Idea - Council Pay Reduction + Restructure

[deft galleon]

Council pay has been discussed quite a lot, and we've prepared a proposal to reduce council pay to $4000/m and introduced a deferred compensation component to council pay to ensure council priorities are aligned with the long term health of Illuvium. Please review and provide feedback!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRvn32XOujLJ9CRJ-g3_D7x1M5PBf0Q6uBZ1r_Egs-M/edit?usp=sharing

There are potentially quite a few ways in which we can handle the deferred component of compensation. The "fallback" plan is to require council members to stake the deferred component of their compensation (for 12 months) prior to receiving the remainder, but we are actively investigating some alternative tech options that could make this easier. Ultimately, we do want to minimize any administrative burden that deferred compensation could cause for the team, and we require the team's feedback to meet that goal. We do intend to update this proposal with the specifications for how deferred compensation is handled before it goes to a vote.

[crude tangle]

Who decides what is "successful service to the DAO" and how?

[humble briar]

This means that the council member has not been removed in the middle of the term for some reason.

[crude tangle]

Sorry, my bad. I was wondering about extra $1000/m. So who decides who is the "member who satisfactorily completes their full term" and how?

[deft galleon]

The $1000/m is taken from the $4000/m.

So it's $3000/m paid every 3 months, and $1000/m at the end of a full term (currently 6 months). If a council member were to be removed for not fulfilling their obligations, they would forfeit the $1000/m portion of their compensation, and any $3000/m portion that had not yet been paid to them.

Ex 1: Blickter gets kicked off the council for missing meetings and IIPs at 2 months into his term. Blickter gets nothing.
Ex 2: Blickter gets kicked off the council for writing too much in council chat at 4 months into his term. Blickter has already received $3000/m at the 3 month mark of his term (per IIP-25), but would forfeit the extra 1 month, and the entirety of his deferred compensation.
Ex 3: Blickter successfully completes his 6 month term, and gets $3000/m at the 3 month mark, $3000/m at the 6 month mark, and $1000/m of deferred compensation, which is locked for an additional 12 months, at the end of the term

It's not judgement based or subjective, if you get kicked off the council for not fulfilling your council duties, you forfeit your deferred compensation entirely.

[crude tangle]

So basically $1000/m is safety net for every council member to finish their term. Thank you.

It's pretty hard to imagine anyone getting dropped from the council. But I guess if anyone is getting dropped, other members of the council would be the ones deciding that?

Also, my guess is you talked about paycuts for missing meetings and IIPs, but that would be too complicated atm or you (council) don't think that makes sense?

[faint willow]

@deft galleon as a council member now, do you think the workload warrants a payment of 4k usd a month, if so why and how many hours would you work in a week

[deft galleon]

Currently it is the case that council members would need to be removed by other council members, yes. It's absolutely possible that could change in the future, and we have discussed that for a future IIP, to give the community some recourse if they feel they are not satisfied with a council member.

[crude tangle]

I know you didn't ask me, but I think Deraji spoke about the workload in much detail in the nominee interviews. And he would have more experience talking about it.

[deft galleon]

As the bare minimum requirements go, no. As this council thus far has been putting in time and effort, yes. Mostly out of personal interest, and because this question got asked a lot in the last election, I've been tracking my time spent on council related activities thus far.

Now, I'll clarify that expertise counts for a LOT, but there is, from my perspective, a need to actually put the time and effort into being effective as a council. The job needs to be more than just doing the bare minimum, and there are plans in the future to ensure the role of council member has specific expectations and obligations. From my perspective, every council member has been going FAR beyond the bare minimum this epoch. I know it's difficult to show that to the community, but give us another 3-4 weeks and you'll see the work we've been putting in more tangibly.

To elaborate - I ran on the premise of being paid $1500/month and that hasn't changed (and won't change if this IIP passes), but thus far I'm fairly certain I'm underpaid by any metric. $1500/month is certainly too low. I'm supportive of the change to $4000/month.

[civic marsh]

Seconding what @deft galleon said- the new council is killing it. Our first meeting went nearly 2 hours, and a few of us chatted further after that. We added another meeting this week that went 1.5 hours, and the council chat has been super busy so far. There will always be a debate over pay, as right now the position remains less defined (formally), but the new council is absolutely going above and beyond with action to demonstrate value and impact. Expect a great deal from this group over the coming weeks and months to justify the compensation. That said, this proposal advances two aspects - pay reduction for now, particularly given the broader environment, and implementing a delayed aspect of compensation to better align council actions to long term ILV value.

