To respond to a few of the points/questions above in a consolidated manner I'll lay out my thoughts here:
@gordob, no there will not be council and department pay and bonus. It is just council/stratego comp with potential bonus, nothing reflecting on the department scales.
As mentioned above the Quarterly report is already a work in progress and will be presented to the community with the ability for questions to be asked, likely during a community call. The second quarter is not yet over, so the report details won't be presented until next month.
@bubbidubb I think i've done everyone a disservice by placing a potential annual allocation and bonus chart on this page instead of modifying them to show a 6 month time horizon when presenting goals for a 6 month time span. I think I should change those graphs when this goes to OIP.
-The base levels and bonus do not seem to be too high imo having read through 100's of currently active job postings in the space but maybe that's a poor measure of market rate. I do know that constant churn is most costly as a whole due to the time to properly onboard someone and have them get up to speed with the way things flow in the DAO. Having to re-work processes due to contributor churn is a waste of effort and sets back innovation.
-Bonus is not a right, which is why there are metrics tied to it vs having it be a part of base compensation. And having never had a bonus plan in place I think all DAO members are fully aware that it is something to be earned.
-The point is that it is not riding the market, the 4th metric specifically ensures that we have to preform better than other protocols in the same market conditions. I really like this metric because it challenges improvement regardless of market conditions.
-you can follow DAO payments on chain and I do so often when there are questions about allocations after they've shipped. I'm not sure what you're looking at but it's fairly easy to see the payouts on etherscan.
-I appreciate your suggestions and want to let you know transparency is constantly being improved in the dao.
@lipman
Council and stratego comp are included at the same level in this proposal. I see you calling out Indigo, but feel that we also need to highlight Apple as well. As you've noted, engineers are on a different pay scale- to be completely honest, this made all iterations of the comp and bonus proposal much more difficult. There are probably 15-20 variations in my trash file right now because trying to reduce comp for strats and council while still incentivizing participation AT ALL, for the greater risk and responsibility of these roles, let alone for members of the engineering team, is not an easy task. I see you mentioning 5x and 6.26x, but see you've failed to break down the actual discrepancy between the total end payouts.
-Between a general contributor and council/stratego the max yearly difference is 2x
-Between an engineering contributor and council/stratego the max yearly difference is 1.4x
Let's keep statistics as accurate as possible and view both sides of the coin here. I can only speak for myself but I know that I am not contributing at an "8" level. If I were not in a position of leadership and carrying the responsibility of being accessible nearly all hours during the week and going above and beyond for Olympus, I could contribute meaningfully to more than one DAO and out preform not only base comp, but total proposed council bonus as well. (not to mention be comped in a mix of stables and native tokens, and take true vacations where I can unplug vs checking in even on a rare "off" day) This threshold is further easier for engineering contributors like Indigo and Apple to achieve. I personally, selfishly, don't want them to be in that position. I appreciate the hard work that is being done for the DAO and think we will be worse off as a protocol if we don't encourage them to stay. There's a non-zero chance that I am putting in more hours and delivering more, while adding additional responsibility and risk, for a net financial loss by the time December rolls around. It's a harsh reality, and from a strictly logical standpoint perhaps a foolish decision, but, I'm okay taking the risk because I believe in the future of the protocol and am confident we can make strides forward.
Maybe it is helpful to include that we explored versions of comp/bonus that eliminated base comp at all for council but quickly decided against this, even though there are members of the council who would be better off for it if we were to hit all targets, because it would limit potential members of the council to people who are above a certain financial threshold. Limiting the inclusivity seemed counter to what we are trying to accomplish.
The activity of the DAO has concentrated, not necessarily decreased, and I would argue that this lead to those remaining taking on additional responsibilities vs an abundance of free time. But please let me know if I am missing something because I don't have 100% insight into every activity and want to make sure I'm not strictly viewing things from my own personal perspective.
@FD_ I see that droo has replied here already but wanted to highlight that previously the DAO was burning through around $1.3M/month in contributor allocations alone, not including other expenses like audits/bug bounty/etc. I'd prefer that we set a steady cadence of allocations so that we retain contributors, and then during times of bull runs keep levels within the set framework and increase reserves vs scaling comp at that point. I think it would lead to overspending during good times, and poor retention/ lowered efficiency and output during the bad.
@Relwyn
I left comments above to lipman regarding the discrepancy being 2x for non engineers and 1.4x for engineers. It is in fact a lower pay scale, with bonus. You're suggesting to change that to increase base comp and lower the bonus level?
@kleb thanks for you comments!! Sliding scale, yes, so in your example if premiums are 10% higher than backing on 12/31/22, that's 1/2 of the targeted amount of 20% premium, so 50% of the 30% weighted amount for that metric would be allocated.
If that metric were to be fully hit at 20% premium, but none of the other goals accomplished, only 30% of the bonus would be distributed, because that is the total weight given to the premium in the above table.
Correct, all DAO members get the bonus based on the same sliding scale with the distributions listed above. Again, it's shown in 12m time frame when these are 6m goals so its 1/2 the value that's listed there. I need to change the tables.
Council members were voted on and will return to vote, the lower base allocations help to remove the month-to-month allocation discussion, and the bonus is tied to performance so that helps in my mind to ensure value is being added. The voting idea is something I've thought about, but also have concerns about. I think you saw the mess that happened with coordinape and voting/distributing points that way, it incentivizes loudness and competition against each other in a zero sum game instead of teamwork. Which is ultimately what is needed as a whole, we each bring different skills sets and talents so it's not as easy to compare and contrast. I like the idea in theory but worry about how effective it will be in practice iykwim.
