Council Pay

[civic phoenix]

Recently, team members were laid off, took pay cuts, or opted to receive pay in tokens.

Let’s gauge sentiment on council pay for the next epoch.

Do you think we should keep it, halve it, or remove it entirely? Why?

[tepid echo]

Why for next epoch, could reduce it to up to 0 this one if people support it, no?

[civic phoenix]

imo it's more fair. council members can be personally liable. we took the risk for the compensation.

[old mica]

Id say revoke pay for the remaining 3 months to show solidarity, but that would suck for @flat mountain when he gets on after F4E officially leaves ICC.

At least make this fully transparent before / during his onboarding.

But yeah starting this final quarter we should have all future councils pay reduce to 0.

[civic phoenix]

it's probably easier for you @tepid echo since you have made the full $45k

[tepid echo]

You could resign then.
Not evben saying I think 0 pay is good, but should be part of the discussion then.

[mystic marsh]

Has Illuvium’s council actually led to better results? If its decisions have driven growth, improved community engagement, or helped avoid major pitfalls, then the costs might be justified.

But after several years, what is the actual ratio between money spent and value delivered?

If the council isn’t providing clear, measurable benefits, then what’s the point? Illuvium could achieve the same - if not better - results by implementing a direct voting mechanism for ILV holders, giving the community full control without the added expense and middleman.

I'd remove the council completely. If it's a mistake it can always be implemented again.

Or pause the council for 6-12months.

[civic phoenix]

oh wait it's actually $58500 for u viper

[tepid echo]

I don´t see how this is relevant, and I believe it is a lie, pretty sure it was about 45k at day of payouts for IMC
(edit was about 41k in €, so prob 45-46k$, good lie jag)

I am also one of the few who think coucnil should be payed, so idk why you try to attack? me
but classic anon jag I guess, wants his salary^^

Honestly insane "argument", Jag wants pay, because previous councils did get pay.
Why not argue with what value you provided this epoch or will going forward?

[civic phoenix]

ur not making sense

imo the top value the council provide is potentially corporate tax exemption and legal liability protection

we do provide opinion and feedback to labs (kieran mostly)

[tepid echo]

Jag: future council epoch pay reduction?
Viper: Why not current epoch?
Jag: "You say this because you got full pay in the past"?
Council took on liabilities.
Viper: Past pays don´t matter, you could resign and not have liabilities.

[civic phoenix]

and also communication between community and team

[civic phoenix]

im not resigning

[tepid echo]

Those don´t sound like things of substantial value to be fair.
Corporate arguments, don´t seem like you need a payed council for that.

[civic phoenix]

maybe find a job in one then comment

[tepid echo]

What?
Do you actively think you should get current pay for "we give feedback from community to kieran and communicate between team and community"?

[old mica]

What were your tasks last epoch?

[civic phoenix]

no, scroll up and read

[tepid echo]

This is what you said.

[civic phoenix]

my answer is no to your question

[tepid echo]

Then why are you opposed to reduce to up to 0 this epoch?

[civic phoenix]

and i asked u to scroll up and read. i said the top value is tax and legal

[tepid echo]

I did respond that you likely don´t need a payed council for that benefit.

[civic phoenix]

i agree with you. We are 10 epochs in.
i dont see the council can directly contribute to revenue or game dev with the limited power we have

[civic phoenix]

i wont speak on behalf of others. i personally took the risk when i signed with assumption that the DAO would have continued the registration under VARA

without being registered, we can be personally liable

$45k is definitely wont cover lawyers fees

i asked for D&O insurance, but looks like it is too expensive for treasury to pay

[old mica]

So where are we now? Do we revoke pay for next council because they wont have the legal risks?
Or do we not pay them yet they remain liable personally?

Because I would be scared away if i were able to be sued for millions of dollars 🤣 at least pay me 60K (now 40K~) a year so i can enjoy a few months of luxury if you intend to bury me in millions of legal fees. 😄

[civic phoenix]

i reckon they will still have the risk. but they will run for council knowing the risk

[tepid echo]

I mean so did anyone before. Pay changing didn´t have 0 precedence as well, change to 0 would have had yes.

Obv we would need legal council to judge how likely legal issues are, from talking about this in the past it was very low though.

