SubDAO members are receiving fixed rewards for their contributions in the DAO ecosystem, which is 200 ANT per member, according to the Charter.
The monthly fixed allocation (200 ANT) per Sub-DAO member is currently not representative anymore due to a price drop in ANT. In addition, the ANT position in the AA treasury is on the low side, as it concerns 8.5M (4% of the total treasury value).
Hi @Ricktik6 , can you identify where this funding is drawn from S1.
As mentioned in today’s ESD General meeting it was decided by @lee0007@daniel-ospina that we would proceed ourselves to a Main DAO proposal to update the Charter. We need a long-term fix as opposed to the multiple and mixed temporary solutions identified to date. I am yet to be fairly compensated for April May and have sort additional 7k of funding on the basis that it is approved ESD funding and avialable to all other S1 authors (TBD)
Thank you for your effort to help us move towards an imrpved incentive for ESD work. While 2k is fine during the off-season (see operational role outline here) it fails to account for the high season workload which is why the approved strategic development budget was requested
Finance Squad will write a Main DAO proposal and manage the voting process.
We aim to arrange this before the next payment cycle so every Sub-DAO member will receive $2.000 in time for the remainder of the season.
In terms of the 7k additional funding, @AlexClay and I are currently discussing this matter.
Anyway, using a coordinape pool again sounds reasonable for me.
This will fix the remainder of S1, we have to take the lessons learned (high intensive workload early season) into next S2 (Main DAO) proposal, so we avoid members getting underpaid.
@daniel-ospina has a proposal already drafted for main DAO and while we would welcome your input @Ricktik6@AlexClay it is the reliance on others that has seen the issue remain unresolved.
We are more than capable of delivering this proposal ourselves. We have experience and therefore insight on the work and time involved, I have developed a high-level outline here to inform our proposal. Keen to understand what information in regards to the role you draw on to inform your efforts, can you provide a link please?
My understanding @Ricktik6 was that you were funded in a ~FTE equivalent coordinators role as a member of the finance squad to deliver the following
And while Finance will play a critical role in Governance, from the above deliverables I understood your priorities were focused around tokenomics and the Treasury productivity rather than Charter established governance functions, one of which is the ESD. I do understand there is a cross over here given we are talking about compensation.
From a governance (vs Finance) perspective I also understand @AlexClay is both the Finance Steward and leading Charter updates. In discussion with him I understood he is open to support on the development of proposals. Keen to hear Alex if you have reasons why ESD should not proceed with a proposal in final draft stages and to understand your position on this considering @Ricktik6 push back and above remit.
There is no question that the ESD is not capable of doing a proposal and should post it.
This was a direct response to the ANT price drop in the past week that has see the Sub-DAOs being unfairly affected. The strategic pool I agree is a better option. Can we change it over to this @Ricktik6. This was not meant to be a governance change.
To be clear this I believe fell under the Monthly contributor reward payments, Sub-DAO payments dropped 80% lower in the past week. To be crystal clear Finance is certainly not trying to get involved in the governance or responsibilities of the Sub-DAOs, simply trying to quickly address the drop in ANT price over the previous week.
Just to be clear, I know for sure that ESD is capable for making such a proposal and I would only encourage you to post it as Finance shouldn’t be involved in the governance decisions.
This proposal was only written as I just wanted to solve the underpayment problem for Sub-DAO members due to the drop in ANT price.
Apolgies to that I misunderstood when I asked above
And the reposnse was Main DAO, I was confused because a Main DAO proposal might as well be a standing edit to the Charter as opposed a temporary seasonal fix.
Given the possibly the upcoming votes around our path to decentralisation and the ensuing changes that decision will surface @daniel-ospina are you happy to hold on the current ESD compensation proposal until June, once we have a better understanding of how this might impact the ESD?
I think we’re talking about a small change to the charter, to fix something that has been an issue from day 1 (not just because of ANT price drop).
And waiting for a.large change of the charter instead of making small iterative adjustments seems to me like both the wrong strategic approach for the charter’s evolution and also delaying even further addressing a compensation issue that means we ESD members are severely underpaid.