[smoky tulip]

Wouldn’t it be better to get gov V2 ready to launch instead of talking about a council pay IIP for the third time?

2 meetings in a week for a total of 3.5h of work is still pretty easy for 4K imo.

[deft galleon]

The community showed a reasonable amount of support for a council pay reduction here: #1039650471960383539 message

We've effectively reached a point where there's very little left to talk about with Gov V2 until it receives a legal review. We'd like to not sit on our hands waiting if we have actionable IIPs we can move on now.

To be explicit - This IIP in no way detracts from time we could be spending on Gov V2 while awaiting a legal review, and we expect that both this IIP and the Spider IIP can be through the process before Gov V2 is submitted for community feedback. This way we don't have attention divided between multiple IIPs in the future.

[faint willow]

Really appreciate this, nice!

I still think the pay should be reduced more given actual devs are having to be laid off rn in illuvium and the “work” the council do is still very wishy washy sounding, a chat on discord is not work lets be real. Anyway, love the transparency blickter

[deft galleon]

We're pretty committed as a group to providing as much transparency as possible. Our chats have been structured meetings, with a fairly extensive list of topics to get through, including ideas posed by the community. I understand that it hasn't been clear what the council has done in the past, and I understand there's a relative distrust of the council in general. From my perspective, all we can do is try and share as much of what we're doing as possible.

I'll also add that while devs are being laid off, the council's compensation no longer affects stablecoin runway, so it's a different pool of funds. It absolutely still matters, but since IIP-25 we are no longer drawing from the same pool, as council pay is in ILV now. To get a sense of scale, if this were a 6 month epoch, and ILV averaged $30 (per the rules in IIP-25), and all council members were paid $4000/month (I will not be), the council would cost the Treasury 4000 ILV, which is 0.2% of the total Treasury ILV holdings. That would put our yearly council expenditure under 0.5%.

[vivid root]

I think this concern is always a fair one. But being a council member entails significantly more than 'workload'. The reality of the situation is the risk associated, the responsibility, expertise and everything else that comes with it. I know it's not a direct parallel but lollipop ladies are some of the highest paid employees in the workforce. Their job description isn't exactly complex but they work in a dangerous environment. Idk if they have a different name in other countries, crossing guard maybe?

[faint willow]

Lollipop ladies get paid because they are close to incoming traffic and could get run over, what exactly is the risk of being on council? Expertise isnt even a pre requisite for council.

The money must be great being a council member i get that. But there are many who would do as good a job for free, and i dont even need to emphasize the treasury situation.

[vivid root]

The councils pay does not impact runway. Not in the remotely near term so let's be clear about that.

We are voting in a governance system that is not yet regulated or recognised by many governments. There have been instances of councils in other projects that have been charged with criminal charges simply because they were a significant part of the daos activities regardless of their role in it

[vivid root]

Now no one here especially myself believes Illuvium would ever do something shady or make an effort to fight regulation. But there is always risk. Even if no one is at fault.

All I am saying is pay does not equal hours worked. The only time that is remotely true is in entry level positions in the workforce.

I am for reducing council pay but I disagree with the reasoning of trying to reason the pay quantity by something as fickle as working 40 hours.

[faint willow]

I have never heard of that and if that is a risk fair play then, what projects are u referring to genuinely curious?

Its not really fickle if there is no expertise required, it is a popularity contest to get onto council as it is.

Also the council pay not affecting runway is news to me. Thought we were talking about a raise not too long ago?

[vivid root]

There was a good example but I have forgotten its name apologies. @humble briar probably knows that area better.

As for the popularity contest side of things, that's the current problem. This dispute of pay isn't really about pay. Maybe it's other systems that need to be better adjusted but in reality the community should be choosing who they think are strong candidates.

Im not going to delve deep into it here (feel free to dm) but runway and treasury are 2 separate entities. Ideally the treasury will be used up as a last resort of the runway ends.

Also expertise takes many forms. Sure there's no legal requirement of past experience or anything but I have dedicated my life to learning everything I can about illuvium and its community for well over a year now. And the community thought that made me a good council member among other qualities

Everyone on this council has proven themselves enough for the community to want them as representatives

[humble briar]

By being a doxxed member of the council, anyone of us could become a target for regulators. The CFTC already sued Ooki DAO alleging securities violations and named not just the team but all members of the DAO. Neither I, the council, nor the team believes that Illuvium is at risk of losing any judicial action regarding the legality of our DAO. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't risks of any overzealous governing body naming the members of the Illuvium council in a lawsuit.