[civic phoenix]

if we reduce to 0, that means they wont be compensated for taking the risk. D&O insurance is not cheap, lawyer fee is not cheap

hopefully, people are still willing to accept that

[civic phoenix]

legal council cost money, my lawyer charged retainer and hourly

even if the case is weak, you still need representation

and we are talking about multiple jurisdiction

i think this can be mitigated if people pledge to run for next epoch without pay

see if we can get enough nominees

[tepid echo]

First someone would have to sue you or there are 0 costs.

Then the question is the collision of your "mandate" to act DAO first, or own interest of paycheck due to risk inquired.

What if there would be a vilv vote on this e.g.?
You could see it as unfair, arguably even a bad precedence, but if vilv thinks that way, it would be what it is, right?

[civic phoenix]

Can you guarantee me that no one will sue? The pay is like an insurance if it does happen.

Yes, you can already propose a GCCP to remove the pay. Or propose an IIP to introduce referendum

[tepid echo]

There is a big difference if the likelyhood is 0.1%, 1%, 10% etc.
Outside of death and taxes there aren´t realy 100% things in this world.

[buoyant basin]

Is the current council salary warranted for the roles and responsibilities? In my opinion no, maybe 10% to 5% of what it is now and maybe in locked ILV. You can get sued for doing anything these days... and if Illuvium came to that i think our old mate co founders are holding up the brunt of that responsibility not the councillors. They are probably more likely than ever to get sued from hr laws after cutting down their workforce recently. Crypto is so unregulated and way shadier stuff going on than council meetings and decisions and different laws for different councillors in different countries.... i find the defence "i might get sued so pay me 40k" is a bit silly.... if we wanted to follow a truly faceless DAO process we would use vILV alot more for all up voted iips.

[mystic marsh]

But if the council had more power, what would have actually improved?

We don't have to remove the council, but we could at least freeze it for 12 months and the members can work if they want as volunteers.

[old mica]

Definitely not the strongest defence indeed 😄 Thats just (part of) my internal debate on IMC risk if i were to nominate for IMC next epoch.

[civic phoenix]

it is a dilemma. It really depends on how you value DAO in a gaming project.
i believe with more monitoring access the council can do more.
yea i think it is possible to remove pay and if the situation improves, we can reassess

[sage bone]

No one can guarantee anything. If your argument is that council doesn't deserve pay, should that not apply to the current epoch? Or do you view your risk as greater than future councils? Will future councils not be taking on that risk?

This needs to be more holistic than just removing pay. If you want to turn council into an unpaid body, you should remove risk by restructuring the DAO.

That could be putting voting in the hands of token holders and using council as a committee, with no decision making power. That makes it viable for people who are passionate about Illuvium, but doesn't put a bunch of risk onto people receiving no comp for that risk.

That could be transferring all decision making power to Labs. That increases the risk to the founders, and debatably the risk the project runs of being gutted if regulators decide to turn an unkind eye in Illuvium's direction. I'm not of the opinion that Illuvium can continue to exist without senior management.

In my view, most of the risk is proportional to the success of Illuvium. Regulators are more likely to look our way if Illuvium is generating revenue.

A reduction in council pay is warranted given the situation, but changing the pay to $0 with no changes to the structure is going to result in people who don't understand the risk they are taking stepping up. As you say, D&O insurance is not free, nor are the other ways a person can insure themselves against the risk they take on. So either someone is going to raw dog it with hopes and prayers, or they are going to go out of pocket. Tell me, what types of people are going to be super interested in that role?

[mystic moth]

If the community feels it should be removed or pay reduced then it should happen immediately. If you don't agree with this then you shouldn't be gauging sentiment atm.

[icy elbow]

• "I'm not of the opinion that Illuvium can continue to exist without senior management."
  with all due respect, but Illuvium's current situation is undeniably a reflex of the council's and team's lack of expertise to deliver on the Illuvium vision.

• "That could be putting voting in the hands of token holders and using council as a committee, with no decision making power."

IMO this should absolutely be how the DAO works.

[sage bone]

Illuvium would have folded YEARS ago without the founders we have, like most crypto projects do. It's worth considering how the structure of the DAO impacts them and their risk. People can have their issues with what's been done, but you won't convince me that this wouldn't just be a smoking pile of rubble without them.

That's not to say mistakes haven't been made - They have. I made mistakes while on council. Labs has made mistakes too. We could quibble for days about how blame should be allocated for those mistakes, and it wouldn't solve anything. All we have is how we're moving forward. This is always the case - You can't undo the past, you can only learn from it.

