1. Plan is to comp in gOHM
2. This is a 6 month bonus, we've debated having it be a vesting bonus where it wold stagger vest similarly to Index Coop's Dynamic Staking Model. This is still up for debate- the question at hand is do we anticipate contributors dropping off in January after the bonus is allocated, and can we incentivize retention in a non-monetary way. The DAO is more productive when people are excited to wake up and contribute vs people showing up to wait out a vesting bonus.
3. Good point, the use of current funds with no additional growth is painting the worst case scenario. There are a lot of factors at play in the broader market that will impact treasury growth, but the goal is to continue to grow the treasury. I'll see if I can get more concrete numbers for you but I think this will be easier to project out over time once range bound stability is implemented.
4. Ty!! Appreciate this feedback and offer for help! We posted the initial update earlier this month and will have the q1/q2 quarterly update come out in July but can definitely see about implementing a more informal blurb.
RFC Compensation Plan with Bonus Structure
hOHMwardbound - The query is,
1: Up until now there has been no agreement on comp for 'Council' and the Addenda notes that allocations to Council will include vesting based on KPI's -- So this is a 180 degree turn on this now, as you want to implement monthly comp for council without vesting nor linked to KPI and bonus.
2:
2a: Double-dipping of 4/7 council members in full time roles. New monthly comp for 'Council' on-top of full monthly roles and 'Council' will be legible for Bonus paid to 'Level & Role' and 'Council' function. There shouldn't be both.
Current earnings - 01-05-2022 Period
- Apollo (3,3) - Not Shown
- hOHMward bound - $17 425 (Operations)
- indigo - $25 000 (Engineering)
- JaLa - $17 425 (Partnerships)
- sh4dow - $17 425 (Policy)
- Wartull - Not Shown
- Zeus - Not Shown
2b: - Q: Has the Council being paying itself prior to this?
Note: There is no current allocation for council members on the public available allocation doc, Data: https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/cb74b814-7ce1-4449-88e5-eac57637b934/page/ZK0YC
Thank you for putting the time and effort in with the team @hOHMwardbound to produce such a comprehensive comp plan. I know many of us have been asking for months to see something official, so as a contributor this is much appreciated!
Looking forward to seeing things ratified and I think as a result it will be much easier for us to attract top talent in the industry!
hOHMwardbound - So on the premise of OKR's to start a 'Council', they have changed now with much lower targets, no current public tracking and high payouts to 'Council' especially around;
[DAO-WIDE 1] Grow Treasury: drive OHM’s use as trusted backing by growing Olympus treasury by 1.5x ($632 million Olympus Treasury vs. $421 million currently)
BONUS PROPOSED: Increase Treasury to $400 million (MISMATCH)
and
[DAO-WIDE 2] Increase Premium: increase premium to 50% higher than backing (0% premium currently)
BONUS PROPOSED: Increase premium to 20% higher than backing (MISMATCH)
Definitely good clarification point that everything will be paid out in gOHM
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.
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.
hOHMwardbound - thank you for the info.
Q: Will 'Council' members that are in both team/department and council roles, earn bonuses from 'Council' and 'Teams'?
Note for the record: I firmly disagree of the substantially lowered OKR's that make it easier to meet lower targets with high payouts. Previous OKR's were set in the base agreement to setup a Council, the Council was voted-in, in this agreement.
hOHMwardbound - There is no argument and how could it be one by querying a comp proposal with details stated by the team!
My suggestion would be to keep to the original Council creating vote, noted OKR's of the below and have visible public tracking made public, so the DAO can achieve it's targets that's beneficial to all.
-- [DAO-WIDE 1] was $632 million, now changed to $400 million.
-- [DAO-WIDE 2] was increase premium to 50% higher than backing, now changed to 20% higher.
bubbidubb Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
6 month job security (If I understand this “allocation concept” correct)
Not everyone will be designated Consistent Contributor, and not every Consistent Contributor will get 6 month agreements, maybe 2 or 3 or 4 months. But imo it's really important to give full timers in the DAO better understanding of how much bread they can put on the table in the coming months.
