#IIP 26 For the time being stop payments for council or 10 ilv capped on 5k usd value

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

devout dust
#

Simple Summary
Make changes to council pay: cancel or reduce payment. I feel that the amount of work required for being a council member doesn't come close to the financial gain people receive. Also I think people should want to be council member for the love of the project and community.

Abstract
We’ve changed this a few times now and hopefully won't need to again for the foreseeable future. With guidance from the CFO, it's the opinion that we should preserve stable coin runway where possible.

Therefor I see two options how to change

Overview
Change Council pay to:

Option A
No payment

Option B
10 ilv CAPPED with 5k USD value per month. ie. if ilv = 1000usd, council members get 5 ilv per month.

A lot of reasoning has been done about we needing to attract talent and in this comparing ourselves to big corporates, I think this is nonsense. We are not a big corporate. we are all game enthusiasts that hope that we together can create the best and biggest game community/studio the world has ever known.

The reason we elect council members is for us to be able to put our trust in people to make the right choice after a debate occurs among community members. Usually we as a community have already made up our minds before the voting even start. Which is something that makes this community so great!

wicked hare
half token
#

Isn't it a bit weird you make this post. Why didn't you say something when the current proposal was talked about in #1037422742393331712 message

lofty kindle
#

It's a clever way to put this proposal with only 2 options that both reduce pay and give no chance for council members to defend their stipend.

I'm pretty sure there should be a third option - Do nothing.

devout dust
devout dust
pastel vortex
#

There are several factors at play here. First, there is a validation of the council model that compensation provides. Illuvium truly wants to be known as a representative DAO, and compensation adds to that credibility. Moving to no compensation undermines this principle.
Secondly, there is a great deal of commitment to serving on council, or at least doing it well. In Gov v2, we’ve worked to further clarify expectations, and I hope that is shared shortly. I won’t get into all aspects of the role and my perspective on the time that it takes, but the compensation provides added commitment to attend meetings that vary dramatically in time of day. To accommodate time zones, travel schedules, etc, meetings happen at any time of day, including having calls for some individuals in the middle of the night.
I would consider adjusting the compensation model to ensure alignment of success metrics - such as a commitment of a certain amount for compensation of one’s time during the epoch, and then an allocation of tokens paid over the course of multiple years. This ensures individuals feel obligated to fulfill their responsibilities during the epoch, while also rewarding decisions that lead to the long term value growth of $ILV. Right now, it's actually the reverse, where compensation is greater presuming the council has the power to decrease token value during their term, while having its value increase long term. This adds complexity to the payment system, yet a split direct compensation + future compensation better aligns expectations.

#

The simplistic view of 10 ILV up to $5k does not achieve this. While we are not a big corporation, the intent long term is to rival traditional companies. We need to establish a council compensation structure now that enables us to ensure the best talent in the DAO runs, while also enabling growth longer term to attract stronger, more diverse individuals to lead the DAO.
As presented, I am against this proposal, and advocate for the community to wait for Gov V2 to assess the new proposed structure. Further considerations for a “current + future” structure should be considered, and I am happy to co-write that proposal with anyone who would like to help.

vivid mountain
devout dust
# pastel vortex There are several factors at play here. First, there is a validation of the coun...

Sure we can wait for gov v2 to see what we can do, but I rather get 5 extra devs/artists in the team. I remember you saying you don’t think “the uninformed” people shouldn’t be left to make important decisions. For example, regarding revdis. And then we went on and have a hypothetical discussion about what ifs etc. We dont need to stimulate “talented/educated” people to become council members, the community can use there collective brain to pick the naturally motivated and capable people, making smart informed decisions, imo. Maybe complex systems fked up more in this world than we would like to admit so, I rather take a “simplistic view” any day of the week. Peace 🙏❤️

#

Also, think about it. council members get 10 tokens which are now worth ~500usd. so they are motivated to bring that price up. The 5k cap makes it not get to a ridicules amount of value(and would be interesting to play with this cap, ie. making it higher might enhance the incentive to drive the price higher). Might sound simple, but it has the exact effect in which I would want to "motivate" council members. At this point it doesn't matter how well or terrible they perform. As long as they can get themselves re-elected they are good to go..

pastel vortex
stiff timber
#

10 ILV capped, a fascinating idea. I'd extend it to 20 ILV capped and 3k month capped

vivid mountain
# devout dust Also, think about it. council members get 10 tokens which are now worth ~500usd....