[distant spoke]

I don’t really feel that a change to council pay is necessary. This would be the 3rd time the council pay has changed in the 14 or so months I’ve been here and neither of the previous changes stopped anyone from complaining about the council pay rate.

I’ve agreed in the past that $5000 was too much but that was because in the past the council didn’t seem to do a lot to earn that money. Hopefully with this council being a bit more proactive the community will feel like they have done enough to earn the money.

If we DO want to change council pay, I think a system that bases council pay on performance somehow would be more beneficial, since any arbitrary $ amount won’t be a significant change from any previous arbitrary $ amount.

[crude tangle]

I tend to agree with that. Solely just changing the council pay isn't necessary as it wouldn't change much. Good change from the proposal is paying kicked council member less. But what we need in my opinion is to track responsibilities and having pay cuts for missing them, or something in that direction. Something I would think is considered with gov v2.

[distant spoke]

Yeah, something like fines that are deducted from pay when required duties are missed.
Like if you miss a council meeting that deducts $500 from that months pay.
It would be a little tough to manage but it would ensure that active council members are rewarded and those that slack off are penalized.

[deft galleon]

I'll share my perspective on this, with the caveat that it's been a relatively short time I've been on the council. A lot of the high value activities a council member can engage in are not necessarily things that are easily quantified. Missing a council meeting should absolutely come with a penalty, I agree on that point, but there's a TON of work that can be done in between council meetings, like researching activities of other projects, or other governance structures, or drafting and editing proposals, scheduling additional meetings etc. There's a lot of things that will be hard to quantify, but they are things that I think the council needs to be doing to be effective.

At the root of this, I think the council needs to work as a team on some level. Just like gathering feedback from the community and improving proposals is a team effort, the council is most effective when work can be done collaboratively and openly, as it lets each member's strengths be utilized more fully. Ani, Deraji, Scoriox and Kieran all have unique and valuable perspectives and notice things that I simply wouldn't.

Of any performance based metric, I think it would be most effective to evaluate the council as a whole, to ensure that this kind of collaboration is happening. Missing a meeting, when the expectation is to simply make it to a meeting, is pretty egregious, but an expectation to be effective sets a better goalpost.

If it were feasible to implement, I'd rather the council be evaluated as a whole at the end of an epoch by ILV holders (ex. during the election process for a new council), based on the work they've done, and be paid accordingly. This would also create a more direct incentive to eject non-performant members from a council, as they would directly and negatively impact the pay of other council members.

[crude tangle]

I would say that for us it's pretty hard to evaluate the council as the most work is going on behind the scenes. There is a lot that we just don't know on our perspective would be wrong.

[deft galleon]

With regards to this proposal - You're mostly right, this would save about 1000 ILV in the best case, which is kind of a drop in the bucket. I do think the deferred component is a good addition, as are the more clear pay reductions if someone is removed from the council. Mostly I just feel like the community is a bit disenfranchised with the work councils have been doing (not necessarily this council), and I think it's important to re-establish trust.

Doing more and better work, and communicating more effectively are the best ways accomplish that (and frankly, are much more important than council pay), but showing that we're in this with the community, through a pay cut, is another way we can accomplish that. Also, we're still in a time window where something like this can happen without detracting from other, more important proposals.

[deft galleon]

Maybe it doesn't have to happen behind the scenes. There's definitely some stuff that can't be shared, but a lot of what we've done so far has been shared via meeting notes and the town hall (at least at a high level). It's possible even more could be shared, a lot of this stuff doesn't really need to be behind closed doors.

At minimum, the community should be able to see the output of a council, through the proposals they draft and their activities while they are serving.

Transparency, in the areas it's possible, also breeds accountability, which is something I think has been missing.

[crude tangle]

I'm sure everybody in the community would love that.

[fallen matrix]

I like 3k but absolutely agree Blickter's work goes beyond what 3k would justly compensate.

[glass herald]

I remain ambivalent regarding the USD value of council “pay”. But minor adjustments like this do seem better than higher percentage changes.

I really do like the deferred compensation component. I believe if this had been active in the past it would seen use at least once. I also feel like there is a function in the staking contracts that would be useful for this. I’m talking about #11. It’s a little clunky for the council members maybe but it would do the trick and should prove to be worth any hassle. iykyk

Bit of a side note: I never understood why council pay was changed to stable coins for a little while and I’m glad that is over.

[obsidian plover]

Obviously, lowering the amount is a great move considering the obligations imposed on council in its current form.