Crypto-winter 2018/2019 lasted up to 2 years depending on how you measure. And that was without macro headwinds. This time, we are in new bear and macro looks like total shit. $28M is a shitload of money. Come on, man. 2.1 years?? Must do better.
If we achieve all the Bonus Goals then by definition the Treasury will be able to bond once again and increase the DAO treasury, so I don't think we'll ever hit the 2.1 years runway and be much closer to the 4 years. Especially for the Premium goal, increased premium means increased runway by definition since the DAO would pay out the same USD amount using OHM which has increased in value.
That said, what would be a proper runway length in your opinion?
Reaching 400M end of year is just a mere return to where we were on May 1st. Come on, man. Who sets a market value based bonus goal just after a crash – taking as reference a crash value?
I think it's good to increase this amount as we're already pretty close to it. Maybe 500 or 600.
We lack credible data on backing to assess this. Also 30d MA of price, or 30d MA on backing – be specific.
Good point, it should be 30d MA of both.
This is the only non-measurable objective. As such, I don’t like it.
I have to disagree with you on this one. It's perfectly fine to have a binary 0-1 goal, either the protocol achieves decentralized operations via the OCG + Risk Management Committee or it doesn't. Also I'm sure that tighter regulation will come as a direct result of the LUNA/UST and related fallout. We cannot be caught with our pants down when it happens. So it's not an internal pat-your-back thing, the consequences are dire in fact from a regulation standpoint. Even economically, many institutions and exchanges won't touch an asset that's centrally controlled, even via multisig.
AND/OR conditionality:
Disagree fully with the notion that Olympus can just wait for the next bull market and profit big, even with poor team performance. The external market might help, but plenty of crap projects died even in the bull market. Also, the bonus weights are super important imo because they do allow for some flexibility while fairly punishing the DAO for not meeting certain objectives. I don't think it should be all-or nothing as that leads to significant motivation problems if it looks like we won't achieve them all simultaneously.
Bonus amounts
To be clear, all comp and bonuses are physically paid out in gOHM, like they are now.
The payouts from the DAO are extremely difficult to track on-chain.
You can check the DAO multisig for all the transactions, they're not really obfuscated. Plus the data studio link has deeper insights:
https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/cb74b814-7ce1-4449-88e5-eac57637b934/page/ZK0YC
Thanks again for your comments.
- Edited
Thanks for the feedback, appreciate you taking the time to write it out (although I would drop the 'you won't like this' part, as long as feedback is given respectfully I enjoy it 
).
6 month job security.
Your argument misses the ball imo here, the largest benefit is stability for the DAO where for a 6 month period it is clear who is in a leadership position and can be held accountable. Also the people on the council have shown a unique knowledge and understanding of Olympus, its community and goals. They can't just be replaced by alternative resources elsewhere on the globe.
Runway
As an advisor in close to a dozen other projects that have raised sometimes 8-9 figures in the past 18 months, I can assure you that a 2 year plus runway is high. I challenge you to find similar projects with 4 year plus runway at our scale.
Treasury Growth
You must take a line and stick with it. Above, you say macro is looking 'shit' and we will go into a multi-year bear, 4 sentences later you say you can't set goals based on a bear market. 400 million is realistic yet ambitious enough. You don't have to forget that we raked in the majority when we were a 4 billion dollar protocol with a premium we'll likely never see again.
Premium is based on price MA related to backing at the end date
I disagree with your statement that we don't have a product, we clearly have in our bonds and inverse bonds.
On the conditional nature, it is very challenging to make any type of bonus system work without having some external factors coming into play. You say that some work in a bull; others in a bear. I'd say that is a sign of a good mixed bag of goals.
Bonus Amounts
By your logic, only wealthy people should be on the council. Since, you should have a big bag of OHM to keep you incentivized. Again you contradict yourself by saying that you should be aligning your gains with the communities. Since we can't control price, the OKR's are set to ensure that holders see increased value for their OHM. Only if these are achieved in full, the bonus will be paid out. We are basically implementing what you ask for.
