💣Paola

💣Paola

I actually don’t quite know how the various categories are defined here, and where the boundaries sit between them once go beyond core team (is it hours? role/scope? experience? etc) - so first things first I may totally be misunderstanding here 🙂. But my 2c based on what I have witnessed so far is that, while there is an incredible amount of value/benefit in decentralizing skills and responsibilities on both ends, I also think there should be a better way to ensure that *anyone* who is in any way a part of the Harmony ecosystem is truly set up to bring the value they should bring. And to me that comes down to a) clear and direct POC within harmony — and that’s where a few more core members could help bolster up the team and drive in the areas/functions that are not as covered today afaik. b) a well defined role and scope, within Harmony and/or the wider partner space, that has a set of shared and agreed OKRs and KPIs [ideally building on their concrete expertise OR at least tied to clear test+outcome] c) a compensation system that incentivizes the right behaviors (ie. impact-focused + skin in the game) while treating individuals fairly → and that to me is where the hourly approach falls a bit flat. In my opinion hourly rates can work when in a very neatly structured org [ie. temp workers in larger startups], but when it comes to a world that is as fluid as Web3 both in terms of goals and skillsets, I am doubtful it does, particularly for younger folks. People shouldn’t think “time”, they should think “impact”. The timesheet approach instead IMO creates a lot of distorsion, ie. either some folks who bill way less hours than they put in bc the workload is not measured to their quota, or others who will tend to bill in a somewhat simplistic way (ie. X hrs a week) and try to “fill up” their hours. I think it’s a loss-loss situation, both financially as well as in terms of missed opportunities/output.