Executive-Team Clarifications and Member Addition

1

This post includes three topics below we request opinion from the community on. Please read each topic, vote on the poll, and share any thoughts or questions you have in the thread.

  1. Can the exec-team use the polygon-ops POOL to cover miscalculated POOL compensation
  • Yes
  • No
  • Undecided

0 voters

The budget for executive-team compensation was miscalculated and thus underfunded. PTIP-53 specified a monthly POOL compensation budget of 540 POOL, but should have been 944 POOL 404 + (10 x 54) = 944. A total budget of 3,240 POOL (540 * 6) was granted for 6 months but should have been 5,664 POOL (944 * 6).

The executive-team, having superseded the poly-ops team, has acquired 2,500 POOL from the retired poly-ops gnosis. We are asking to clarify if we can use that POOL to cover the miscalculated compensation budget.

  1. Shall the exec-team add @drcpu as a member
  • Yes
  • No
  • Undecided

0 voters

@drcpu is a well-known contributor to the DAO. @drcpu’s repository and V4 data found here has proved to be a valuable resource to the DAO since launch. Personally, I talk to @drcpu about claimable prizes and prize liquidity more than anyone, and feel he would be a very helpful addition to the team.

  1. Should exec-team POOL compensation be priced at funding OR at distribution
  • Price POOL at team funding ($3.70)
  • Price POOL on each months payout
  • Undecided

0 voters

The funding PTIP left a bit of a grey area in regards to how the POOL compensation should be handled. In the DAO we see two different approaches between the grants team and the treasury team. One prices POOL at distribution, and the other at funding. In calculating the exec-team funding, POOL was priced at $3.70. Currently POOL is valued at $2.48.

Pricing POOL at funding makes for a more concrete budget and arguably aligns incentives of the team benefiting the protocol with the outcome of the token.

Pricing POOL at distribution guarantees a dollar pay for team members regardless of token price.

It’s worth noting that the exec-team was formed for 6 months, whereas the grants and treasury teams operate on 3 month budgets. Also half of the exec-team compensation is outlined in USDC, this question only relates to the POOL part of the compensation.

2 Likes
2

I cannot think of any good reason why not, so that’s a yes from me.

Not voting because this question pertains to myself.

I can see the benefit in both strategies, so I’m putting myself down as undecided, basically indicating I’m fine with whatever the majority decides.

1 Like
3

The first two points need no discussion from me. Pretty sure I nominated drcpu in the first place so…yay! Do us proud buddy.

With regards to the PTIP funding, I think POOL is quite drastically undervalued. Not only that, but having a 6 month time frame in crypto before revisiting a fluctuating piece of value is…bold. I think 54 POOL early for the tasks of signing (and reviewing?) transaction is fine, until POOL is no longer undervalued. At that point, POOL becomes less attainable (because price has gone up) for people that were not awarded a contract 6 months (21 years in crypto) ago. With the pricing pool at funding model, i fear we may create whales once the value of the token gets back to where it ought to be.

I’d like to either revisit the terms for when compensation is reevaluated or hold at 200$ per person per month except for the exec leader.

1 Like
4

Points 1 and 2, I trust the DAO and the people making the recommendations so no issue.

this point:

The funding PTIP left a bit of a grey area in regards to how the POOL compensation should be handled. In the DAO we see two different approaches between the grants team and the treasury team. One prices POOL at distribution, and the other at funding. In calculating the exec-team funding, POOL was priced at $3.70. Currently POOL is valued at $2.48.

I believe this is prescident setting and very important. If any individual agrees to a compensation-value tradeoff, it is important that value be right sized to the accurate price of POOL when the value is delivered, not when the contract is awarded.

This is because if the price of POOL drops too low, the individual will not feel properly compensated for their contribution and potentially abandon the task before completion creating a lose-lose scenario for both the individual and the DAO. When people complete a task for the DAO, they should not be asked to become speculators on the future of the DAO as well as value drivers. They can choose to speculate on the future of the DAO AFTER the value has been delivered and they have been properly compensated.

I believe this should be a standard practice for the DAO, not just the executive team.

4 Likes
5

Very well said @Loitering_Gorilla! I can speculate on investments on my own time. In the case of the executive team I just want to be fairly compensated for the job being completed and am not looking to earn anything more or anything less. Consistent pay is what can allow community members to ease their way into working for DAO’s as their primary source of income.

2 Likes