Cross-referenced against Sebastian's Google Doc comments and the Growth Partner Incentives meeting (2026-02-18).
Sebastian commented the label feels misleading. From the call, you both agreed on "unactivated vs activated" terminology. Replace throughout.
Sebastian: "I'd redefine this less focused on the path to becoming [a GP] and by the activity or state of a participant behaving as [one]." Also remove "not on our payroll" framing (Sebastian said this doesn't protect you if a contractor self-onboards). Suggested rewording: something like "A Zar user operating in the growth partner role, actively onboarding and supporting merchants."
Sebastian flagged "A user with the merchant capability" as circular. Define by what they do: e.g. "A user who operates a storefront and sells ZAR products to customers via the app."
Sebastian explicitly commented this. Applies everywhere the doc says "dollars" or "digital dollars" when referring to what merchants sell. (Already resolved in one comment.)
Change "A sale of dollars to a Zar customer via the app from a Merchant" to "A sale of a ZAR product between a Merchant and Customer" (per Sebastian's resolved comment).
The doc currently implies StoreFront can host "one or more merchants." From the call: Merchant is the parent entity, StoreFront is a sub-entity. 1:1 for now. Remove the "one or more merchants" language. Update the StoreFront definition accordingly.
Sebastian questioned why this is in the definition. Keep the definition clean — the sample stock is part of the process, not the definition.
Sebastian: "Feels a bit too rooted to the previous steps, where an activation should be able to describe the event in of itself." Rewrite to describe the state/event directly, e.g. "A Merchant is Activated when they have demonstrated the ability to independently sell ZAR products to customers."
Your own comment noted this: "10 customer transactions" should read "10 transactions with 10 different customers." (Diversity factor.)
From the call: Sebastian argued $5 is unnecessarily expensive. $2 is enough for the educational penny-drop. Update all references to $5 sample stock.
Sebastian pushed back on multipliers for filing reports (activity over results). From the call: replace the tiered report-filing multiplier table with a 2x earnings multiplier for GPs who record their sales conversations. This gets high-value training data. Remove the 50/100/200/300/400 reports table entirely.
Sebastian was against penalizing people's "real earnings" during a learning curve. From the call: replace anti-multipliers with a simpler mechanism — if a merchant is inactive for 90 days, the GP loses that merchant (another GP can try to reactivate). Delete the 40-50%/30-40%/etc table.
Sebastian: "Blocking is a crude strategy. Nothing stops the person from opening a new account." Instead, design so the effort/reward ratio makes fraud futile, encouraging transition to honest participation. Rewrite this section to reflect that philosophy.
Sebastian: "We have no room for appeals." Remove both mentions of appeals processes.
Your comment from the call: "focus on positive checks (merchant that transacts is validated)." The section about incentivizing customers to verify merchants ($0.50 bonus) should be reframed. A merchant that has 10 transactions with 10 different customers is inherently validated. De-emphasize the send-a-customer-to-check approach.
From the call (not in doc yet): a "verification task" where a GP is paid $5 to go find and verify a merchant, and is temporarily locked from signing up new merchants until the task is complete. If they dismiss (merchant unreachable), they don't get paid. This creates peer pressure among GPs.
Sebastian: "Incentive payments are the only payments we'll exercise discretion over. Network payments will be trustless." Your comment: variable fees (including from ghost/sample dollars) should not be stopped. Update the Delayed Payments section — only fixed incentive payments can be withheld/delayed. Variable (network) payments are trustless.
Sebastian was confused by the tiered limit system (10/20/30 merchants until X verified). From the call, the approach shifted to just using $2 sample stock (instead of $5) to naturally limit exposure. Simplify or remove the complex tiered limits. Maybe keep a simple version: new GP can distribute sample stock to N merchants until at least one is validated.
Sebastian: "It is important to distinguish between fraud and un-discoverability." The doc currently treats non-existing merchants and non-transacting merchants similarly. Add clearer language: outright fake merchants (don't exist) vs merchants that exist but don't transact (different treatment — the latter is just ineffective, not fraudulent).
From the call: Daniel will write a "Module Zero" — a "what's in it for me" section for growth partners. This is the first thing a potential GP sees. Add a placeholder or draft showing concrete earning examples (Sebastian: "start with an average intelligent guess and refine").
The doc has a placeholder: "<Insert estimate of potential earnings from this model>". Fill this in with realistic numbers based on the fixed + variable incentive structure.
The doc says the GP can only buy back $1 from each merchant. With $2 sample stock (down from $5), this mechanic changes. Sebastian suggested the GP buys $1 back (the penny-drop transaction), merchant sells $1 to a real customer for activation. Simplify this section.
Sebastian argued against giving sample stock as a learning mechanism — said it "neutralizes the real learning experience." He suggested rewarding the first transaction with a bonus dollar, forcing the merchant to solve the problem of getting stock and finding a customer. Consider whether to reflect this shift or keep the sample stock approach with the $2 compromise.