Onboarding coop members #15
Comments
|
https://www.rchain.coop/coop-information-1 is the link to the drafted page for coop membership signup, i still link to the google form in this page because I like the new edits to the google form more than what squarespace is capable of in their form option. We should continue to explore a more privatized mechanism for collecting registration info |
|
"RChains" should be "RChain's", but should "RChains Platform" be "the RChain platform's"? Why is platform capitalized? Unless its formal name is going to be The RChain Platform, "platform" should have a small p. In "everyone can decide it's path" in the first section, "it's" should be "its" I think "Pre-register to Become an Member" sounds better than "to Be a Member." In the second section, why is "distribute-able" used instead of "distributable"? In the second section, second paragraph, "and get to determine", "get" should be "gets," But it might sound better to say "and helps to determine" or "and gets to help determine." In the third paragraph, I would change "to propose projects, budgets" to " to propose projects and budgets" and change "as well as helping to decide" to "and to help decide" so the sentence reads: I don't think "crypto" needs quotes around it. There is a comma splice in the last line, "Spots" should not be capitalized, and usually numbers less than 10 are spelled out. I would suggest changing that to: Two spots remain. Join the slack to learn more about when the vote will happen. I really like the colors and the spacing. The readability is good and the amount of information seems just right and it's all clearly written. I don't understand the reason for the emergency operations center picture in the beginning, or the guys in the hazmat suits. The pictures give a negative feel instead of a positive one. |
|
On 24 Apr 2017 : 17, at 02:18, plantether <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip lots of eagle eyed text fixes]
I really like the colors and the spacing. The readability is good and the amount of information seems just right and it's all clearly written. I don't understand the reason for the emergency operations center picture in the beginning, or the guys in the hazmat suits. The pictures give a negative feel instead of a positive one.
Agreed on the negative feel. You could try moving the 'rocket under construction in the hanger' image to the top. It would set up the rocket science theme and it seems to be taken just before dawn.
|
|
@plantether, @kitblake, @jimscarver rchain.coop/coop-information-1 I took yesterday's feedback and updated the drafted page, let me know what you guys think, I did not add any more content on why co-ops are important because I agree with plantether and kitblake that the spacing and layout is good right now, but this we can finalize on wednesday! |
|
I only see a grey page??? |
|
@plantether @kitblake @jimscarver @patrick727 Evan made a draft COOP MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT Let's compare this draft also with the Divvy DAO Ltd., LLC Operating Agreement, because the doc of Divvy is much more extensive. |
|
@lapin7 https://www.rchain.coop/coop-information-1 try that link. So are you suggesting that we take off the registration form for the time being? Also do you suggest that I link to the agreement on the info page or copy and paste the whole thing? |
|
No. I suggest that we keep the registration form up, but that we mention that it's a draft exercise. And we have to discuss the legal document of Evan. For example I would like references to articles in Law with respect to what is written down in that doc. I mean legal stuff is fine, but there's not much law about crypto. If we try to be legally correct then we can wait for ages. I prefer to walk the confrontation way and not to wait for people who never have thought about crypto before ( I don't mean Evan hear, because he's very well into the subject.) It would be nice if we could get Evan and Ed into this git hub chat. Greg would be welcome as well, but I think he has better things to do. When things are clear, we could send him a FYI. |
|
i agree, it might be nice to get them into the members hangout today as
well. Then we could clear this up moving forward so that we can post the
page.
Cheers
…On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:11 PM, HJ Hilbolling ***@***.***> wrote:
No. I suggest that we keep the registration form up, but that we mention
that it's a draft exercise.
I'm just saying that we have to keep the form up, because otherwise the
issue is loosing attention.
And we have to discuss the legal document of Evan. For example I would
like references to articles in Law with respect to what is written down in
that doc. I mean legal stuff is fine, but there's not much law about
crypto. If we try to be legally correct then we can wait for ages. I prefer
to walk the confrontation way and not to wait for people who never have
thought about crypto before ( I don't mean Evan hear, because he's very
well into the subject.)
