CWG Compensation

[wake]

Having shared my thoughts on Twitter Space, I felt it important to also address them here.

Apologies for the late-hour musings.

Discord’s Role in Voting

The decision regarding JWG compensation budget should not have been put to vote on Discord. Discord serves better as a platform for discussion rather than for actual voting.

A More Effective Approach

Instead, we should leverage the fantastic incentivized voting system we currently have in place.

I suggest that we vote separately on salary bands/brackets and JUP compensation.

Furthermore, the voting options should extend beyond mere “For, Against, Abstain.” Such simplistic choices undermine the advantages of decentralized voting, as they fail to engage 99% of participants who may not delve into ambiguous options. It’s surprising how many weren’t even aware of discussions or votes held on Discord.

Moreover, the sampling pool on Discord or any online documents is significantly smaller than the audience engaging in incentivized votes on vote.jup.

Vote Process

The votes should be clear and, if necessary, granular; and are distinct from discussions held elsewhere (e.g., discord).

Here’s an example of what it could look like as a process, all possible within a single vote:

  **Start**

  Submit Proposal for DAO Council Salaries with Different Bands/brackets + % of salary in JUP as vote options.
  (e.g., Proposal Vote Options: $50k - $70k + % of salary in JUP, $70k - $90k % of salary in JUP, $90k - $110k+ % of salary in JUP)
  
  Create or Update Proposal
  
  Open Discussion Period
  
  Initiate Voting Period
  
  Count Votes for Each Salary Band Option
  
  Are there Clear Majorities for Each Band?
        |
        Yes
        |
        ↓
  Implement Decision (Set Council Salaries)
        |
        ↓
  End
        |
        ↓
  No
        |
        ↓
  Extend Voting Period or Close Voting
  
  **End**

After this vote passes, the next votes could be related to the appraisal and refusal of pay based on performance etc.

[SaxD87]

Im for a change what they done makes no sense

[Hanley]

Great. Completely agree with this.

The fact the REM was snuck in the backdoor of that proposal and rushed through on the hush felt extremely sneaky and uncool.

On the spaces today, I didn’t feel anyone made a compelling argument for the enormous comp packages.

Moreover, the JUP salary was brought up constantly yet the team kept deflecting to ‘vesting’ and being open to extending the vesting period as if that was the criticism and not the JUP compensation itself.

If the comp - beyond vesting - isn’t revisited by the DAO, we’re dead in the water.

[wake]

Thanks for your reply man!

I agree that the issue wasn’t explored sufficiently on the space.

[RMB.SOL]

I totally agree with you Wake, the range of compensation/budget should have been the initial vote before a vote to approve the compensation. Better communication and a more succinct process is required going forward.

[frielster]

I disagree with using discord sorry

[Avadhuta]

Agreeable. The method to source a budget of $450K and $4.5M JUP tokens was highly unprofessional and unclear.

Not displaying the main points of the proposal on the voting page is unacceptable by any DAO standard in the space. Time windows should also be discussed.

As per discord a proposal channel can be setup which will reflect the J.U.P. research page so it is more accessible to the community. It is an easy setup that allows the community to write proposals and get direct actual feedback. Proposals that have passed a certain quorum can then be voted on the JUP voting site, similar as the J.U.P. research page.

Further on a new proposal is necessary to vote on the reduction of the current $4.5M JUP tokens and hopefully reduce the amount to a more realistic allocation of for example $2.1M JUP tokens ( current value $3.5M USD ).

[wake]

Hey guys, for transparency. I edited the post for readability, as it was very late when I made the original.

You can verify this by click on the Pencil icon on the top right to see the edits :).

[Henri]

Appreciate your input even if I consider you should not have spend your time to formulate something that basic/obvious.
Process for last budget vote was so wrong and unprofessional on so many levels, I still can’t believe it hasn’t been halt at some point.
Anyway, I guess we have to rebuild from the ground quite a lot of things related to this DAO idea.

[Teamrocket.sol]

Guys, do you know the process a DAO takes to make decisions?

Proposal > Discussion > Voting > Consensus > Execution

The discord was used in the discussion part of the process. Maybe you got confused because some guys were skipping most of the discussion. Its still early days and WE all have things to learn about the process.

Official votes are held on vote.jup.ag and the majority, includes the cats that do care about the process, has voted in favour of the proposal.

Please keep up with the class from time to time and you will have a better experience having your voices heard on the next proposal. We always welcome appropriate participation in the democratic process.

Regards,

[kemosabe]

Let say salary is $80k and you get $80k in $JUP, would it be best measured at the time of proposal passing, proposal pay out, or some sort of DCA?

[wake]

yeah, get what you’re saying. but things must be said, even if they seem obvious to some.

[wake]

the reality is that most people will not “keep up with the class”, and that is also a dangerous idea to rely on at scale.

they will act based on herding mentality or speculation on reward bias, unless sufficient information is presented to them directly by the vote options.

yes, no, abstain, following a discord vote is absolutely ludicrous.

[wake]

sorry for the late reply, was traveling!

i would say at the time of payout, that way the dollar value is taken into account.

also protects payee and payer vs heavy value changes.

would bring it more inline with “real-world”/web2 industry standards.

[TheCity777]

I think you meant to say CWG not JWG

[antimatter]

Compensation for DAO work is a hot topic, I wanted to share some of my thoughts.

1. Cost of living adjustments for base pay - global dao, significantly different costs of living around the globe – Fail to take this into account and we immediately cut out a large portion of the talent pool. We owe it to the biggest and best DAO in DeFi to get the best talent available. Unfortunately, opportunity cost is a thing and if we cant compete with big tech, we wont get the talent we need.

2. $JUP vesting awards are not a cash payout, its a bonus in voting power for work towards the DAO. Critical dao projects warrant the “voting power” awards. Try not to confuse these or the conversation becomes muddied. The science around award sizes should probably have 2 parts: 1. transparent upfront proposal, 2. performance tweak on the actual payout. But again, the subjectiveness here is a slippery slope.

3. HR decisions / salary negotiations need to be approached in a realistic way by folks that are qualified to make those calls. $JUP is in a great spot to lead the way in DeFi. Lets strive to compete with bigtech for top talent.

These positions should be highly sought after and competitive if we want to drive the narrative.

Chart of salaries from fanng as of Sept, 2023

Headline I wanna see in near future – “Bigtech bleeding top talent to DeFi as Jupiters gravitational force takes over.”

J4J << Dont forget

[wake]

Edit 2: edited JWG to CWG, thanks @TheCity777

[wake]

Thanks, that is what I meant. Edited!