Delayed Compensation seems to have missed the mark due to the following:

1. All Carrot, No Stick

IIP's thesis is to give provide a stick where you can lose 1K usd if you fail to complete your term. It has no bite at all. IIP failed to outline the specifics within which a council member will not be able to complete their term except when they resign before the term ends. That has happened probably only once.

2. No Specifics.

Even if a council member is voted out theres no guidelines that triggers for the council to vote out a member. Not even number of absences nor failure to vote. It is purely subjective and as we saw with past epochs, regardless if they fail to attend and/or vote no one was kicked out.

IIP should outline specific conditions with a catch all statement. It would be objective and not subject to the whim of the sitting council.

3. 12 Month release

May I know what the intention behind this is? This doesnt make sense. If council member already earned their pay why not just release it based on current schedule which is every 3 months? Is this to pattern it with year-end bonuses given to board of directors and applying a cliff?

4. No Bite.

Even assuming you have specifics stated, the whole thing doesnt promote action to the councils. They just have to do the bare minimum of not falling under the conditions to be kicked out and they get their full pay regardless if they were absent or fails to vote.

If the thesis of the IIP is to ensure activity from each member then you need to penalize them for failure to exercise their duty which is strictly laid out in the white paper and past IIPs. These are as follows: (1) Attend bi-monthly meeting; (2) Vote an all IIPs. If you want to add, (3) attend council townhalls.

Ex. Penalize each member who fail to do any of the 3 above by 500 USD per instance.

You can also add an extra condition. Failure to attend 3 consecutive meetings or townhalls makes them subject to expulsion. Or failure to attend meetings or vote for a cumulative of say 6 instances in a term will render them ineligible to run next epoch.

A straightforward penalty system is easier to compute rather than its current form where you have to compute the ILV price per day. Formula also doesnt take into consideration months with 28 and 31 days. Just apply it prorated. Ex. (4000 usd/# of days in the month) x # of days rendered less any penalties imposed.

Opinion

People have been focusing on the council based on their individual personality and actions. Blickter tracked his hours to show the effort his giving. Deraji works behind the scenes etc etc etc. Community needs to know that the systematic problem is not individual efforts but the obligations imposed by the white paper and IIPs.

What each individual council member is contributing outside of attending meetings & voting on IIPs are over & beyond. This speaks to more of the value of the individuals person who the community might deem as justified to sit as a council member than any metric that he/she is not a "good" council member. We need to apply standards and obligations across the board regardless if theyre a community mod, content creator, or even a founder.

You want to hold council members to a higher standard? It needs to be specifically laid out obligations and hold them accountable regardless of background.

[deft galleon]

Thanks Scruba, I just want to reference the specifics for council member removal, as they are currently defined in IIP-12. https:// github.com/IlluviumGame/IIPs/blob/fafe7efc2218e3ac887df1a27127aff97ac07796/iips/iip-12.md

You're correct that this IIP does NOT impose additional requirements on the council, and the reason I've been pushing it is to save Treasury ILV in the interim period between now and when Gov V2 (which does impose additional requirements on the council) is implemented. It is not intended to be a comprehensive rework of requirements.

[obsidian plover]

Its still subjective sir. Thats the problem.

So if the whole thesis is to save ILV might as well just separate the delayed compensation and just pass it as is to lower the amount to 4k. 🙂

[deft galleon]

Fair feedback, I agree that it's still subjective.

As to the reason for deferred compensation - the motive is 2-fold.

1. It creates a direct incentive for a council member to finish their term. I think we can mostly agree that the last 20-40% of previous epochs have been slow in terms of governance proposals, not much has gotten done, and a lot of the absences/missed votes we've seen in the past have been in that later portion of the epoch. I absolutely intend to hold my fellow council members to the standards of IIP-12, even if that hasn't been done in the past. There ARE valid reasons to miss meetings (OW Beta launch being a reasonable and recent example), but those reasons should be clear to the community as well.
2. It creates a direct incentive to make decisions most likely to increase the price of ILV over time.

As it stands, it seems there's not much desire for a council pay reduction (or at least not concensus on this method of reduction) at this time, so I'll drop this for now. I'm certain this will get revisited during Gov V2 discussions as well, but that proposal currently does not include anything that's retroactive to the start of THIS epoch, so I kind of view this time window as the last time we can implement such a proposal.

[obsidian plover]

I'll reply to the others later it's dinner lol. But wanted to point out that there's no eyes on this yet since Overworld came out hahaha. People are distracted.

[deft galleon]

Enjoy - Yeah I agree, I wanted to get this posted before OW Beta but priorities didn't align until our last meeting, and I didn't want to act unilaterally in proposing something the other council members felt they wouldn't pass.

