I'm thinking of a site where a particularly successful adoptable has become a much bigger deal, with some pretty terrifying potential for RLC commissions as well as on site currency. The organisers of the said adoptable have a tier system of artist and their options for repayment are dependent on their artist grade. This is made clear at the time of applying and those on the highest RLC level have the hardest art commissions. Different from this, the RLC in that case is a pay as you work kind of deal, meaning that the money paid for the art goes to the artist entirely, but there is no standard pay rate or site/organiser cut as far as I can tell.

...I think DV probably needs to clarify which category their work is falling into, and whether there will be legally binding contractual obligations. I think timezone is probably relevant or at least location because of different international laws that might apply in the case of a formal offer of employment, whether part time or long term. Though the Turnip option makes me think it's maybe not at that level, it's still worth considering.

The two main differences in the site I'm thinking of is that the adoptable, while having its own site and such, piggybacks off the existing game site (with permission) and thus has no massive overheads of its own...and of course the site in question allows game currency to be sold for RLC, which DV does not.

Not that I think DV should have that option, but it's just food for thought.

I think more than the turnip v rlc discussion, the hours, expectations, flexibility and length of the artists being involved is important information. If someone knowingly goes into a project and chooses to be paid turnips that's their business, but going in not knowing hours, demands, responsibilities etc...is a bit more difficult.