Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
CRYPTOforCHANGE ↑
@cryptoforchange
IMO the path higher is going down is too passive. Too much of just sitting back and saying “hey you can come build on top of h”. Higher needs to turn the switch and become aggressive in seeking talent and PAYING for it. I don’t know exactly what the best flow for this is… could be focusing on some listings.. could be focusing on finding accounts on X who have influence. Could be trying to onboard some well known builders to higher… prolly all these need to happen and fast.
6 replies
1 recast
22 reactions
CRYPTOforCHANGE ↑
@cryptoforchange
https://warpcast.com/martin/0x9d054297 Example here, asking for people to just do this level of work without any pay. Like I get they can hold the token and go do these things to pump their bags but that is a lot of risk without any guarantee of reward. If it was a big opportunity people would be chomping at the bit to lead these roles. We have to do better and aim higher.
3 replies
0 recast
10 reactions
martin ↑
@martin
Important conversation here, I still haven’t changed my mind on previous opinions. a few things: - we can leverage structures like the Party to accelerate our growth a bit more (its earning fees from LP) - paying people to do things turns us into a DAO which I can guarantee, from experience, will ultimately fail. - we had these exact same conversations in April and I am happy we didn’t go down this path - any conversation about “someone should do X!” is best replaced by “what can _I_ do?”
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
CRYPTOforCHANGE ↑
@cryptoforchange
I just find the wording of your second point to be not the full story. "paying people to do things" I would agree we should not just throw out bounties or pay random people to do things... especially if we want them to stay and continue after the initial job is done. I feel incentivizing current contributors to further the mission is maybe a better approach. I honestly believe we have some good talent already building on h.. but would they do more if their were more concrete ways to be rewarded. From what I have seen many have taken some leaps to create value leveraging higher but I have not seen an abundance of follow through to support.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
↑ antaur ツ
@antaur.eth
I am with you on the last point. What I need for that is some structure, with roles, unpaid. Higher has no palpable connecting tissue. I am a systemic coach and group facilitator IRL. There needs to be a container in which self-organisation based on a broadly share aim can happen. I am not part of such container (I was told there is a private TG by someone who is in there). If you let me in I'll contribute based on what I want to drive forward x what's needed and under-served.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