[civic marsh]

I agree with much of this, Scruba, and as always, I appreciate your contributions to these discussions.
This proposal was broken off from the broader gov v2 with then intent of demonstrating openness to community comments along with other improvements to the incentive structure with some greater accountability.
My original context of this change was also to include greater clarity in expectations beyond iip-12, but those role requirements remain in contention around the draft of gov v2. Without that, it does remain relatively weak and up for interpretation by other council members.
Again, great feedback and hopefully this is viewed as incremental progress both in this proposal and adjustments to make it better.

[lavish fiber]

If I was still on council I would vote No on this proposal.

1. it barely actually changes the size of the pay (and is something gov v2 solves anywho)

2. makes the pay structure more complicated and potentially harder to administrate (although i appreciate ud prefer an easier to administrate way)

3. currently to get kicked off of council you have to not be meeting the minimum viable role requirements, these requirements are: voting on all IIPs and attending all meetings, no one realistically cant be meeting all of those easily, instead imo we should be working on increasing that list of responsibilities within the gov v2 writeup (for the top 5 council members)

4. @faint willow nobody on the team has been fired because council members are paid “too much”

Council are not paid from the runway, council are paid from the treasury, council doesnt affect runway in any way

Downsizing also happened because of how fast illuvium grew and hired new people, when ur hiring at that rate a time must come where u need to evaluate everyone and some hires might not have been a perfect fit…

5. @deft galleon i get you not wanting to be “sitting on ur hands” but I dont really see the need for this change, its not much of a change and since u believe council should only receive $1.5k per month it feels like $4k is the compromise you’ve agreed on with the rest of council so that you can say you pushed the change you were planning to make, this imo doesnt seem a good enough reason to change things 🤷‍♀️ and seems to show that no one else on council agreed with $1.5k making sense (maybe im wrong here, feel free to correct me)

6. 1 thing I’d love to see is more ways for council members behind the scenes to have their efforts seen more publicly, not sure in what world $1.5k per month would make sense for such a responsible position (when without sed position we wouldnt even be a DAO at all…) currently its very hidden what council members do and truly 1 of the 5 of you could easily do little to no work compared to the others and no one could call them out publicly, theres no accountability (or praise/appreciation for those putting in more work) this is an issue… but not a reason to devalue the position yet… instead use the time to create more avenues for council accountability, imo that would be way more useful…

I do appreciate that this comes as a response to sentiment like this: #1039650471960383539 message but imo better accountability and transparency in council goings on is a better response to this kind of sentiment…

7. also force locking up someones wages for work completed is totally pointless… imo

[drifting atlas]

sure reduce the pay, but please dont make it more complicated. With all these extra rules. I dont see the point, we are here to build a game. Not build another Bureacratic government.

[deft galleon]

1. A 20% pay cut is not irrelevant, and this become more apparent if we think in real terms. If your job told you you were getting a 20% pay cut it would be very relevant.

2. Fair, again the goal is to NOT make this an administrative nightmare.

3. Agree, but the re-working of requirements for the role DOES exist in Gov V2, and needs to exist there for reasons I'm certain you understand.

4. You're correct that council pay isn't dipping into stablecoin runway, but I reject the premise that preserving Treasury ILV doesn't matter.

5. I don't believe council should be paid $1.5k, I believe it is an accurate amount to pay a council that does the bare minimum, as the requirements are defined. I elaborate on this here: #1052029358795141160 message
   I absolutely pushed this, as reducing council pay is a premise I explicitly ran for council on. I will always do the things I say I will do. My preference would have been for a larger reduction to pay ($3k/month specifically would have been my preference), but again, the current council has been doing work, from my perspective, to justify being paid $4k/month. There are additional reasons related to consistency that $4k/month was an agreeable amount to the rest of the council. Regardless of the outcome of this, or any council pay IIP, I will be receiving $1.5k/month for this epoch. Again, this is because it's something I said I would do.

6. Agree, I'd like to find a solution that makes things more transparent. Something like 85% of the content in the council channel since the start of the epoch could be public. Perhaps a solution exists to accomplish something like this without compromising privileged information.

7. Agree to disagree.

I might just hold a different viewpoint on the value of Treasury ILV. 1000 ILV isn't a huge deal right now. What's another $40k, right? My outlook has always been long, and I see that as potentially millions of dollars at future valuation of ILV being spent needlessly. I'll likely always hold that viewpoint and push for fiscal responsibility, it's a core part of what I believe in. I do not hold the viewpoint that governing bodies should come with lucrative pay, and I do believe that $5000/month is pretty lucrative for the minimum requirements of the role.