I'd love to see something concrete from someone who feels as strongly as you do about how the DAO should work. It's been annoying seeing these posts from Jag - Vague ideas to gauge sentiment on how we can disband or defund council. These really don't get us anywhere, they aren't actionable, there's nothing tangible specified. There's some amount of backend work that would need to be done to make a transition (unwinding the current structure of agreements between Labs/DAO, for example) that only the council is capable of addressing.

Maybe I'm remiss in expecting better, but feedback threads like this aren't serving anyone. My bags certainly haven't been pumped by a council member propagating doubt about the structure and efficacy of the DAO, so at minimum I'd expect those doubts to be accompanied by some kind of actionable plan to move forward, not just a sentiment of "Well I should get paid, then no one else should get paid in the future, but I don't really even believe in this idea."

Direct voting has merits and issues. You're within your rights to want the DAO to run that way. I don't personally think it's going to be easy to set things up that way, nor do I think it leads to better outcomes from proposal decisions than we've seen so far, but it's still valid for you to want that.

All I'm asking is that we get off the merry-go-round of vague anti-council ideas and actually do something. It's a waste of everyone's time and mental energy to talk about unactionable hypotheticals for weeks and weeks. This isn't what I want my elected council members spending paid time on.

Council pay to ~$1500/month? Actionable, and easy to write, easy to implement. Transition to vILV voting for proposals? Actionable, easy to write, almost certainly some additional considerations to implement but should not be undoable.

[icy elbow]

• "Illuvium would have folded YEARS ago without the founders we have, like most crypto projects do."
  you talking about Kieran, Aaron and Grant right? Cause if you're talking about council members I really don't follow.
  I'm all for concrete ideas and pushing the DAO to new heights. But we must start from a level plain field and sort out the basic stuff.
  We're a gaming DAO, our only focus should be on building great games, give voice to the community and have a somewhat decentralized process to address the IIPs.

can you tell me what has been the advantage for us from having a council so far besides the tax exemption?

since elections are a popularity contest, how come content creators are now more qualified to decide for the DAO than the entire DAO?

you could get away with the NDA excuse as you have been doing so far. But with the recent announcement from Kieran that we're going back to full transparency I don't think that will hold any longer.

[sage bone]

You can look through all the proposals that have been passed and think none of them are a good idea?

[icy elbow]

the proposals came from the community.

that's what a DAO is for. It doesn't require a council to approve proposals...

[sage bone]

In what world? The Illuvium Alliance Program? That's not from the community. Preventing insider trading? Not from the community.

[icy elbow]

and there's also very bad proposals approved so.

[sage bone]

Any favorites?

[icy elbow]

my point is those proposals could have made by a DAO manager. You just need to lay the foundation.

[icy elbow]

IIP-20 is something else.

[sage bone]

Yeah, but we don't have a DAO manager, and we'd need to implement one. That's tangible and we could talk about it if it were written up in a proposal. Instead we're gonna swirl around in circles talking about vague shit while nothing gets done.

[icy elbow]

well it would be up to the council to read this thread and make sh1t happen... (if they were actually competent)

[sage bone]

Didn't care for the structure of the land sale? Honestly thats one of the last ones that came to mind

Or just the Fuel portion of the proposal?

[icy elbow]

more so the fuel portion. The land sale was fine. Everything related to economy is a mess.

[sage bone]

I think it's mostly just a mess in that we don't have revenue, and without revenue there doesn't exist a "returns from nowhere" spell anyone can cast.

Some other stuff too, but 90% of the complaints I hear around Zero are ROI related.

[icy elbow]

it's not really about having revenue but rather a system designed for mass adoption without thinking things could go the other way around. We should always design things for the worst case scenario and that just wasn't the case.

[sage bone]

I'd posit that there exists no revenue sharing model that will make people happy when there's not much revenue.

[icy elbow]

that's obvious

[sage bone]

Plenty of people giving feedback who don't view it as obvious lol

[icy elbow]

I warned about the fuel economy wouldn't work like half a year ago way before we even launched.

[sage bone]

They wanna move the pennies between piles.

[icy elbow]

made multiple threads about it. Some with over 1k comments in it. What happened? Absolutely nothing.

I think if we're going to restructure the DAO it has to come from the council.

