RE: How should we pay ourselves?
Interesting pay model and different than what was used in the past.
As a thought experiment, I might go along with your ideas, with some modifications.
Founders might be offered compensation for their time worked on the project before the crowdsale, at the same rate of $5000 per month of work they put in.
I might do token distribution every 3 months, to match the standard business quarter. I might distribute half equally among all employees.
The other half I might distribute using the voting you suggested, but half of those voted tokens via open voting (perfect information) and half by secret voting. No secret voting could be for oneself. There are situations in groups where you feel you need to remedy a situation without it being public knowledge.
Just adding to the discussion you started, thanks!
I agree with the sentiment that $5000 is not enough. The problem with have a low salary cap is that people expect wage growth over the course of ~45-year career. Even if $5k was a good starting place you'd have huge turnover in your company. One interesting idea may be to pay everyone the absolute max you could afford. Say that ends up being $15k/month, for example. That way you'd attract top talent, retain them longer as they would have a hard time getting a higher offer elsewhere, and you could quite reasonably expect a lot from them. My experience of working in a tech company where there is large pay disparity everywhere is that people tend to perform up unto the level they think they're expected to perform at, based on title and salary. I think highly paid people would work harder and they would be easier to weed out if they're not living up to their high salary expectations. Your can decide to reinvest additional revenues into the salary too, were the business to be a runaway success which would only further boost morale.
The problem with secret voting is that its not really secret - at least someone has access to the vote info.
I think its better to make it public regardless, because if there are issues in the organization, and if voting event brings these issues up and starts the conversation, it will be better for the company in the long run (assuming action is taken to resolve the leading issues, and not just "kick the can down the road").
Thanks for your reply!
I like to think that when I vote in elections in the US in November that I am casting a secret vote, but maybe I am deluding myself. :D
I would keep the public voting in the process to help quickly resolve issues, but I think that the part of the process involving secret voting will also point out issues when the result is tallied. It just gives another way to do it, for people with different personality types who prefer to voice their opinion anonymously.
Plus, if the public voting and the secret voting yield completely different results, then THAT in itself is Information. It might show that there are issues in how freely a person feels they can bring up other issues without stigma or penalty.
I agree on that one, Nice views!