The whitepaper is a good start, there are also Medium articles, IIP-12 is relevant as well.

You can find the whitepaper/Medium in #🔗〕helpful-links , IIP-12 can be found at the gov.illuvium.io page (along with other IIP's which have passed).

[delicate musk]

Thanks!

[lost agate]

I would like the council pay to reflect what it will be in gov v2 so we don’t have to change it again after v2 is out. Since it is unclear what the responsibilities will be for the main council in v2, it would be hard to say what is fair. If v2 is close I think a simple we hear you think the pay is too high, we will cut the pay by 20-50% while we wait for a more comprehensive change in v2; would be a good path forward. $2000 /month was brought up in the other thread I wonder how $4000 was what was settled on?

[lost agate]

Ultimately with the current council being more open and transparent I’d be fine keeping the pay the same at $5000/month. I would hope the council would eventually be paid in line with s&p 500 board of directors which the medium is $260,000/year, $21,000/month. Side note it’s a little strange how the council gets to vote on their own pay, it’s the same as with board of directors. I wonder if there is another way?

[lavish fiber]

4. I agree that preserving treasury is important, I just dont think Council Pay really dents it in any meaningful way, but I do totally get ur viewpoint, its entirely valid

[lavish fiber]

I would argue that council pay isnt lucrative when considering how high in responsibility the role is

I do agree that the minimum requirements for the role are far too low though (which is why Council Members have been continually more and more doing far more than those requirements, id say that this is the first council where all 4 non-team council members are active and doing so beyond the minimum)

luckily this is solved amongst other things in Gov v2

and knowing Gov v2 and the pay structure there I am fine with pay going down to $4k even now, but lockups of pay and shit imo isnt necessary

[vivid root]

From what I am reading its feeling pretty clear that Gov V2 is the priority. If we cannot engage the Gov V2 discussion in December then this vote makes more sense. But if Gov V2 gets revealed it looks like this proposal may get lost in the wind a little bit since everyone is focusing on relating it back

[smoky tulip]

Should we enter something like:

• Didn't vote for an IIP: No pay that month
• Didn't show up for 2 meetings in a row: No pay that month

Or is that too harsh?

[young spear]

lets break this down to a average working person:
4000 a month
1000 a week
40 hours a week = 25per hour
Lets say the council contributes 20hrs a week towards council duties only.. that $50per hour

will the wage be paid in ilv?

[deft galleon]

The council is paid in ILV per IIP-25.

[obsidian plover]

Definitely too harsh 😄 A set penalty for missing a meeting or not voting would be more palpable methinks. Check my example here: #1052029358795141160 message

[lavish fiber]

honestly doesnt show up for 2 meetings in a row should be removal as a council member unless theres really good reason for that happening

in my 9 months of Council I havent seen anyone miss more than a single meeting (except 1 person, that person is no longer running thankfully...)

[smoky tulip]

So 1 says too harsh and 1 says not harsh enough 😉

[lavish fiber]

missing 1 meeting is okay cos life happens

missing 2 meetings in a row without really really good reason imo just shows ur not taking it seriously, 2 meetings in a row is a full month of no meetings and is unacceptable

[smoky tulip]

I agree

[obsidian plover]

The example I placed is 3 😄 Its grounds for expulsion. And Im not keen on having a "justifiable" reason. I mean will council police each other and determine whats justifiable? That then just makes it subjective again.

At least with 3 you miss 1 month and half of meetings. 2 is a coincidence, 3 is a pattern.

[lavish fiber]

if someone gets into a serious accident or a family member dies id say thats justifiable...

if someones just got too many other responsibilities then thats not justifiable, they clearly dont have the free time or ability to take on more responsibility to be on the council... no one should be running if they are already super busy in their lives and careers imo, free time must be dedicated and flexibility required to make meetings too

[obsidian plover]

That definitely goes without saying.

But considering how meetings can be moved/rescheduled in advance other than what you mentioned which are sudden and unavoidable happenstance, I really dont see how other reasons could be justified. So spelling this out would avoid having the council be the ones to determine within themselves whats justifiable and what is not.

[plucky oak]

I don't think paying the council in ILV is a good idea, especially since if you're dedicated entirely to illuvium. The reason being is that as soon as you receive your payment in ILV, you will most likely sell some to stay afloat. I know it's not a huge selling pressure, but any ILV going back to exchanges is a no no imo. Honestly, I still think the $4000/mo is waaaaay too much! Unless you're working a 9-5 in an illuvium office, it makes no sense. I see no reason for such pay! I've worked in a big project for free, participated in council, elaborated strategic plans, even translated hundreds of words/phrases for their app, at no cost.