It would be nice if we could get Evan and Ed into this git hub chat. Greg
would be welcome as well, but I think he has better things to do. When
things are clear, we could send him a FYI.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZZKT_fB-9w2EmBdYPb7NWrINed_6nrfks5rzmF4gaJpZM4Ms-YA>
.
|
|
On 26 Apr 2017 : 17, at 15:01, patrick727 ***@***.***> wrote:
i agree, it might be nice to get them into the members hangout today as
well. Then we could clear this up moving forward so that we can post the
page.
That's a nice setup that Evan made, gives us content to work with.
From a close reading, I imagine that Evan is not a lawyer, and I thought maybe a lawyer should look at this agreement. But I've 'been there, done that'. The lawyer will say, "This is a mess. We can't use anything. It needs a total rewrite! We just have to start from scratch." (Lawyers and software developers have a number of things in common. :)
However I like what HJ has said about getting things done and I'm sure we can think it through. Which, if a lawyer got involved, is what we'd have to do anyway.
Evan makes 6 points in as many paragraphs:
1. Once a year the Member will be eligible to receive a rebate of tokens, calculated as a percentage of tokens the Member used during the year.
2. Active Members are eligible to attend and vote at annual and special membership meetings.
3. Active Members are eligible to serve on a committee.
4. A new Member is required to pay a $20 fee. Active members must pay a $10 fee every year, [either as dues or] for services rendered.
5. Membership is nonrefundable and nontransferable.
6. Both the Member and the Coop will abide by Coop laws and articles.
In terms of onboarding, it's probably better to start the Membership Agreement by defining advantages, as opposed to beginning with the costs, so I shifted the fees item to #4 in the list above.
Are there any other points we need to have in the initial membership agreement?
HJ commented: Does the coop also say that members have a right to collaborate with others on projects that are beneficial for the coop?
Additional points or not, with a bit of polishing this could function as our initial membership agreement, for which we can elicit feedback from (future) members. Who may or may not be lawyers.
|
|
@4. A new Member is required to pay ........ If we just could formulate "required to pay" into something that sounds less "selling" than we're good I think. So something like "donation" or whatever. |
|
"Membership will be recognized after the dues have been accepted" ?? something like that could work to in regards to "required to pay" comment |
|
Or we can put "required to pay (pending legal red tape)" |
|
How about this formulation: |
|
I'd like to suggest another way to handle the rebate of RHOC that Members will receive. The calculation is different but the end financial result for the Coop can be more or less the same, and IMHO it'll be much more appealing as there is potential for organic growth. First the critique and then the suggestion. Quote: "Every active member will get a share of the “net distribute-able surplus” generated by the cooperative in ratio to purchases made in that period. An active member is loosely defined as an individual who made at least $10 in purchases for that period." There will be a lot of Members who either aren't particularly active, or they are active but don't make any 'purchases'. For those people the rebate will be minuscule. The percentage is not decided yet but assuming it's in the single digits, a rebate on $10 will be between $0.10 and $0.90 cents. Not much of an incentive. And for those who do regularly buy Coop resources, they will price in a rebate of x% when ordering services. Instead let's call it a 'payout'. It will be calculated as a percentage of the total RChain network throughput (or the sum of all RHOC transactions made on the blockchain during the period). That percentage can be multiplied by personal factors, such as expenditures on Coop resources and/or activity points earned. Like a dividend for stocks, the payout will be larger if the RHOC value rises. It will also increase if the network turnover grows since that will effect a larger base sum in the calculation. To work out the exact formula will require someone with a deeper knowledge of RChain and better math skills than I have. But it doesn't have to be nailed down now. The formula and percentage can be decided in the future. The important issue is to incentivize someone considering membership. We offer financial gains, albeit small, as a reward for collaboration, and the payout can potentially increase with the success of RChain. So the quoted paragraph above could instead read like this: "Every active member will participate in a yearly payout of RHOCs based on the total network throughput of RChain. The amount will be calculated as a percentage of network turnover multiplied by the RHOC price and a personal contribution factor." Or something like that.. |
|
Yeah that's fine.