[sage bone]

At any rate, I think we're aligned that we'd both like to see some tangibles put on the table if this is something worth pushing for. I'd love to see a proposal to get something done instead of additional weeks of "feedback gathering". It's also still not outside the realm of possibility for council to read the room and take a voluntary pay cut in light of Labs reducing manpower. Doesn't even need a proposal.

[icy elbow]

sure but is this really about what coucil earns? Couldn't care less about that. If they actually did a decent job. But since I don't see any work being done that's worth the pay I don't see a reason to keep things as they are.

[sage bone]

This thread is about council pay, but there have been others about dissolving council that are similar.

[icy elbow]

just to sum this up, I think the thread we really need is DAO-restructure. Which would actually involve ending the council as it currently stands and changing their pay.

btw if we don't count the council members votes, the dissolving council thread is 11-2 in votes. Just saying.

can we really call ILV a governance token when the only things we vote on is an election every epoch?

oh and VoNC, forgot those...

[old mica]

can you call the US a democracy when all they do is vote once every 4 years hoping something changes? :]

is silly remark, I get your point.

[icy elbow]

https://tenor.com/view/exploding-brain-mind-blown-explosion-fireworks-gif-16297776

[buoyant basin]

Maybe council remuneration can be sourced solely from the current revenue distribution amount. So 1% or 0.5% or 0.1% of the last revenue distribution allocation is to pay councillors. Therefore if Illuvium is earning good revdis at the time the council is rewarded appropriately and it is also dynamic in slow times as well. Maybe council pay would be less contentious then as it's aligned to what ILV stakers are receiving at the time. Finally I agree with @icy elbow we should be using vILV alot more

[civic phoenix]

That is the idea, to find people who are willing to take the risk without pay or with very minimum pay.
for me personally, id like to finish this epoch with the terms that i signed for. idk about the other members.

[civic phoenix]

it needs a gccp, approved by 7 council members. i want to gauge sentiment regardless of my opinion or want. i have my own personal opinion.

[civic phoenix]

rich is, as the community manager

[icy elbow]

being DAO manager can be quite a hectic job at times.

[civic phoenix]

lol blickter.
this is the first time a council member is dared to speak the truth and started thread to accomodate dissolving and defunding the council.
the project had funding issue too in the past, did the council do this during that epoch?

wdym not actionable?
the imc has discussed about dissolvement last week. it's not about unwinding

and about pay, the last gccp about pay came from council lol.

[sage bone]

Not even close to the same role. Unless Rich has done a 180, I'm 99.9% sure that he doesn't want to take on writing all proposals on behalf of the DAO.

[mystic moth]

So noble, wanting to lessen council pay but not willing to apply it to himself. 🤣 🤣

[civic phoenix]

this is the problem with the NDA, it's annoying as hell because there are things we cant freely discuss with the community

[civic phoenix]

yup im being honest with you.
doesnt mean im not running for next epoch tho lol

tbh my mistake, i didnt know the risk being in the imc and i didnt know i should have taken a D&O insurance

maybe this is something that need to be clearly advertise for the next election

[civic phoenix]

this is a good idea

[sage bone]

You're acting like you're the only one who has ever talked about a change to council structure or compensation. Compensation is a topic every single epoch. So are structural changes to the DAO. You're not special in this regard. I'm not sure what unique insight you think you're bringing to the table here. It's always been a challenge to balance compensation with the risk taken on and the time spent performing the role.

This is the first epoch that's happened post-launch. Prior to that, I'd argue that there actually was more risk to council members that did justify the pay. So yes, there have been epochs in the past where raises have happened, but it's not a 1:1 comparison to past epochs. We're live now, we know how much revenue the games are generating. These are no longer unknown quantities. Labs is adjusting to this reality, if you truly believe that council pay should be $0, why not voluntarily accept $0 of pay? It's just an obvious contradiction, and it doesn't seem very honest to me.

If you're talking about this as the IMC, why don't you bring a solid proposal forward so we can actually talk about what this looks like instead of speculating in circles? It'll be infinitely more useful than what's happening now.

