SUDAO-IP-18 - FORMAL PROPOSAL
Ambassador Compensation Reform
This proposal is to utilize 5000 KPI Option tokens from the SU Treasury to create:
- An additional distribution for the Ambassadors only.
- 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.
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.
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.
- 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:
2.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.
- 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
- No - this is not a good proposal
- More discussions needed (please comment why)
@arcology Hey there! Sorry I had to actually revise the original proposal because I didnt realize the poll wasnt showing who voted for which option. We need to be able to tally how many UMAsters and SuperUMAns voted on each poll so I apologize for any confusion!
Now, I am a celebrity! Glad to see my name in a proposal.
I think if we are here doing the work we shouldn’t feel shamed for the amount we received, we did not send GIVE to ourselves.
Some of us stuck here thru all the roughest of times, holding the fort down, keeping spirits up, from the" the big pull ", " the commentary ", " the runway ", " the vote ", “the crash” and even after " the take over " when people were just gone, before Coordinape was even a thing.
Look at the footprints in the sand.
By no means am I or would I be upset with the choice to exclude.
I just brought it up because it feels …idk. Weird, all posted up in red and being a topic of the proposal. Im not sure what statement that is making to people.
Im looking at it as we are already being excluded in the minds of people for future Coordinape rounds by being smeared up here in red like we did something wrong.
This doesn’t look like a “congratulations to you” event.
I did have a important question, is there a key to this chart ?
Im looking at numbers here and I am having a hard time determining what they represent.
It’s difficult to see where this fits into the proposal with all these numbers I can’t make sense of.
I want to be sure I am not missing something.
I do understand your grievance sir, but I wouldn’t say the proposal stands to paint people with most GIVE as undeserving or they should feel ashamed as though they don’t worth any of those penny. Like you did say, many of us stuck with the DAO despite all the controversies and downs and on KPI distribution we got to see how Coordinape system was flawed in accordingly recognizing some ambassadors that have vital contribution to the DAO in numerous ways but not in multiple teams or senarios of people awarding GIVEs to themselves and so on.
And so as been deliberated over and over and personally for me exclusion of ambassadors with “most” GIVEs is to streamline the renumeration to those that have been affected by this flawed structure and to see that they equally feel appreciated and recognize and as well aligned to the goal of TVL growth.
So even if i top that list i won’t think i should be ashamed about that because it somewhat justifies my hardwork but what about the people the system was unfair to?
I did vote Yes, with original exclusions mostly because I reckon:
- we need to move quickly
- the amount required by the proposal is fairly small, and a bigger amount of KPI is left in the treasury, which will give us the opportunity to further adjust after that “first round” is over. This is when our fantastic four should be included imo.