• Proposal

  • OIP-47: Olympus Stopgap Budget Proposal

Situation

In October, the DAO unlocked the highest tier budget allowance, a 20% increase from $75,000 to $90,000 per week according to the OIP-21 framework. At the same time, the DAO grew from 84 to 121 contributors, a 44% increase. We also saw dramatically increased output overall as a DAO during October, outpacing our budget allowance.

Throughout October, we:

  • Expanded our Olympus Pro program

  • Completed OHMv2 contracts

  • Grew our Olympus DAO Discord by 272% - Youtube Subscribers increased by 46% - YouTube video views increased by 75% - Twitter followers increased by 82% - Medium viewers increased by 63% - Reddit followers increased by 165%

  • Added LUSD, OHM-LUSD, CVX bonds, and voted to add WBTC bonds.

  • Increased our reach and interaction in the Telegram by 174% to 6,200 users

The Community Discord member size has more than doubled in October

Problem

It’s clear that the DAO has grown exponentially in the past few months, which has exceeded all of our expectations! But we’ve also clearly outgrown the current DAO budget framework. The static allowance doesn’t enable a sustainable contributor growth rate. Because we have a rigid budget allowance, payment for contributions was effectively diluted in October. That is to say, if someone was paid $1 for X contribution in September, that person might have only been paid $0.80 in October for that same contribution.

In order to bridge the gap between output and budget, Apollo has very graciously fronted a pay bump for all contributors in October. That pay bump went out on 14 November.

Solution

We need to rebuild our compensation strategy to refocus on long term growth via flexible budget strategies. That will take some time to develop, discuss, and build out. We will submit a request for comment in the near future on this.

In the meantime, we propose to immediately shift to a simple max-per-capita flexible budget. This will allow us to expand our teams sustainably, while enforcing a Max Per Month ceiling on position contribution payments.

An individual contributor can earn from $0 to the Max Per Month figure in the Position which they contributed to, depending on how much they contributed. That is to say, the Max Per Month will not always be reached for a contributor, because it still depends on how much they have contributed. Note that contributors can still participate in however many roles they want, they are just limited to the Max Per Month in each role they contribute to. Strategos have a Max Per Month that’s $5000 greater than the Position in their team. For example, an Engineering Stratego’s Max Per Month is $30,000.

We also should pay Apollo back for his retroactive pay bump for October. Ideally, with the new flexible budget, we’ll never have to make such a reactive move again.

Proposal

  • Compensate Apollo 260 OHM for his advance stopgap payment for October

  • Implement a flexible per-capita budget, effective starting in the November epoch, according to the table below:

If we simulate this budget on October DAO allocations, we would have had a global DAO budget of $170,000 per week, which represents an 88% increase in weekly budget. Put into perspective, the protocol currently distributes ~$12M every 8 hours via rebases.

As a final note, keep in mind that the DAO won't be forced to spend the entire budget anymore; the global DAO budget can now increase and decrease as contributions vary over time. This proposal gives the DAO the flexibility we need right now to attract and retain top talent.

Vote

FOR: Implement flexible per-capita budget according to the table above, and pay Apollo back for October pay bump.

AGAINST: Do not implement this budget change.

Should the DAO increase its budget according to the max-per-capita flexible budget proposed, and reimburse Apollo's advance?

    Hi,

    88% increase in weekly budget is a lot. But I'm ok with it. Would it be fair to incorporate some additional duties?

    For example, it also seems we're spinning off a lot of subsidiaries. Would it be worth looking into simply expanding the roles within the DAO to accommodate instead of more and more branches/protocols? or is this already covered under the Incubator Program?

    Also, as an analogy, it seems the DAO prefers more of a Franchise approach than a Corporate owned approach? Or does it just seem this way because we are constrained until v2?

    Sorry if this is a bit OT, but on the subject of budgeting, I thought it'd be worth mentioning.

    Thanks!

      I am happy with all the incredible work done by the contributors and totally for the proposal. However, some coordinators(I do not know if I name the role correctly) in the discord abused their rights to mute ohmies. I am fine with any rules if we need to rule and make them clear. However, muting without warning is not the way ohmies should display. These behaviors keep potential ohmies away.

      Just my 2 sats.

        I'd like to learn more about how to be invovled in Content/marketing/operations/policy/design…once ive caught up on all the literature…how can i figure who to contact to be a part of the team.

          I am all in for these Talented people to be paid accordingly work is work! and i love OHM as it allowed me to leave my 9-5 for now!

          as what oasising said i hope these mods dont keep abusing their power, i myself havent had an issue with mods 🙂

          88% increase in payouts.. it high but if it has to be done to keep OHM on superb trajectories then its a SOLID YES!

