SUDAO-IP-18: Ambassador Compensation Reform (FP) (HAD TO BE REVISED)

SUDAO-IP-18 - FORMAL PROPOSAL
Ambassador Compensation Reform

Executive Summary
This proposal is to utilize 5000 KPI Option tokens from the SU Treasury to create:

  1. An additional distribution for the Ambassadors only.

  2. To create a series of bounties for successful integrations.

3. UPDATE: An option is included to allow the original excluded members to participate in Item #1.

Motivation
The Q3 SU compensation distribution framework was managed by Risk Labs and the current results show a significant disparity between compensation amount, actual work done and potential value of the work. Most of the SU DAO agrees that the Ambassadors create the most value for the operations of the SUs in terms of vision and also the objectives set out by UMA DAO in said KPI. Therefore, this proposal attempts to address this disparity and to better incentivize Ambassadors to continue to do meaningful work.

Specification
This proposal will request the SU DAO Treasury to bring forward 5000 KPI Option tokens previously earmarked to the Products team to do 2 things.

  1. Using 3000 KPI Option tokens, conduct a 2nd round distribution for the Ambassador team only. To address the limitations of the previous distribution, the following rules are recommended to be applied:
    a. those with over 1000 KPI option tokens from the combined distribution will not be eligible to join this round. (ie Deadcoin, Fruitycup, arcology, Amadex is not eligible) [should these people be included?]
    b. For avoidance of doubt, only the below members are eligible. Treasury will not be included. The eligibility of the other 4 members is presented as an option.

c. Those who want to join this distribution must post in the forum to opt-in and state why they should be included.
d. A spreadsheet + peer consensus mechanism from previous team comp-related calls can be used instead.

  1. Using 2000 KPI Option tokens, create a forward-thinking fund to incentivize integrations. It will work like this:
    a. A centralized location with all active leads to be created/reused.
    b. Each lead shall have a Person-in-Charge, and their respective team members (if any).
    3.c. If the lead turns into a successful integration, 200 KPI Option tokens are rewarded for the integration team.*
    d. A member can join multiple integration teams.
    e. The PIC is responsible to split the proceeds of the KPI Option bounty with their teammates (if any).
    f. This fund allows 10 leads (10 x 200 = 2000 KPI Option tokens) to be funded concurrently this epoch.
    g. There is no partial payout. If there is a true integration, the 200 KPI options will be paid out in full.
Would you support this proposal?
  • Yes - with original exclusions (Deadcoin, arcology, FruityCup, Amadex cannot participate)
  • Yes - but INCLUDE Deadcoin, arcology, FruityCup and Amadex
  • More discussions needed (please comment why)
  • No - this is not a good proposal

0 voters

2 Likes

Voting yes as is, for the following reasons:

  1. I reckon we need to move fast
  2. The amounts requested for distribution are relatively small (maybe too small) but will enable us to fine-tune as we go and consider to:
  • rewards the few people that were excluded from this initial distribution
  • further incentivize new ambassadors / dedicated actors that show engagement during the epoch
1 Like

Voting Yes with original exclusions, to increase value added to all the other ambassadors. We need expedited action and nothing jumps out from this proposal that may be harmful or need further discussion. I would just say, please add a line in the proposal to signal this being a specific “one-time” solution (I’m a stickler for such “legalities”, apologies)

The reason the distribution played out this way is because we used coordinape. Id much prefer a more direct distribution to key ambassadors rather than another coordinape round. Though I guess this isnt much of a surprise as I left the same feedback last week. Cheers!

We’ll do the actual distribution in a team call rather than a coordinape round, and only after if people chooses to opt into this distribution. This last point is perhaps the most important as the list presented only shows the eligible people but does not indicate that they will be the actual recipients. This move is so that we actually remove people who were defaulted into the Ambassador team and who has no desire to continue to participate in this workstream.

okay im more in favor of this then!

Though I see the need to incentivise the ambassadors adequately, there are also other issues which need to be adressed such as UMA independent products. Would think the product KPIs should be retained to this end and for general purpose - which can be implemented by different teams, including ambassadors. And even if this proposal were followed, I don’t see why treasury should be excluded as a default option which any individual can decide upon. Maybe the ambassador list should be reviewed to ascertain the active members (as suggested above). Coordinape may not be perfect. However, issues arising from there may have more to do with how it is set up rather than Coordinape itself. (E.g. bigger groups along UMAster, CoreUMAster, Superumans (and Recruits perhaps at some time).

Wanted to put on the record the conversation between us during the Treasury call.
As this is an opt-in exercise, there is a higher degree of personal responsibility whether someone wants to get the additional KPI options. I certainly don’t have the authority to dictate who should get what, so allowing the Treasury to be the recipient of ‘unused’ KPI options is viable here as this partially mitigates the risk of opportunistic members going for a distribution with potentially low levels of participation.

Thank you, Arcology, for taking the time to provide more clarity. So as a recap of our discussion: this proposal is “circumventing” the RL/UMA proposal provisions on compensation in KPI options via Coordinape to rectify/compensate of what was perceived as shortcoming of its distribution mechanism.

My stand would be that, as a precondition, we should probably get the go-ahead from UMA first before we can proceed with this. (Perhaps there were talks, I don’t know. Did not see any reference in the proposal.) Perhaps the answer will be: “All fine, your treasury - you can do with it as you please.”