So I would much rather move ahead with this ASAP and if anything it can be changed again in the future. Waiting further for the AA to release a charter change is the opposite of the mechanisms of a healthy DAO
Based on the discussion above, @lee0007 & @daniel-ospina, are you happy with us posting the proposal for the short term solution (remaining payments of the next 3 months), addressing the drop of ANT price?
For the long term solution (solution for the upcoming seasons) we will leave it to you, to do the governance change?
1/3 approved for release of funding from strategic development budget, although it may not be required depending on how quickly we progress the Charter update. I am with @daniel-ospina on progressing incremental charter updates (step-change process) and we also need to speak w. @fartunov on the proposal, as due to time zone was not in attendance at the previous ESD General Meeting.
We need more fundamental solutions that also cover all the basic expenses (as well as solutions for the extra expenses in advancing dGov that Lee and others have engaged in).
So let’s say this proposal is a good first step towards addressing that gap and we’ll need to continue advancing the other proposal too
Finance Squad would like to bring this into practice as follows:
For a long term solution, the ESD is going to propose towards the main DAO for the upcoming season(s).
For the remainder of this season we are going to allocate a large part of the strategic development funds towards Sub-DAO members.
As there is 60k budgeted for strategic funding in S1 and there is already 14.8k spent in the first month, there is 45.2k left for the remaining 3 months.
We also have to take expected Scout Program into account (as charter adaptations will be taken from the dGov proposal). Based on the first month, our expectation is 1.5k a month (for the next 3 months), so there is 40.7k left to allocate.
We propose to allocate $1.500 USDC + 200 ANT a month for each Sub-DAO member
(total allocation of 40.5k).
This will lead to a remaining strategic budget of $200.
In this case we stay in budget and Sub-DAO members will not be underpaid for the remainder of S1.
This is a misconceived assumption and I am sorry to keep finding via the forum that the Finance squad and ESD are not aligned. If you were to take 10 minutes to talk through these ideas before you develop proposals we would all save time.
While I do agree that this funding could come from dGov in the future for S1 dGov did not request duplicate funding for the already approved Charter Support payments. Instead, I requested additional funding, for additional functions, as provided in the dGov proposal and linked directly here. I would welcome you to attend the weekly dGov team synch to understand the funding estimates and dGov proposed deliverables.
Charter adaptations & supporting documentation (10k)
I support your efforts to raise the allocation for Compliance and Tech Committee Member, alongside ESD, except a Main DAO proposal is needed, which is exactly why the ESD is currently developing our own Main DAO proposal. cc @daniel-ospina@fartunov
I acknowledge that there is some misconception / misunderstanding in the communication and a short talk will indeed solve that, so lets have a 10 minute talk asap.
Just to be clear, I never had the intention allocate any budget from the ESD, I was doing only a proposal how it could be done (waiting for ESD feedback and approval), to solve the problem quickly so that Sub-DAO members will not be underpaid in the next payment cycle…
Appreciate the intention.
I would love to be paid soon, and I would love to be paid properly but then the issue with piecemeal solutions is that they tend to complicate things. Using ESD funds to pay ESD members anything outside what the charter approves or what a Main DAO proposal approves is a territory we should try to avoid. And although we’ve had multiple delays, we finally have a proposal ready to go to the Main DAO to address the basic compensation for ESD members.
That proposal together with the coordinape Circle for dGov gives us a much more comprehensive solution than piecing together charter ANT, extra USDC through the ESD, scout programme (where we potentially have 2 of us with a conflict of interest atm and hence unable to approve the bounties), etc.
Second Renee - this has to be a a charter change and whatever comes to fruition here is a bandaid for the season. On the back of a clearly poorly designed sub-DAO structure we have spend a massive part of the season voting ourselves higher compensation…feels like a questionably productive expense of DAO resources (in terms of time and creative energy of contributors, including the ESD members)
Funding remains to supplement the 200ANT for committee members on a case by case basis for work required next to the particularly defined SubDAO responsibilities. There is also funding for Charter Support and further via dGov Advisory funding.