If you're an active community member, passionate about the project, you'd never miss a meeting unless there's a real life emergency. Honestly I think the pay should be based on donations for all members of the council. Most successful 'free' projects out there are opensource, being built by hundreds of members, funded entirely by donations. Here is no different. If you think you're doing too much, this isn't for you. If you can't put the hours in, this isn't for you. If you think your time is more valuable elsewhere, I wish you good luck.

Just remember, $4000 can be worth as much as 3-4-5 times elsewhere.

Just my two cents.

[lavish fiber]

historically vast majority of ILV paid out to council members has been staked and not sold

[lavish fiber]

illuvium isnt an opensource project

[plucky oak]

I didn't say it was, I meant the community aspect of it.

[young spear]

this is what i thought.. cheers man.
I feel that this is still quite a heavy reward for assisting in the longevity of the project..
If previous/current/future council members decide not to sell (and why would you before full release xD) the reward would be quite larger than what you think in the long run..

[deft galleon]

Fair feedback. I wouldn't be willing to be a council member for any less than I'm getting now, at least not with the time I've been putting in. More on that here: #1052029358795141160 message

[young spear]

no doubt that the time is being put in..
I do believe that the amount of work + extra that somebody does put in, strengthens their position during the next round of council elections

[deft galleon]

Yeah, but that's neither here nor there, and I didn't intend for this to be campaigning. Expertise DOES matter a lot. Given their backgrounds, the other council members are providing a perspective that I cannot bring to the table. It's a combination of both work and expertise, and you generally have to pay for both those things.

Just to put this into real terms, I could work for about $40/h, and I could also find a job where I could make time and a half for 2-4 hours a day and for anything over 40 hours a week. I believe I probably have the "worst" IRL job of anyone on the council, compensation-wise. Being a council member does actively compete for someone's time, if they are doing it properly, and for that reason I don't think it's unreasonable for someone spending 10-ish hours a week to be making about $100/h. I think it gets to be a problem if people are only putting in like, an hour or two a week. I think that's the core of the debate around council pay, knowing whether council members are putting effort in to justify their pay. I do still think $4000/m is reasonable, but it's also pretty obvious that clearer expectations are required.

[young spear]

its not campaigning if the members show the positive influence they are creating for the trajectory of the project, people want that.as it helps gain trust towards that member moving forward. You sir have my vote fo sho next time round 😉

4k is reasonable too i believe

[hot current]

I’m new here so my opinion is likely rubbish but here’s my go at this:

I think council members should be compensated on a sliding scale of value addition to the project and community

Step 1: clearly defined roles and objectives

Step 2: quantification of minimum time requirements in area of focus

Step 3: above and beyond line of duty

Pay should be limited to a base and incentive degree and should be open ended.

Example: Community Manager and Content creator-

Minimum time commitment 20 hours a week focused on community 10 hours on content creation

Base salary: 1,000$ a month
Bonus compensation target 3,000$ a month

Weight:
Base time commitment- 10%

Community growth YouTube channel- +10% concurrent viewership or +20% interaction month over month - 35%

Community outreach and communication- 15%
Etc etc etc

Based off the community manager their monthly target of 3,000$ bonus compensation they receive X$ based off their contributions hit missed or exceeded on their kpi metrics

You can also add in hidden duties as a council forum vote as a weighted option as some council members dedicate lots of time to research and development of deliverables that get scraped in the final hour.

Edit2: additionally there can be an open appeal option where if kpi metrics are missed the council member can appeal with evidentiary support and have a vote of full compensation offered with hyper majority as well as a public vote.

What this does is create a mindset of growth as an incentive to pay and push council members to think about the acceleration of the project and growth of the project in their focused areas of expertise. This creates innovation and outward thinking instead of a strict task focused orientation of what is presented during meetings.

Feel free to be harsh and critical I’m thick skinned and open minded

Edit: I’m open to a vocal discussion as well if I failed to voice my thoughts adequately

[deft galleon]

I think this conversation would be better to have in the context of Gov V2, because redefining expectations and council pay is already a part of that proposal, and setting those definitions twice is inefficient.

I will say that I am wary about getting too complex too early with expectations and pay structures. We should start with clear and simple, and expand from there as the value the council provides is proven or disproven. I do like the core idea of a portion of compensation based on performance metrics, but we do need to be wary that we aren't creating incentives that might not align with overall goals, or wasting development/admin time on creating complicated payment systems. Definitely open to discussion on this.