We must also get rid of the BTC payment option. Because it's cumbersome for
sending the 100 RHOC back. Could you delete that BTC question?
I hope to process the RHOC payments this week.
I also found that the payment addresses from the form are not always in
sync with the actual payments in ETH or BTC. I will come back to this later.
…--
HJ
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:51 PM, kitblake ***@***.***> wrote:
How about this formulation:
A new Member is expected to make a nonrefundable donation of $20 (pending
legal red tape). In order to maintain active status, in succeeding calendar
years the Member agrees to procure at least $10 worth of RChain products or
services, or pay dues of that amount, else become inactive.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB0x9zLnbEbDb6Tqmble2VS9IIKqTKD7ks5r1wqqgaJpZM4Ms-YA>
.
|
|
The BTC payment option is gone, guess you did it HJ. I made a few more fixes. @kitblake HJ deleted the BTC payment option. We just need the ETH-address to send 100 RHOC back to the member. |
|
Yes I deleted the btc option.
Nice for the real test transaction.
As you see there's a lot of activity without a lot of overview. So we need to have a kind of sympathetic guidance and get all into GitHub......
… On 3 May 2017, at 18:50, kitblake ***@***.***> wrote:
The BTC payment option is gone, guess you did it HJ. I made a few more fixes.
FYI, I made a real payment, both to register and test. If need be we can use that tx for investigating.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
As you see there's a lot of activity without a lot of overview. So we need to have a kind of sympathetic guidance and get all into GitHub...…
I'm perfectly happy using Github and its tools. Plus Github has the advantage that it's known and used by the developers. They have no learning curve. Means they can't duck it :)
Let's all start explicitly linking to Github issues in other channels, especially Slack. It's easy, either copy the url if you're in the web UI or copy the view it on GitHub link in the footer of the Github mails.
|
|
Here's a request for critique. This link is a share of the Coop Membership agreement, originally published by Evan Jensen: I radically renovated Evan's work (which he spent time thinking through). The intention is to make the onboarding process as frictionless as possible. A contract, while indisputably necessary, can seem onerous and be a stumbling block. I added an existential intro, inspired by the Divvy DAO Operating Agreement, and modified the language to give it a more friendly and mentoring tone. Does it succeed? Should I ease off a bit or try to take it further? Feel free to suggest or edit, and in any case I have no problem with critique. Evan is not subbed to this issue. Despite our 'ask for forgiveness' approach, I feel that it would only be proper that I contact him personally and explain. I'll do that after the next iteration. The content of the original agreement can be found below the new text. |
|
Nice work. Its is concise and clear. How many translations are going to be
made? Is Coop membership limited by any factors such as country of origin?
I assumed it wasn't since there was the 'emerging economy' consideration.
…On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:33 AM, kitblake ***@***.***> wrote:
Here's a request for critique. This link is a share of the Coop Membership
agreement, originally published by Evan Jensen:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iqhimjR38h-5mgv_
km54wXrJkIK9PD7wzp_sXXOPIus/edit?usp=sharing
I radically renovated Evan's work (which he spent time thinking through).
The intention is to make the onboarding process as frictionless as
possible. A contract, while indisputably necessary, can seem onerous and be
a stumbling block. I added an existential intro, inspired by the Divvy DAO
Operating Agreement, and modified the language to give it a more friendly
and mentoring tone.
Does it succeed? Should I ease off a bit or try to take it further? Feel
free to suggest or edit, and in any case I have no problem with critique.
Evan is not subbed to this issue. Despite our 'ask for forgiveness'
approach, I feel that it would only be proper that I contact him personally
and explain. I'll do that after the next iteration.