Regarding the details of the proposal, there are several questions for me here:

  1. The list of eligible recipients: perhaps the criteria of eligibility should be stipulated clearly in this proposal, as the posted list is out of date and there should be clarity from the start who is part of this group.
  2. This proposal established that certain individuals seem to have received adequate amounts of KPI options in the Coordinape round. There was no
    reasoning offered in this proposal as to why these individuals should also be included in this repeat distribution.
  3. That it is a “one-off” exercise to remedy deficiencies of the previous Coordinape round, which should be described more clearly and specificly. (How many got what and why. Why some fell short, others not.)
  4. Suggestions on how the Coordinape distribution should be modified to rectify such discrepancies (assuming this distribution system will continue).
  5. A portion of KPI options were distributes. If the distribution was faulty, where did these KPI options end up? Ultimately, this proposal amounts to an increase in payments, as the results of the Coordinape round were distributed in spite of its shortcomings and not withheld pending further modifications of the process for which there would have been time given that they expire by September.

@Bananachain, thank you for your comments. I’ll address them below.

I would ask you to refrain from using the word ‘circumventing’ - as RL has indicated that their method was not perfect, and at the very least Clayton has supported us in moving forward with this proposal. Again I would like to stress that out of all of the teams the Ambassadors are the combined BD and Front Office in traditional companies, and as such, should have exposure (and should be compensated with) the highest amount of KPI options. As I’ve mentioned previously, this was not reflected appropriately within the framework of the original RL-mandated distribution, and this proposal is to address that deficiency. The treasury is in the purview of the SUs only, and the SUs shall decide collectively to release an amount of KPI options for any use proposed. I also welcome proposals to actively use what is remaining in the treasury, and so far in my opinion the most promising idea is to use the UMA for voting and to get rewards from voting.

This particular proposal is both back and forward looking. Eligibility has been stated clearly in both posts, but for avoidance of doubt, I’ll mention it again here:

  1. The original list (sans the 4 members but Treasury is included) from the coordinape round establishes the first key to eligibility.
  2. In order to be an actual recipient in the 2nd distribution, a member must post on this forum (perhaps in this thread) that they would like to join this exercise.
  3. The combined 2 criteria above exists to mitigate both opportunistic members and also defaulted members, again, as stipulated in the RL-mandated distribution proposal.

The reasoning for an option for the exclusions to be included is so that as Ambassadors, they continue to be compensated in the Ambassador workstream. The individual exclusions primarily address these individual’s compensation from other workstreams which are adequate when viewed ‘as a whole’. As of this writing support for this proposal is for the individual exclusions to be carried forward, to prevent dilution of eligible members in this 2nd distribution.

This is indeed a one-off and future epochs on how the Ambassador compensation should be structured shall be reported to Risk Labs, as they are the party controlling compensation. However, if the Ambassador team feels that future distributions are not ‘fair’, future proposals similar to this one may be raised.

There will be no coordinape used in this proposal - rather it will be a group discussion exercise similar to the team comp distribution for Q2. I invite you to provide suggestions to Risk Labs.

The short answer:

  1. The framework for the distribution assumes that all work by all contributors were deemed equal in value.
  2. The framework assumes that all options were distributed equally and that there were roughly equal numbers of members in each team.
  3. The framework, in retrospect, rewarded contributions ‘broadly’ across more teams rather than ‘deeply’ within one team, and several members have pointed out that this did not seem fair (especially to the Ambassadors, which were all involved deeply)
  4. Therefore, all of the payments were ‘equally distributed/diluted’ to all other teams and the Treasury. The defunct Products Team distribution went into the Treasury.
  5. The proposal retrospectively rewards those who have deeper engagement in the Ambassador team in the previous epoch and allows future Ambassadors to be rewarded if they engage in Ambassador activities, which I believe is holistic in its strategic vision and execution.

Thank you Arcology for taking the time to comment. Will respond to some of your comments to not take up too much more space and time, as our respective positions on this are clear - albeit not congruent. :smiley: But I am primarily looking at it from a regulatory not a process side, taking a stand from the Treasury corner here.

“Circumventing” was put in parenthesis due to its contentious connotation, but was in fact confirmed by you during our discussed when asked, reflecting that the Coordinape compensation corset prescribed by RL/UMA is unpopular. But how about an “alternative compensation distribution option”. Let us settle on something like that.

I am aware that no Coordinape will be used in this kind of distribution, in spite of Coordinape being the stipulated means. Since I am not suggesting changes/alternatives to the current compensation distribution setup it is not for me to provide suggestions to Risk Lab.

In general I believe the “Product” part of the compensation currently held in Treasury is to be used as designated - for building products. In the end it may primarily be the Ambassadors anyway, but possibly not only. Ideally on could distribute these later on, not up front, as only once it is clear who participated in which project/working group to what degree for how long, a just and equitable distribution is ensured. Case in point: the Voting-as-a-Service project currently being worked on.

Thank you Arcology for putting this up.

Voting Yes with exclusions.

Agree Yes! with original exclusions.

Voting yes, with original exclusions but I also think Fruity’s concern checks out - the original issue came with the coordinape rounds and that is what is being proposed to be used again. Imo, the lead should be the only person that is able to send GIVE while other contributors on the team opt in to only receive - better incentivizing those contributors who actually got stuffs done!

voted yes but still am not sure we are going to get the kind of distribution thats fair to ambassadors but i guess its a band aid

1 Like

I’ll vote yes as is but I don’t agree with continuing to use coordinape when it’s never worked for us in the past

Out of curiosity, what level of compensation do you think would be fair to ambassadors?

We will not be using coordinape for this additional distribution.