Compensation payouts
I don't appreciate the tone of this paragraph. Don't insinuate things that aren't there, it doesn't help in a civilized debate. Especially since our compensation framework and payments reporting have been industry leading (we even publish it in a very nice google dataform with graphs etc)
Last comment is on you saying you don't vote yet, ending that you'll vote no. I'd encourage you to vote nonetheless since it adds to the debate.
Thank you for reading!
As a full-time contributor who's left an engineering role at a traditional tech company to focus 100% on Olympus, I feel that this proposed structure is reasonable and fair. It incentivizes full-time contributors to remain focused on Olympus without having to feel the need to straddle the line or be thinking 'whats next' on a month to month basis.
Re: some of the comments, IMO we should not be comparing ourselves to what is 'normal' in tradfi. Although its good to benchmark other organizations, i do not think we are trying to promote the culture of tradfi organizations. I'm in the camp that organizations, including Olympus, should do whatever they can to promote a level of confidence for top performers without contributors living like they're potentially going to get rugged on a month to month basis. Contributors should be focusing all of their mental energy on how they will deliver results and accomplish the OKR's of the DAO, not on what their plan is if they don't have a role next month. It promotes maximum ROI for Olympus.
If there is a concern of a 6 month cliff where we potentially churn contributors, I think another layer/dynamic of this to consider is vesting tokens on a rolling basis.
Thank you @hOHMwardbound for the well thought out proposal and for continuing to push for us to retain and attract top talent. It's critical for us to accomplish our mission.
Will reply to what maybe hasn't been addressed in 1 post to keep it organized.
1. The runway example is an extreme one, because if you achieve all the OKRs it's hard for the DAO funds themselves not to grow, thus increasing runway.
2. Council won't be double-dipping. We however have not been given authority for the new budget proposal yet, so are continuing to receive the pay we had as Strategos and indigo as an engineer until then. Once voted on, the Council will be on the approved plan.
3. The OKRs you keep mentioning were posted as a RFC and were not voted on. Furthermore, they were 1 year targets vs these targets that are 6m. We can obviously discuss them, but setting OKRs that are too high and tying them to comp can be very demotivating for contributors, so lets be realistic.
4. Finally, we are nearly finished with a new Subgraph implementation that will showcase all this data in a clear and transparent manner, as we've always aspired to do. Really don't appreciate the comment about the DAO trying to obfuscate something, when OlympusDAO is one of the most transparent protocols when it comes to contributor comp and treasury allocations.
Finally, thanks for the comments. Figuring comp out has been a huge struggle for the DAO and I hope we can work something out so that everyone is happy.
shadow Thanks for the feedback. I do agree that the team are super and doing a great job & should be rewarded as such. Setting and monitoring realistic targets, deliverables and having all the checks in-place for bonus remuneration is very important. Open engagement, debate, queries should be encouraged by the community.
#3: Could i make a suggestion for inclusion of a OKR specifically for Council, based on the approved OIP-91, relating to https://snapshot.org/#/olympusdao.eth/proposal/0xf90119baf2b7bca681d41ec611e093363dcff38ff5efa1c3aada55da91aac3a5, specifically around the 2 following requirements from Council as a 'MUST'.
a: 'Every 3 months the OGC must prepare a quarterly report detailing the achievements, operations, revenues, and expenditures of the DAO for the previous quarter - along with a detailed description of the strategic direction for the DAO and how the Council plans to achieve that vision.'
b: 'The Council must appear before the community to deliver the quarterly report and answer questions concerning its details.'
Bonus amounts
The communications around 3,3 and high APY's set a tone, and expectations. But our backdrop is now a 95% drawdown from the peak. This is pain for 3,3. Ultimately, the buck stops with someone. And in this case SO could only be considered to be the DAO even if it feels unfair. The Gainz chart is further giving an update on where the 3,3 community stands in terms of pain:
With this as context, awarding the top with a possible half a million USD feels rich. Half a million buys 3 family villas from where I come from, and probably like 2 Ferraris from where you come from. And that's a bonus achievable in a time period of 6 months from now with this backdrop?