              In general I'm in favor of this proposal to increase budget to pay contributors. However, I have to vote NO given there is no max budget. Who determines the contributors and approves the payments? Do contributors still get paid if they don't do anything?

              I think the DAO has done a great job so far and I really appreciate Apollo fronting the payment so contributors didn't take the hit from previous OIP. Thank you Ser. I just think we need to do better with this proposal. If we were able to put up some guardrails or additional limitations, than I would be all for this proposal. Looks like I'm in the minority here and no one cares overall about the budget.

                We've gone from zero to a multibillion dollar protocol in 7-8 months, and are now widely acknowledged as the most important innovation in crypto in quite some time. We should leverage this to cement our position as a vortex of top crypto talent.

                cryptok1ng the DAO rewards contributors the same way as before: if you add value, you get paid in some proportion to that value add. If you don't contribute, you don't get allocated.

                Imo the DAO has matured to the point where a fixed max global budget is no longer necessary and in fact is detrimental.

                    I do agree with the budget proposal.

                    Regarding the issue of the MODS, I have been frequenting the channels a lot and I have not seen any abuse of power from MODS while I was there… and the muting incidents that I witnessed were justified as the person muted was violating the rules of Discord as well as Olympus … I recommend to have a grievance system where if someone is muted they can DM a designated person to mediate and look into it

                    However note that some people think that free speech means they can say anything they want including racist, bigoted, abusive statements… clearly that is not the case and a MUTE in such a case is justified. This is not meant as a comment on what oasising or DarkTemplarH experienced or witnessed.. this is just a general thing to keep in mind.

                    For this until we have a better solution. An 88% increase is needed as the previous budget was far too low to meet the demands of the DAO. Growth should be our #1 priority and that growth is fueled by the contributions of DAO members.

                    To put this budget proposal in perspective, annualized the max per capita $170,000 with 121 DAO members is$ 8.8m . Currently Olympus sells around $8m in Bonds per day, which excludes the other sources of revenue.$ 8.8m is only 1.2% of the DAO's current treasury.

                      First time seeing a budget for paying out contributors.

                      Honestly shocked by how smol it is.

                      (https://imgflip.com/i/5unmw7)

                      I share similar concerns to cryptok1ng, but my thought process goes the other way—it makes sense to start contemplating newexpansif budgets at different stages of growth. Though I recognize the difficulty inherent in predicting the future.

                      I would also echo Antonio's (from dYdX—see thread here https://twitter.com/AntonioMJuliano/status/1458844848560087070) comments about DAOs in the space being guilty of criminally underusing their treasuries. The top DAOs spend 1% of their treasuries annually—why??
                      Phase 1 is all about growth, and network effects are crucial to establish early (especially since Olympus is getting forked like Thanksgiving Dinner at Jon Goodman's house).
                      I think the core team+contributors should be granted substantially (10x) more leeway in expanding the budget.
                      Will this tank price? Ya, probably. But people who get the protocol will understand short term pain for long term gain.

                      But wot do I know, am an doge.

                      Much appreciate 4 all the hard work OHMies.

                      ~bork

                      JFry4 I love these perspectives we can put the DAO budget in. Like it's crazy how capital efficient it is (not necessarily good)

                        We only go as far as the DAO takes us. Protect my bags! Let's grow! As a wise individual said at Temple Dao, Insert DAO (Olympus) has to be a place that people want to work at. Bring the vibes and pay the people that continue to make Olympus flourish. All for policy flexibility and budget flexibility as we grow to 1 trillion. We got goals, gotta spend money to make money…

                        Vibes and Talent Retention

                        AoshichanX personally I see this as expanding the budget to catch up to the roles and duties which have already increased in prior months

                          abipup Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that it would be good to have some sort of limit on the # of individuals compensated at each position without a clear metric in place. IE: # of sherpas/mods per 1,000 members in discord or same with design.

                          I think its great that we have faith that only contributors will be compensated to their level of value provided. However, there is no visibility in these payments. Wouldn't it make sense for visibility and trust to be built by disclosing these payments? I'm curious how many wallets receive payments for being a contributor and are there any that get compensated for multiple positions? I'm not intentionally trying to FUD the project, because OHM is my biggest bag. I'm just trying to provide a counter viewpoint to continue the discussion and help it become the reserve currency of crypto.

                          tldr: I'm NOT proposing a max budget. just looking for clarity on how we compensate contributors for performance and metrics for how to know when more positions are needed at each level.

                              oasising agree that muting community members is not the (3,3) way. DM me and we'll find ways to improve on this process.

                                cryptok1ng good point and DAO needs to improve on its communications. Today, team leads (Strategos) allocate team budget based on relative contribution. Contributors who don't do any work get paid $0. Top contributors get paid up to a max budget (or lower, depending on Stratego). In the future, I see increasingly distributed allocations taking place.