For returning Council members, cutting their compensation by 90% is not motivating, it's the opposite. Same for new Council stepping in, to have to move the world to increase token price just to get any kind of equivalent compensation. That's demotivating. That's the nature of human psychology.

The better approach IMO is to focus on Council requirements and expectations attached to compensation as is already being addressed in governance V2 LIP. It also includes changes to Council pay and responsibilities that I think the community will find reasonable.

bitter schooner
#

I think this is a good proposal especially while there's not many IIP being pushed, I also think 20 ILV would be fair as well even if the cap is still $5000. Would show commitment to the protocol rather than commitment to a monthly paycheck. Paying in ILV makes the council more interested in the success of the project since their pay is directly affected by the success of the project. People keep saying there's a huge commitment from council but realistically it's an hour a week and about an IIP monthly. Once the game picks up and they're busy I can see the need for an increase in pay but not sure why we pretend council is a full time job. edit: that last part was much ruder than I intended, I just mean the amount of hours put in is no where near the amount of hours for a full time job where you'd be getting paid 5k a month

frank garden
#

Do we know how much work the council is doing per month? What are their obligations? And how much time they spend per month on being in the council?

pastel vortex
# frank garden Do we know how much work the council is doing per month? What are their obligati...

I’ll say engagement and time commitment varies by council member. As defined now, the extent of required activities include attendance in biweekly meetings and voting on proposals. This is something we expand and clarify within Gov v2, which I hope is able to be shared shortly.
Personally, I’ve sought to perform at the level I feel is necessary to serve the DAO appropriately. This involves engagement and participation in Discord, particularly governance chats. As we discussed in general today, that engagement can look different by council members, and I tend to read a lot to stay connected with community sentiment, but only post when I have something valuable or insightful to add.
There are also challenges around what council can share publicly, and we need to be mindful of regulatory implications regarding how and when things are discussed, which is an added difficulty in a community that (rightfully) pushes for optimal transparency.
I also engage quite closely with multiple team members, other council members, and smaller groups of informed, passionate community members to build ideas and help clarify and prepare IIPs, council communication, and other documentation. Awkwardly, much of this has yet to be shared, but it has been a significant time commitment, which to me, is critical to fulfill this role appropriately, regardless of how council expectations are technically defined today.
I’m also always open to DMs and have corresponded with many community members, and do my best to share what I can in a timely manner to anyone who asks.
I hope that helps define my approach and commitment to the role, and that more of this will be clarified in the next iteration of governance to hopefully drive this as the norm.

frank garden
#

Last sentence is perfect. I think that is what community wants, it's not a problem to spend that money for council members if there is engagement and communication and doing the best you can all the time. Hopefully Gov V2 changes all of that for everyones sake.

#

Also, one thing I never understood (maybe this is not the best place to ask that, but while on the topic) is why is Kieran the only one doing public forums where community can ask questions? It that CoFounder Kieran or Council member Kieran?

pastel vortex
# frank garden Also, one thing I never understood (maybe this is not the best place to ask that...