I find the base level salaries to be high, but to get good people that is very competitive and attractive for the best. The bonus level however is out of touch with the real world, the community, and with the quality and the value of what has been delivered to the market. If you are losing top resources because the compensation is too low, just announce it and we will see if we cannot scramble appropriate replacements. Just ensure that proper hand-over documentation is continuously being maintained by every key resource so that we have something to put in the hands of new contributors. Also remember, these amounts will eventually hit the market as sell orders and not only drain DAO funds but drop market cap too.
Bonus goals
The reason for conditionality is that bonus should not be a given. If so, it should be part of base salary and not referred to as bonus. Bonus is not a right. Getting to top 90 plus increasing Treasury at same time is a challenge as it requires Olympus to be better than other projects, rather than just riding the market. Don't know how to explain myself clearer.
Runway
The compensation model needs to rest on a plan for transitioning to being sustained from revenue and not assets. Runway should be indefinite. If we cant get to sustainability, then why are we burning assets at all?
Compensation payouts @shadow
Why my tone.. I know there are very detailed google drive docs, but I think we should be able to follow DAO payouts on-chain. On-chain I would expect to see monthly recurring patterns of payouts corresponding to the compensation framework in number of transactions/contributors and value. I would expect to be able to track the exchange rate of currency conversions to verify that it is aligned with the decided framework and monitor said runway. But when I look at DAO address I get:
Tokens I dont even know of. This is not easily understandable to me, or am I dumb. And the swaps that take place downstream do not help at a glance. Of course I wonder what are Acropolis DAO tokens? How are ODY used and swapped? These are bulk transactions possibly one per compensation and contributor? Or maybe you bulk it in initial trx's and then explode at later stage.. Pls dont answer here, just make it so we dont need to use specialized software to audit or spend hours to puzzle it together.
Suggestions
1. Bonus goals should all require stellar performance by the project - not just fall out depending on what market does
2. Include Gainz chart as bonus condition: a majority of the 3,3 community should be over water for any bonus to be paid out - but the past needs to be left as past at some point - so take January 1, 2022 as the snapshot. Rolling snapshots would be the best ofc.
3. Work on transparency - Information scattered on google drives, unreliable dashboard, outdated dune charts, monthly reports written like sales pitches. So much effort, yet not much credibility. What can I trust? Where should I look? I want to trust.
BTW: We work 24/7 because we love what we do, and the people we do it with. Not because of over-the-top monetary bonuses.
I think I have written enough now. Probably just reiterating my points over and over.
Appreciate the detail laid out in this RFC and think it's a step in the right direction on several levels - most notably to give consistent contributors a level of assurance they won't get rugged from month-to-month and thus can continue focusing on Olympus without immediate concern for their livelihood.
My main feedback is on the council comp proposal. Note: I'm excluding engineering council members (aka Indigo) in my comments below as engineers are on a different scale and agree they should get paid more.
Base: Council Members paid a level 8. TBH the pay levels are so subjective I don't have an opinion here. Likely somewhere between a 7-9 makes sense. So why not an 8.
Bonus: Assuming a pay level 8, Council Members have 6.26x greater bonus oppty than a non-council member. Compared to a non-council member earning a pay level 10, Council Members have 5x higher bonus opportunity as proposed.
This doesn't seem right.
If the argument is Council Members are burdened with extra responsibility and thus should receive outsized upside, I think the counterargument is the activity of the DAO has decreased dramatically over the last few months. So while I acknowledge there are new responsibilities asked of Council Members (here: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/1156-oip-91-olympus-governance-council), I think the net level of responsibility/activity for Council members is likely neutral. In other words, I view the Council member responsibilities as justifying the 7-9 pay level mentioned above and don't view these responsibilities as justifying a bonus difference vs. everyone else as proposed.
In summary, I think a 5-6x bonus difference between Council and non-Council members is not the right approach. I would support up to a 2x but can't justify going above that.
Let me emphasize, this isn't personal at all. I enjoy all the members of the council and know a lot of thought went into getting this RFC out the door. The purpose of an RFC is to do just that, get comments so we can hopefully make proposals better.
+1. Support and very well written.
I would recommend that this be revisited every quarter by the governance council and compared to DAO runway.