No exp for author's gotchi for sigprop being created as part of paid duty


Currently, sigprop that passes and become coreprop grants the prop’s author’s gotchi of choice 150 exp
even if it is created as part of a DAO funded team/project or other forms of paid duty

Proposed Change

Exp should not be granted to author’s gotchi for sigprop that passes if the sigprop was created for the following purpose:

DAO funded task force/team/individual (i.e. paid by the hour) creates a sigprop for proposed change and/or as part of their duty

  • Example: Alch/Gltr Task force (channelling change etc.),

DAO funded projects (i,e, paid by lumpsum) creates a sigprop as part of the project

  • Example: Forge Team (continue funding, proposed change/release), Bonding Curve Transition Team (Liquidity provision)

Pixel Craft Team Member: creates a sigprop as part of their paid duty
-Example: Closing the bonding curve


The above scenario involve team, projects, personnel that is creating sigprop as part of their official duty.

EXP has monetary value as it is part of the protocol reward: Rarity Farming

Such sigprop should not “double paid” the author for passing a sigprop as they are already being compensated for their work.

Moreover, even if the sigprop fails, they are still being paid.


Sigprop that passes but does not involve any funding from DAO (i.e. ghst, DAI, USDC) should continue to receive exp (no change)

Sigprop created by Pixel Craft Team member outside of work time and is not part of Pixel Craft Operation

Original Sigprop that ask for funding / formation of team/projects


This should be enforced by Pixel Craft as they are the ones who performs “exp drop”

I think it is best to leave PC to decide if a sigprop fells under the category of “created as part of paid duty” base on above
(most sigprop are created by the DAO and PC will act as a impartial party)


After each announced “exp drop” for sigprop author exp DAO/PC should have someone(or script) designated to verify said author’s gotchi did not receive exp as intended.

If it was found that exp was granted by mistake, PC should try to revert it. If that is not possible, future exp should be withheld to compensate for extra exp granted


This should apply to all sigprop created after this sigprop passes coreprop

Other/future consideration

Should the original sigprop that ask for DAO funding also not give exp to the author? (This is not covered by this sigprop and will continue to grant exp)

I never made a sigprop before would greatly appreciate any help/feedback. :sweat_smile:

Thanks for reading :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


If you are going wanting to make it so the author does not get exp, could we not just have these not give xp to anyone? Instead of the classification as a proposal what if we instead called them “on-chain polls” that would still gather the DAO’s perspective but would not automatically give xp. Once everything is ready to finalize an official sigprop could be written that included everything that the DAO wanted in one proposal.

My intention is not that author don’t get exp but certain author don’t get exp.

I feel that the original intention of the 150 exp was to encourage making successful sigprop with a small reward.

Ever since bonding curve closed, there seems to be an shift in expectation that tasks performed for DAO should be paid work.

An author not funded by DAO is already doing “unpaid” work.
Taking away exp reward from them would be unfair.

On the other hand, individual/team/project funded by DAO is already being rewarded for their work. Making sigprop for the purpose of completing their paid work should not be paid again. They are already being paid. Its part of their job to make the sigprop to complete their team mission or project goal.

1 Like

Also, I would like exp for this sigprop as the author :laughing:
if it pass

Howabout no, but you can stop getting XP if you like?



Would be great if you provide a reason. It would help to change my mind as well as anyone else reading that might not feel same way as you

1 Like

Because it’s making PC do extra work just punish people for working for the DAO.

I don’t have a nice way to say what this thread makes me think of the poster, but I’m sure you can use your imagination.

Punishment is an action performed against someone for their wrongdoing.

That wasn’t my intention. I do not feel people working for DAO has done anything wrong in this case.

It it just that situation has changed.

The reward’s original intended use is no longer valid due to the paid nature of someone working for DAO.

It is in my opinion that sigprop created by a paid individual/team for the purpose of performing their duty
is not the same as someone who isn’t on DAO payroll making a sigprop.

To make that distinction. Another way to do it would be to increase reward for non-paid author and keep paid author’s exp the same.

However, it is in my opinion paid author should not receive exp reward as they are creating sigprop to complete their job function.

I consider this an update to align the reward to the intended recipient.

I apologize I didn’t make it clear and gave you the impression I am here to punish people working for DAO.

I am not looking for nice flowery thing here. You are free to use swear word if that help express your viewpoint

1 Like

I agree. That is the unfortunately side effect of most sigprops. PC has to do something on their end.

Talk about it in DAO meeting

Announcement made on discord, twitter to announce a new sigprop/coreprop is open for voting

After sigprop passes, post Coreprop.