Like, for example, right now, most of what I do related to council duties is reading, writing and reviewing. How do we set performance metrics for that?

[hot current]

I think that these are linked discussions and by having them separately defeats the purpose of compensation restriction all together.

I think creating growth complexity and harvesting talent is a key metric to measurement of success and by offering an overly simplified version it will continue to create conversations of performance output verses compensation input.

Every job can be defined and created into metrics even if it is time commitment, communication clarity, effective communication strategy and effective planning.

The key is defining what the role is supposed to do. If your role is to create meeting agendas, documentation of meetings, communication of meeting deliverables and strategy then you can easily define metrics for performance. How clear are your notes, how effective was the meeting based on agenda items compared to execution strategy formulation. Etc

These are hyper critical examples yes but one of my previous roles was creation of kpi metrics and employee growth evaluation through data analytics of company goals and deliverables. So in my experience almost anything can be quantified.

[deft galleon]

Who is the evaluator in this scenario? Who decides on the clarity of notes, or meeting effectiveness?

I feel like this is a good structure for very specialized roles with a lot of oversight, but Illuvium is not, in my opinion, at the size where the council needs to have a bloated organizational structure. Creating and monitoring metrics like meeting note clarity necessitates managers (or direct community concensus, which is also inefficient when applied to small details like communication effectiveness). If it becomes necessary, we can expand into such a structure. We should start with something efficient and scalable.

We're having a meeting tonight, I'd strongly encourage you to be patient and wait to see Gov V2 and provide feedback for that proposal, because trying to build a complex organizational structure immediately before another organizational structure is proposed doesn't make much sense.

You're right, let's have the discussion about council pay, expectations and metrics at the same time. I'm happy to drop this proposal for now, and the Treasury can be out 600-800 ILV, it's not the end of the world in the short term.

I've said it before, this is NOT intended to be a replacement for Gov V2, nor a sweeping overhaul of expectations. It was intended to reduce council pay NOW, in this epoch, and save the Treasury some ILV.

[hot current]

Sorry if I agitated the conversation ❤️ just wanted to throw in my two cents.

[deft galleon]

You're good, I just don't want this proposal to burgeon into something it's not when Gov V2 is so close. I look forward to discussions around expectations and possibilities for that proposal.

[spark plank]

think It's good to lower the salary but please don't make the payment system so complicated that new community members will have a hard time even understanding it.
I mean, if some council member fail to show up for meetings or do not vote, they should just decline their salary and resign. such a busy man who can't even spare 1 hour per month shouldn't run lol

[neat hill]

council members get 4k a month if including the completion bonus of 6k per term - 1000/m of a 6 term, its a bit of a joke that apparently the council members have discussed their pay 3 times allegedly already if what i read above is true - i dont know the facts happy to be corrected. but if true and the council formed really not that long ago... shows very much where their attention for their role in council lies... i thought this was a council of people who were about looking over the people, not themselves, there should not have been 3 meetings involving them and their pay that really leaves a sour taste in my mouth because its very selfish and not what a council should be doing... honestly before reading this today i thought it was a community based role and not employment, while its not my money and im not losing anything from this and i dont have any interest in upsetting anyone or their pay packet... if money was the reason you joined the council... is it really right you are there in that position of power? it should be about comunity and game not council remuneration. not looking to upset anyone... i just think that reeks of non sense... and of course its in the best interest of a council member to defend that but unless your doin 20-40 h a week or having to quit full time jobs... there should not be a way above average salary being paid out to roles such as council members. its really not best use of the companies money... we havent even generated revenues from the full game yet and we're looking to pay rise council members? this seems so wrong... its also worth saying if you have a media platform too you will benefit from the platform as politicians do. access to privy info as well as traffic opportunity to youtube videos etc

[neat hill]

I think certain doctors get paid around 100$ an hour... respectfully... i dont think thats a fair remuneration at all. and i think you have a massive conflict of interest as a council member discussing what your remuneration should be.

[deft galleon]

This proposal was submitted for community review for precisely that reason. To be clear, I'm currently averaging about $34/h based on my time tracking.

To your previous points: The current council has been elected for about 3 weeks now. This is the first time this council has visited the issue of pay with an IIP.

Other than that, I accept your feedback. You're allowed to feel how you feel and I'm not offended by your perspective.

To be clear though, this proposal is for a REDUCTION to $4000/month. If another proposal isn't brought forward to reduce council pay, it will remain where it currently is at $5000/month. This proposal is not for a pay raise.

[neat hill]

oh my! aha