The content of the original agreement can be found below the new text.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGSAH4coeRI8qjwQdmpyLs1L0Vsl9yMXks5r3uFkgaJpZM4Ms-YA>
.
|
|
There's no plan for translations. If it was an app/Dapp maybe, but most crypto communities make do with english. I can't imagine we would bar any people from specific countries. |
|
The fee is arbitrary. It serves more to get a personal ETH address in order to send workers more RHOC. We can also introduce a sponsor like system "Rich Pay For Poor". A Poor candidate member sends the smallest amount of ETH. A Rich member adds the needed amount if he/she thinks that the Poor candidate member has left a good motivation. And another thing is a bonus like system for members who get extra rewards for their work. A kind of "Promis To Spend RHOC". So if your actual work get's a reward of 100 USD then you get for example 100 USD + 50 USD to spend on what you think is useful for the coop (all converted in RHOCs of course). The whole goal is to get RHOC's into members hands. Let's say during 2017 we set as goal to get 500 mln RHOC into the hands of members. Those members should not sit on their RHOC's but get them in circulation, so that members get power to stimulate workers to do something good for the coop. In fact we have to create a RHOConomy. |
|
Creating rewards can be tricky. It requires creating a very detailed
description of what the coop needs or wants and a deadline to motivate the
competition. Then finally the membership should vote on the contributions
where it is possible no entries are selected as winners and the reward is
held for another round of competition. When it comes to membership for
those who can't otherwise afford it, a sliding scale with a probationary
period makes sense. In other words those who would use this tool to spam
the membership channels could be easily removed.
I was an active part of the LTB community while it was cutting its teeth.
Creating micro economies can be quite burdensome, they are useful for
discovering how crafty people can be at gaming a system. The way I see
rhocs is they are nothing but gestating revs. I will have to see an
extremely compelling reason to part with them.
…On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:31 PM, HJ Hilbolling ***@***.***> wrote:
The fee is arbitrary. It serves more to get a personal ETH address in
order to send workers more RHOC. We can also introduce a sponsor like
system "Rich Pay For Poor". A Poor candidate member sends the smallest
amount of ETH. A Rich member adds the needed amount if he/she thinks that
the Poor candidate member has left a good motivation.
And another thing is a bonus like system for members who get extra rewards
for their work. A kind of "Promis To Spend RHOC". So if your actual work
get's a reward of 100 USD then you get for example 100 USD + 50 USD to
spend on what you think is useful for the coop (all converted in RHOCs of
course).
The whole goal is to get RHOC's into members hands. Let's say during 2017
we set as goal to get 500 mln RHOC into the hands of members. Those members
should not sit on their RHOC's but get them in circulation, so that members
get power to stimulate workers to do something good for the coop. In fact
we have to create a RHOConomy.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGSAH-bQ5zjzd2qXk0IsyP_IaCjmRiGIks5r35ewgaJpZM4Ms-YA>
.
|
|
In order to accelerate RHOC distribution, why don't we do that 'RChain throughput payout' monthly, instead of once per year as currently envisioned? We could do it every month on the full moon (like today). |
|
Creating workflows will help to organize the many processes we're dealing with. I'll take a shot at the first item, "how to become an active involved Activist", which overlaps into the second, "how to create a Statement of Work (SoW)". These actions are mentioned in the FAQ #60 and it would be good to have them clarified before the FAQ becomes public. |
|
|
|
There might be (should be) more event sources. Also this is still somewhat linear, as it assumes that after becoming an Activist the next step must be to fill out the Talent Pool form, while in fact an Activist could skip that and go directly to the SoW form. Will we allow that... that's the question. (Not done yet, more to come, based on the SoW template doc) |
|
Both the talent pool and sow serve in my opinion to get an idea of what an activist could do and to get a more formalised relation with the activist. After it depends on the activist what s/he is going to take on for tasks and if that task is rewarded in RHOC.
So the fastest way to leads to an sow is the best, I think.
