higher if there is a large enough incentive involved.

  • Malicious voters - The larger that the available incentive is the more reasons there are for malicious voters to try and influence the outcome of the disbursement decisions.

Moderate contribution flexibility (Score - 3)

  • Changing an existing idea - A contributor could change how they execute any existing idea that is focussed on the same priority as much as they need to. There is no added complexity for changing how an existing idea gets executed.

  • Contributing to a different idea - For other ideas that are funded by the same priority incentive there would be no added complexity for a contributor to reallocate their efforts to that idea. For ideas that are addressing different priorities a contributor would need to come to some agreement with those other contributors about how they will be compensated and how they will work under their allocated incentives. This approach is somewhat flexible for enabling contributors to work on different ideas.

  • Contributing to a different priority - The contributor would need to get funding for the different priority or come to some agreement with another team who already has funding for that different priority. This approach is not very flexible for enabling contributors to work on different priorities.

  • Incentive complexities - A contributor looking to contribute towards a different priority would need to determine how much compensation is needed for them to contribute to those initiatives and then also come to some form of agreement with the other contributors who were funded for addressing that priority. Budgeting for this correctly could be difficult to get right due to many changing factors that could influence how long they actually spend contributing to addressing that priority. Contributors would have no added incentive complexity when changing an idea that they are already working on when it's still related to addressing the priority that they already have funding for.

  • Moderation complexity - No approval process would be needed for contributors to change how they are executing an existing idea or when they want to allocate their contribution efforts to other ideas that address the same priority. For situations where contributors want to help with another funded priority this is up to the other contributors that they need to come to an agreement with. This means a community approval process wouldn't be needed.

Moderate income stability (Score - 3)

  • Likelihood of future income - Being selected for one priority will not result in any high certainty that the contributor will have their future priorities selected. The contributor will need to identify the most promising priorities that might get selected and then request to join those proposals if they want to increase the chances that they receive future compensation.

  • Compensation accuracy - Contributors would be paid for their time spent executing ideas that help to address the funded priority. The compensation can be set and agreed ahead of time in the priority proposal meaning there should be a high stability around the actual income they receive whilst they are working on that funded priority.

Total score = 17 / 30

Last updated