Fair question - and its something we have talked about. Honestly, he's the most informed as well as the best versed on what can and cannot be shared (and how to share it), which is critical when viewed as a representative of the project. It's also something I've been working on how to address, as there are a lot of things only Kieran can do, so how can the council, team, or others enable him to focus on things unique to him while delegating some of that to others? I don't have a good answer as to how to accomplish that, but something we need to strive for to preserve his sanity and time.

pastel vortex
pastel cove
#

I dont see how to vote but NO PAYMENT or cut it 10x down to 500

#

Oh i get it, 10 ilv.. nice

rose onyx
#

Option B

rose onyx
#

one hour per week work for $5k/month
annualised to 20 hour work/week is $1.2m/year

#

the project is not yet launched, it doesnt make sense to pay $5k/month

#

in some countries, $5k/month is a CEO pay of a company with steady stream of revenue

bitter schooner
rose onyx
void bridge
#

Ive been a vocal critic about council pay ever since I joined ILV community. Though I welcome changes that would make pay be commensurate to the accountabilities of a council as demanded in the white paper, the current proposal has too much variance involved.

We have to strike a balance in terms of pay & accountabilities/responsibilities to ensure were attracting the right talent to lead the DAO.

It shouldnt be extreme 0 pay vs high pay. There needs to be proper due diligence to look into the number hours demanded from council members & their specific responsibilities vs. the expertise & qualifications required to exercise them properly.

My stand has always been that council is getting paid too much and getting little value. So looping it back to the current topic, I do not agree with 10 ILV with cap of 5000. Just lower the stipend from 5k to 2k and paid in ILV as originally voted on.

pseudo musk
#

Maybe we should improve this proposal to include the scope of expectations for sitting council? It seems to me that the community would not mind the expense of the leadership if they felt they were getting more activity than 1 or 2 votings/IIP proposals.

frank garden
#

Yes. And I think that Gov v2 is just about that. More transparency on what is done and things like that. Deraji had some great answers above.

But every council member is only defending himself, I would like to hear what they think about other council members and their engagement.

pastel vortex
slender portal
#

Another thing I’ve always thought is why hasn’t the council worked together to update the Whitepaper? Seems like a perfect task for the council to take on as a group then have It final reviewed by the appropriate ILV management.

#

Coinbase has a direct link to the white paper underneath their “about” Illuvium section. Having that paper updated for retail investors seems important with how much more value has been added to the project since the original copy

rose onyx
#

ur asking too much

void bridge
slender portal
vivid mountain
slender portal
rose onyx
#

not sure if all of them are well versed except for kieran

pastel vortex
#

I agree with @vivid mountain . Ability and knowledge are two different things. While I'm not personally opposed to contributing to it, the council acts at a high level and the white paper requires both extensive detail and complete regulatory insight on how to appropriately frame the information.

midnight dawn
#

5k per month per council member isn't worth it in a bear market. they members do a great job but lets be real, no way worth 5k

wicked hare
#

I've been thinking about this a lot. To start with, I don't think anyone, council members included, should be expected to do work without pay. There are potential implications that could be bad for the DAO as a whole related to eliminating council pay, and I don't believe it's a valid option.

With that said, council members are elected to serve the ILV holders who elected them. We are seriously discussing cutting revdis by a percentage in favour of funding the Treasury, something which will impact all staked ILV holders. The team has cut staff where needed. Upper management willingly extended the lock period on their tokens. I see sacrifices being made by everyone for the good of the protocol.

It would absolutely signal solidarity with the community if the council willingly reduced their payments for the coming epochs (and potentially retroactively). There's been a lot of discussion around where the council can add more value to justify a $5000 per month stipend. What if the value add, at this point in time, is to voluntarily reduce their stipend? We can try and make more work for the council, we can clarify their responsibilities in V2, we can iterate. Runway concerns are happening right now though.

A reduction of council pay to $2000 a month would save $90k over a 6 month epoch. That's not a trivial amount of runway when we're discussing giving the Treasury as much as 100% of ETH revenue from a sale that might generate something on the order of $1M to $2M of ETH revenue.