[civic phoenix]

can you give me the link to the minutes that show council discussing about dissolving the council/dao and removing council pay?
Epoch 8 increased pay from $3k to $5k, ur in it right?

how come pre-launch has more risk? The token price was much higher. and during this epoch we are revamping a lots of things.
this is the epoch when we find out that revdis is very low. how is it logical to say that we have less risk lmao

how can i be more honest lol
do you even read my posts?

blickter read the description of the post, im asking if we should keep, halve or remove it. that is the proposal. how more complex you want the proposal to be

blickter, happy customers/investors dont sue.
look at the token price and land price, now tell me again that people are more likely to sue pre-launc

lets be fair here, we are 10 epochs in, everything bad that happened to the project has been culminated for 10 epochs. how many epoch have u been

why cant u prevent this from happening

[rapid kiln]

Alrightttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

(waits for slow mode) lets bring this back a little hey? 🙂

[civic phoenix]

the discord is too slow already lol

[icy elbow]

yeah I don't think throwing mud at each other is how we turn the tables on this project... Let's try stay constructive guys... The DAO needs change and needs all of you, we're all part of this so let's try making this DAO great again.

[civic phoenix]

id like to ask @sudden grotto if he can share with us how SA can manage a council without pay and why

[sudden grotto]

1. The Star Atlas DAO has a legal entity/Foundation set up that takes the brunt of the liability.

2. SA Council Members aren't responsible for making voting decisions (not a representative structure, all governance is a token-weighted vote).

3. Coincidentally, the realization after the first Epoch/Term within the SA DAO Is that unpaid Council positions don't work as effectively and there's currently a push to introduce Council Pay to improve its effectiveness & attract the best contributors.

[frail dagger]

I hadn't even thought about a dual system until you mentioned it. Honestly I quite like this.

[sudden grotto]

What do you mean by dual system?

[frail dagger]

The council would be an unpaid committee and the token holders would do the actual voting. This allows council members to best inform the community before a given vote, and potentially even eliminate votes entirely for the smaller items.

keeps things streamlined, removes liability and risk for council members, and gives ultimate power to the community.

Kind of best of both worlds in many ways.

[sudden grotto]

Well you just described exactly how Star Atlas is structured lol, nothing wrong with that system, it's just different than what we have here.

[frail dagger]

Besides the unpaid positioning losing the ability to onboard the most qualified personel into the role, I don't see too many downsides. Given the committee is able to control what does and doesn't go to vote at least a little. So token holders don't vote on too many proposals.

[sudden grotto]

The downsides to open governance voting are just;

1. Participation can be quite low.
2. A lot of the vILV power is with a select few.

[civic phoenix]

thanks so much jp for sharing.
i see that many new projects are using foundation. Cayman island maybe.
so all voting is a referendum?
and do u mind sharing whats SA council role and respondsibility ?

[sudden grotto]

I will also say it is much slower.

[civic phoenix]

they onboarded jp, hes more than qualified

[sudden grotto]

Yes, all voting is a referendum, with a minimum for quarum.

Council's role is mostly to have direct communication with the ATMTA team (SA "Labs") and to assist the community in bringing forth governance proposals. The biggest difference is that the Council does not vote on those proposals, outside of their personal POLIS token voting power. Council is just there to educate the rest of the community on how to engage in governance effectively, provide help and advice on drafting props, etc.

It's also worth noting SA doesn't currently really have game improvement or economy decisions out to governance, it's mostly just reviewing requests for the Star Atlas DAO's treasury of $2m~ to be disbursed for things like creator rewards, funding community growth, licensed use of the IP, etc, so the Council is kind of helping manage the disbursement of those funds via guiding community members in governance.

[buoyant basin]

Isnt the way vILV is structured a 1000 wallets with 1 staked vILV has more weight than 1 wallet with 1001 staked vILV? I thought the vILV scaled on diminishing returns?

[civic phoenix]

do u think SA dao system is more or less helpful for SA labs ?

[sudden grotto]

I would participate here at Illuvium for free too. I am involved with SA for free because I care about that community too, and want to see web3 gaming win bigly. Would be here for the same reason.

The MAIN reason i MIGHT reconsider being here if it's an unpaid council position WITH liability (as-is structured now) is because it's not a great idea to take on risk for no reward.

[sudden grotto]

I think their referendum system and the disconnect between Council Members as having governance authority (voting power) vs. just being helping hands has resulted in the SA DAO system moving much slower and has been much less productive. That is working ok for them right now because there is a separation of game/economy feedback and disbursement of the DAO's treasury, but here at Illuvium my concern would be that it would disconnect what makes our governance structure so powerful (the community having a real voice in game/economy feedback) and the ability for this governing body to move quickly.