Announcement for update applied made due to coreprop proposed change

And of course things like svg, smart contract, ui update etc they have to do to make it work

I can assure you whatever changes being proposed by alch task force will require extra work on PC end as well

Unfortunately, PC is the one doing the distribution for exp. This update does in fact require PC to filter out part of the sigprop and not assign exp to them resulting in extra work.

If you feel it is necessary, you can make a dao thread to discuss how DAO should reimburse PC for the extra work sigprop/coreprop generates

I think this represent a really poor attitude and is both petty and pointless. This adds nothing, has no value, and brings no value to the table.

I appreciate the honesty. I am not quite sure how to respond to your comment. I will have to get back to you (and edit this reply) once I can think of a proper way to address this.

Thank you

Edit: I will create a new reply instead

1 Like


To see the value I think we can try look at it from the perspective of the different stakeholder involved:

  1. Non-paid author

By granting same exp as paid author (who is making sigprop as part of their job), this discourages non-paid authors from contributing/creating sigprop.

It is reasonable for a potential author to look at this set-up and feels that it doesn’t make sense to make a sigprop without paid.

Therefore, this leads to higher number of task force/project being made and ask for funding even for minor changes.

  1. DAO

Potentially decreased spending. As per reason stated above.

  1. Gotchi Owners

For owners who have gotchi on leader board.
It doesn’t seem fair if someone paid by DAO can potentially climb the ranks against their own gotchi(s) for doing their job.

Creating sigprop is an implied task if the funded initiative requires a sigprop to pass in order to meet the needs of the DAO is paying for. By granting reward in such case “devalue” exp reward as more is being produced for reason that doesn’t meet “exp is for reward engagement”

This update will remove such controversy and enhanced the value of the protocol reward

Incentives/Value for paid author

  1. Paid author

You are right. This sigprop doesn’t add any value to paid author.
It takes away exp reward from the author.

But said author also belong in group (2) and (3) as listed above and have gained value indirectly

4.1 Paid Author (non-hourly)

The incentive for making a successful sigprop for paid author is that they are being paid by the DAO and it is in their best interest to make a successful sigprop in the least number of attemps to decrease the amount of time spent on said project. (Less time spent, same pay)

4.2 Paid Author(hourly)

On the surface it might be beneficial to not create successful sigprop to increase the number of billed hours. However, this will lead to questions on one ability to meet the DAO’s need. Therefore, it is still in their best interest to create a successful sigprop in as little number of attempts as possible.


The above are the value I feel this sigprop brings to the table for our stakeholders.
This update does not negative affect the performance of paid author as it is still in
their best interest to create successful sigprop


Ultimately, it is up to DAO to decide(vote) on this sigprop.

Justification goes both ways.

I have presented the my case for why this change should be made.

It would beneficial to decision maker if you also do the same.

Me and you don’t necessary have to agree with one another.

The purpose of the discussion should be to let voter to see the reasoning for both side of the argument so they can decide if this change should be made.

Thank you for your comment. I look forward to your side of the argument: why we should keep giving exp to paid authors

The only place I can see this being appropriate is where someone has been put in place specifically to write props, and thats unlikely.

Using the current props as examples…

Several are one person on a team or board that is handling that, and the group is relying on them to do it well. They dont get paid more for it and they have to do all the posts and deal with any questions.

The system works great.

In my own personal experience, I am relieved if someone else does it, and Im glad the xp is there or it would cause friction.

The more you specifically define roles and haggle about money and make people spend more time talking about working, the more you pay.

Maybe it would be clear to you, if you had been on a team or done dao work, but more corporate nonsense and hoops to jump through are not the way forward.

You did not account for time spent on posts, answering questions or time spent on making sigprop.

As much as I hate to say this. This seems to be an issue with your team’s funding request.

This seems to be a very specific set up your team has created to paid someone exp for making sigprop

This sigprop takes effect after it passes coreprop.
There is no guaranteed it will even pass sigprop.
Hopefully this helps

Its not specific.

This is normal. The only thing not normal, is someone who’s not involved trying to say how people should interact on their teams.

Of all the things to do for a first proposal, messing with how basic rewards work is probably not a great choice.

Good luck with nerfing rewards for the few people willing to participate in this process.

Thank you Quincy, Hardkor for your participation

I will create sigprop on TBA as I feel that I have addressed most of the issue to the best of my ability

Please feel free to add more reason to support as you see fit as to why this change should not occur so there is an equal representation of both side of the argument

(I am author of this sigprop so my opinions are biased)

I don’t support this initiative at all.

Why would we want to put in yet another reason to discourage people from building?

1 Like

In what way are you encouraging people to make a sigprop as non paid by getting same exp as them while doing the same thing on the job paid by the dao?