I do believe in the ideas behind the reforms in Gov V2, I do think council deserves to be paid. I also think that showing solidarity with the ILV holders who elected the council, a large portion of whom are willing to give up their cut of revdis for Illuvitars, would be an appropriate thing to do.

midnight dawn
#

Fully agree 👆

wicked hare
pastel vortex
#

Well put, @wicked hare. I completely agree with the implications of changing to voluntary council positions, and also the importance of everyone doing what they can to ensure the DAO's long term success.
At this point, it is about ensuring runway and delivering a paid product. While the impact of council pay (in ILV) to a potential capital raise is small, the scope of the work and broader economic situation warrant consideration of such a reduction.
I would support a decrease to $2k/month in ILV for the next epoch as we hopefully transition to further clarified council expectations.

rose onyx
#

ok looks like we are down to

  1. 10 ILV
  2. 2500
  3. 2000

we should vote

devout dust
rose onyx
#

$2k it is

honest pagoda
#

I spent the weekend reading what the community has said and I wanted to throw my idea out there.

6 month epoch with max 300 ILV earning potential per council member.

6 ILV paid per bi-weekly meeting (13 meetings x 6 ILV = 78 ILV earned)

27 ILV for voting on IIPs

Base rate of a council member would be 105 ILV if no additional work is put in.

Extra earning potential of 15 ILV between meetings with 20 hour work cap (0.75 ILV per hour). These hours will be documented in the bi-weekly meetings for clarity to the community with brief explanation of what work was done. Max extra value of 195 ILV (13x15=195).

TLDR:

105 ILV base pay
300 ILV hard cap

rose onyx
#

wow thats a really good system

neon lava
#

We had this discussion in the beginning of the term and I believe the consensus is the responsibility of council and incentive to draw high caliber individuals to council warrant the current salary. We had the convo with the CFO as well iirc.

rose onyx
#

One more benefit of reducing stipend is to disincentive sybil attack. $30k + blind voting looks like the right incentive to do it, even if the wallets need to stake for 30 days

lunar gale
#

I'm going to give my opinion which only commits me and I apologize in advance for the form:
it's a shame that the only work we see from the concil is :
-extension of their mandat from 3 to 6 month.
-an iip to be paid in stablecoin 6 months ago while the ilv was falling before the delock.
-Then an iip to get paid in ilv now that it is on the verge of the abyss.
Very nice moove to accumulate in any case and take advantage of the upside on the token.
While there is talk today of selling a part of the treasury NO iip from them to reduce their salary. (for a job that we, the people have no visibility).
except for a half page meeting report, every 2 weeks.
If it was possible to dissolve the council and give full power to the team as in web2 I would vote for it.
If it was possible to become a real DAO and vote directly the iip without going through a council, I would vote for it.
I don't want to hurt anyone, just share my feeling of the moment and my disappointment in a general way that I share with other members of the discord.

I can't wait to see the proposition of the new version of the concil V2.

rich atlas
#

Well put Mansour!

rose onyx
#

  • market is bottoming

  • bridge raise doesnt look like happening

  • community offers revdis from illuvitar

  • ILV downsizing from 200 to 140 CCs

  • Council still get $5k for biweekly meetings Atlas_Thug

devout dust
#

Also, We have a killer conmunity manager which helps alot! 100% neutral and stimulator of productive discussion 💪

devout dust
left atlas
#

I havent read entire thread but this idea has my vote. I have been always against salary for the council members in the first place. It should be honorary position, not a lucrative job...

void bridge
rose onyx
#

looks like this IIP got many support

#

better to propose it before it gets swept under the rug

frank garden
#

Not sure if anybody mention it, but there should be a paycut for those members that fail to do their job (miss meetings, miss voting...)

wicked hare
# rose onyx better to propose it before it gets swept under the rug

A lot of different specific solutions or alternatives have been proposed in this thread. An IIP can't be voted yes/no with many options. Using the feedback here, I'd suggest iterating on the original document with a concrete proposal, and an amalgamation of the rationale people have expressed here regarding council pay.

#

It's ok for IIP's to be iterative based on feedback.

velvet narwhal
stiff timber
#

Maybe its mostly this but with a 'sick leave' element idk

void bridge
# frank garden Not sure if anybody mention it, but there should be a paycut for those members t...

Been advocating for this as well. Members should get a per diem for every attendance/vote that caps to the amount being paid to them per month.

Council members are being paid to attend meetings and vote. Failure of either should be reflected in their pay.

Having "leaves" shouldnt apply considering its not a full time 5 days a week job. Voting is open for 3 days. Meetings can be rescheduled to a mutual date if need be.

Board directors are paid per diem similarly. It encourages active participation and ensures proper exercise of duties and responsibilities

Use case: every single board director in companies.

stiff timber
void bridge
# stiff timber I think the original theory was someone unreliable wouldnt be voted in for subse...

Thats more of a representation of the community vote rather than a guaranteed penalty. While the whole vote of no confidence by the other members to vote out an errant member is also subjective. Withholding pay for failure to attend a meeting or to vote is purely objective and dependent only on the council member in question.

For simplicity, we can just apply the inverse and impose a set penalty for missing a meeting of vote (eg 500 USD per meeting or vote). IIPs are usually just 1-3 per epoch and meetings are twice a month. So if you missed everything you stand to lose at most 2000 USD a month. Council Members still take home 3000 USD a month for not participating the whole epoch lol

still haven
stiff timber
# void bridge Thats more of a representation of the community vote rather than a guaranteed pe...

I think its worth considering a vote and a meeting are extremely different and if this is actioned should be treated as such. Missing a vote is by all counts inexcusable, considering you have 3 days to vote and well, come on.

As for meetings I would still be for a punishment, but given the vast timezones and isolating a specific time, it's far less simple than I would consider voting on a proposal obviously.

stiff timber
# void bridge Thats more of a representation of the community vote rather than a guaranteed pe...

I do enjoy this concept of cutting down their monthly pay for not inputting as much as required. I'd say allow 80% of the pay to be dependant on their actions. Eg if we took votes specifically. U cannot predict quantity so you say it's calculated after. If there was only one vote for the month and u missed it you forfeit 80%. If there was 2 votes and u missed 1 you forfeit 40% and so on.

Im just spitballing here but I don't think accountability guidelines could hurt. At a minimum they ensure only those serious actually nominate for council (not that we have had any joke candidates so far)

wicked hare
# void bridge Thats more of a representation of the community vote rather than a guaranteed pe...

Missing a vote entirely is pretty serious to me, it's one of the only things we're absolutely bound to do by the current responsibilities. Circumstances do come up where it's not possible for a member to vote though, as some council members have travel responsiblities etc. that cannot be rearranged. I do think there should be better metrics if we're doing performance based pay - The act of voting doesn't describe participation very accurately, even though it is extremely important.

I do think it will make more sense to consider penalties for missed attendance etc. once responsibilities become clearer. I'd be entirely for taking a penalty if I were to miss a vote (I'd also accept a vote of no-confidence FWIW), but I think something more granular would be appropriate in the future. (ex. Missed meeting = -15% of monthly pay, missed vote = -50% of monthly pay etc, didn't carry out responsibilities over 2 week period = -15% of monthly pay). It's a lot easier to define once we have more defined responsibilities though.

frank garden
#

Even if somebody can’t vote because they are maybe on some kind of trip. It should be easy enough to apologise to the community and at least share your stand and what you would vote for if you could.

wicked hare
#

I wouldn't want to travel with a hardware wallet either, especially internationally.

frank garden
#

Yes, I agree with that. But what I’m saying is that even if you don’t vote you can still share your thoughts with the community in discord and apologise for missing the voting. After all you represent the community. And if you can’t vote because you don’t have your hardware wallet - you can still share a few sentences on what you would vote for if you could.

In my mind that’s a given - you have a reason for missing the voting, you apologise but still share your opinion on the matter.

wicked hare