… On 14 Jul 2017, at 13:13, kitblake ***@***.***> wrote:
There might be (should be) more event sources. Also this is still somewhat linear, as it assumes that after becoming an Activist the next step must be to fill out the Talent Pool form, while in fact an Activist could skip that and go directly to the SoW form. Will we allow that... that's the question.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Yes, let's offer a path of least resistance. I adjusted the diagram and linked the Welcome email directly to the SoW process. |
|
Feedback is welcome on initiation and annual member incentives outlined in sheet attached here! Clearly, this is a thought experiment. The only way I see membership working to scale (1B members +) is if even 1/100,000,000th of a Rev (what I'm calling "Dust") becomes a useful value (in my model I have $10 bucks). That's the only way there'll be enough Rev value (given the assumptions) to go around as incentive and annual dues for the foreseeable future - say ~1000 years. This is only possible because crypto is so divisible, from what I understand, to the 100,000,000th digit. [This is a thought experiment because] I'm not sure it's realistic to have each single Rev be worth $1B and the Rev valuation to be at $870 Quadrillion by some far out future date (in my model 2050). By the same token, however, someone from the Middle Ages would be spooked that $200T+ of fiat currencies, stocks, and bonds rule all transactions in the world. They'd be like "what's fiat, stocks, and bonds" and how do I put "200T of anything" into perspective... I think blockchain will get us to "quadrillions of value" -- even though its hard to comprehend today. I suggest with the legitimacy behind Greg's vision of Rchain and this community - Rev could be what takes humanity to the world of tomorrow, a better world for all. I still believe in dApps and other tokens, but I think money is still a fundamental "dApp" so to speak and one coin will end up being the most convenient [read: stable] store of value -- no matter how good exchanges become they won't be able to exchange legitimacy, stability, governance, concurrency 🥇 The analogy I've used before is: any group of people can say they're starting a new country with a document called the Declaration of Independence and a Constitution. But there's still only 1 USA. What's happening today with Rchain, I think, is truly on that level of special. 08.03.17 Jacob's Thought Experiment - Global Membership Growth Plan.xlsx |
|
What an extrapolation! :) But who knows, it could happen. Nice that you made a sliding scale that keeps the Incentive/Income totals constant thru the years. I noticed that the Incentive and income results are keyed to the REV value. Some might say that $1,000,000,000 in the future is optimistic ;) so I added formulas in the result cells. Now if you input a different value for the "Future Price of Rev (USD)", the results alter accordingly. So pessimists can also do calculation and input, say, $50000. Anybody who wants to try it can do it in this Google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/121h9k2xxv4l7wEgQz_3OcGiG9iGRd-e6b1cti_gXcQc/edit?usp=sharing |
|
And please add yourself as collaborator to this rep by reacting on the invite You could then be rewarded with RHOC for you TIME-participation |
|
onboarding krishna to myetherwallet and metamask https://youtu.be/S1b8x4NxwtA What are recommended videos or other resources for these task? |
patrick727
added
zz-Marketing
|
Ooh! a recording of onboarding. Nice, @jimscarver ! The work I did on README.md CONTRIBUTING.md was my answer to "What are recommended videos or other resources for someone who wants to learn and earn?" But it didn't occur to me that somebody might be interested in rchain without being somewhat familiar with Ethereum and bitcoin. |
|
I second that! I tend to connect rchain to those to as an entry. good work @jimscarver |
|
https://github.com/rchain/Members/blob/master/membership/assets/Onboarding_Workflow.png starts with "new user joins slack" which is clearly out of date. Should I delete that diagram? It's not straightforward for me to updated it because the editable source version isn't checked in. |
|
Continues with #253 |
|
Onboarding can be a challenge as some people or coop members don't like to be KYCED. This thread is related to #222 |
|
They don't have to in order to collaborate.
…--
Cheers,
HJ
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Keaycee ***@***.***> wrote:
Onboarding can be a challenge as some people or coop members don't like to
be KYCED. This thread is related to #222
<#222>
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB0x9ycGOXMMT-klvL6uNYv3vzoCWVNJks5tPI95gaJpZM4Ms-YA>
.
|
This epic is to meet the onboarding challenge from attracting members, educating them, accepting payment, identity proofing, facilitating cooperative involvement in the community and RHOC marketplace. Doug Rushkoff advised us that onboarding is our greatest challenge. When, if we experience exponential growth this process will need to be scalable.
Processes that are components of the onboarding process may be aggregated under this epic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: