RFC Compensation Plan with Bonus Structure

gordob Thanks for asking!! As you'll see the Council OIP passed in April, and we are just now nearing the end of q2. We do have a completed Q1 quarterly report, going above the OIP mandate, but since it was delayed as we figured out the setup and cadence (the first time always takes longer), we are opting to combine and push it with the Q2 report and publish them in July once we have the full information from Q2 collected.

gordob I'm confused at what the question is here? The OIP for council did not specify any specific budget, paying council members as contributors is more costly on a monthly basis than the proposed DECREASE in monthly allocation for council members who were previously allocated as a part of the team they've been contributing to. The monthly allocation by level and role does not show Council or Stratego allocations, as you'll see below they are a flat $10k.

gordob Correct. The OKR's you've listed were not included in the OIP or snapshot, and changes were made shortly after they were created per suggestions based on market activity, implementation of inverse bonds, and plan to implement range bound stability. The above OKR's are here in this RFC, and are subject to change based on comments and suggestions as a result of this RFC until they are formalized and tied to the bonus structure via OIP and snapshot vote.

Jem Correct!!

bubbidubb Thanks for your comments!! I'll try to reply as organized as possible!

6 month Job Security:
-I hear what you're saying about remote work and not uprooting, but on the flip side this is not tradfi, its defi, the wild west of crypto. There are no health benefits, no PTO, no retirement matches that you'd get in a more traditional place of contribution. We allocate in our native token.
And in this plan there is still a need for contributors to stick to the same output level of contribution, its not a given that they'd receive the same allocations for 6 months regardless. We have a great team and after the process of reducing the number of contributors I think it's important that we now offer some security. I've seen quite a few other projects offering 12m contracts so the truth of the matter is that we will have contributors move on if this doesn't change.
Nobody wants to contribute all month and not know what their allocations will be, it's not sustainable. And the DAO needs to be able to forecast out it's spend. If we have contributor losses we will have to contract out the work which will be more costly and take more time for products to ship. I think it's underestimated the number of hours contributors spend, often at uncomfortable times of the day, to make syncs times and complete tasks. DeFi is global and therefore 24/7 something is happening in the DAO.

Runway:
The 2.1 figure would be based on hitting all of our goals, which would indicate strong protocol health and a growing treasury, thus increasing the runway. For the sake of the modeling I didn't include any treasury growth in calculating those figures. What costs would you suggest cutting and what is a more appropriate runway in your mind? Should there be pause/check in period in 6-12 months to assess?

Bonus Goals:
A. With all due respect, treasury growth is largely impacted by changes in value of our treasury holdings as well as broader market conditions. We anticipate further challenges on this front and additionally are utilizing inverse bonds which have an impact our treasury size. To increase treasury despite these factors is no small feat. Again, what metric would you propose here?
B-D+ let me see if I can tap in shadow or Jala here.

Bonus Amounts:
-Will be paid out in gOHM but measured in USD, as allocations have been. We debated a plan that had all bonus amounts calculated in gOHM but that lends itself to paying out much higher allocations and bonuses than anticipated, if there were to be a rally, and creates the inability to calculate runway.
Nowhere on here does it say anything about paying in USD, I will be sure to specify that it's in gOHM but figured it was understood as it's the precedent that's been set. Once again, I want to point out that if all bonuses are hit, as needed to get that payout, all community members will also be benefiting from the protocol's performance. DAO members are community members too, please be respectful.

Compensation Payouts:
All compensation payouts are shared in the data studio that is updated monthly. This is straightforward to read and we have a further explanation of expenses that will be published in the quarterly report. I'd like to say that there is a lot of integrity shown by publishing these figures and updating them monthly. This is the definition of transparency.

gordob

Correct, previously there has been no agreement on comp for council. Council members who were also contributing to their various departments were compensated from the departments. I don't see the 180* here. Comp will now be reduced and bonus is tied to OKRs/kpi however you want to name it. Discussion on the RFC and in DAO-syncs highlighted the disincentive for members of the DAO to be on council if they couldn't afford monthly bills.

2. There is no double dipping, the comp is only council comp and council members are STILL contributing to their departments, but not being comped from departments for this work. It is more work, for less monthly comp, with potentially more upside. It is not both. That's why it's only listed in the separate table below and not on the level chart.

There have been no separate council allocations. Just as contributors as you've listed above.

dr00 Thanks for taking the time to read through!! I appreciate your patience as we went through the many iterations and I'm looking forward to the next steps as a DAO

gordob if you're suggesting changes I'm open to hearing them, but am not going to engage in an argument, especially when most of these points have been discussed above.