thanks for the question!
To be honest we don’t have a budget amendment or projection at this time. We’ve chosen not to reward ourselves (thus far) in elevated $CODE and have come to realise it could be better allocated towards members, likely skewing towards new members as first-time users are the most valuable learning opportunity for us, than reward ourselves.
Current discussions are we reward folks happy to do user research interviews @ $50 to $100 CODE per interview (massively higher than the 15 $ CODE/hour rate) and explore how we can reward other folks advising the project such as the community guild team.
The core team is currently doing about that, maybe more, so in theory, I think we could provide a budget and justifies rewarding ourselves at this level, but the intention is to pass that back to DAO members for helping us build out the product.
tbh I’m not sure how to handle this and it brings into question some of the challenges with the current structure/rewards model raised in Can we build a better game?.
There have been a few instances where I’ve sent some of my personal allocation of $CODE to folks who’ve provided feedback or reported bugs but noting out of our treasury thus far.
ofc open to ideas/critiques/feedback/challenges etc.
another question this raisess is if the DAO can amend the $CODE budget allocated (happy to go with the flow as this is the point of stewards) can those who’ve promised future value return to amend the terms for that?
again this is exposing flaws in the current system and very healthy debate