[sudden grotto]

i'm not sure how exactly it's calculated, but i have heard others previously declare that there's a small few that effectively control the referendum voting outcome simply because there are not very many participants. IF we had 1000 wallets with 1 staked vILV each i don't think it would be a problem, but we don't, and our referendum votes conclude with far less in individual participation.

[buoyant basin]

I still think using vILV is more diversified than a few council members...and if we used vILV more often for more decisions alot more people would stake and get involved and reach that 1000 voting wallet situation, right now there is no real use case to stake ILV for vILV for a governance perspective really.... @civic phoenix if you like council pay being a % portion of current revdis at the time of the epoch please raise it, write it up and push it forward ❤️

[upbeat cave]

A percentage of RevDis as council pay sounds nice for now—if Illuvium makes no money, the council earns nothing. But what happens if Illuvium starts doing well and the council's earnings become disproportionately high compared to their contributions? We’d have to revisit the system again.

This raises the question: why not simply reduce council pay now while revenue is low? Then, once Illuvium is up and running—or if we need to offer competitive compensation to attract high-value nominees—we can adjust it to a fair amount that reflects the risk and work involved.
I think doing it manually, we are being more precise while it's the same effort.

[buoyant basin]

Pegging it to a current revdis % will probably keep discussions on council pay to a minimum as its dynamic on how illuvium is performing revenue wise and it also prevents council wages causing the dao to go backwards in lean times like now. I'd argue its the fairest way, no one can be like a fixed amount of x$ is too much or x$ is too little as thats what the dao is earning revenue wise. If an effective council does a good job and the dao earns decent revdis during their epoch than that council is rewarded for it. If anything it incentivises councillors to work hard for the dao to succeed more....

[sudden grotto]

I kinda like tying it to revdis tbh

[civic phoenix]

how much % do you think is appropriate?

[buoyant basin]

how much was the last revdis? like 300k USD? and how much did ILV Labs received? i suppose is it a % from the entire revdis pool or just from the treasury pool earnings? 1-3% Seems a bit brutal now but may be big later, and at least council wages are now tied directly to incoming revenue thus its self sufficient...

[civic phoenix]

yea one of the reason why ive spent so much time in the discord is because we are such a close-knit community and i believe we have a voice.
however, we have lost so many good community members over the years.
the proposals can be helpful but they can be detrimental too, especially now that the team need to do a lot of revamps/pivots

[civic phoenix]

so far we paid out 500eth since launch or $1.35m at today's eth price.
3 months of council salary = 85k or about 6% or revdis?

[buoyant basin]

ok roughly 1% of that is $13,500 split across all council members ICC/IMC 3% would be $40,000, this is assuming we have hit the lows of revdis at the moment, so when Illuvium succeeds it would be a lot more generous, the % amount probably best discussed with the councilors but I think somewhere between 1-3% would seem reasonable? This has halved the current council wages and also tied it directly to future revenue distribution with potential for growth way past 80k when Illuvium succeeds and also doesnt burn the runway if success is delayed for leaner times to

[civic phoenix]

yea i think we can structure the pay based on a few revenue numbers. the higher the revenue the lower the percentage etc

[rapid kiln]

If you’re going to tie to revdis, you should make it something like:

Pay = Min(4500, (1% / number council
members))

This way it scales as required but also has an upper limit so you don’t start have council members with 20k/month

[buoyant basin]

I love it ❤️

[civic phoenix]

sounds good.

was hoping council could make 20k/month tho
jk jk

[icy elbow]

I don't think we would need an unpaid committee at all. Here's how I would do this:

We introduce a pre-proposal stage. Where it would require a total of 25 positive votes (upvotes - downvotes).

After a pre-proposal reaches the minimum positive votes threshold the sponsor could then work with the DAO manager to write the official proposal based on the pre-proposal feedback and would have to pay the DAO a small ILV fee to submit the proposal to the official vILV voting stage.

As you can see, no need for a committee at all. 🙂

[icy elbow]

I also don't think that a select few having a lot of vILV power is such a downside actually. Those with more skin in the game should have a more prominent voice than the others. Kieran and Aaron votes should be pretty impactful since they're the founders and hold a lot of ILV. They can always abstain from voting if they don't wanna interfere with the DAO's decision.

[hoary ingot]

Both of them Holding many is actually the good Part of a System where every staker can vote 🙂
But it also defeats at the same time the purpose of the System itself depending on how Big the share of them are in contrary to those who actively are voting.

[icy elbow]

yes that's true. But if other DAO members want to have more weight on the decisions then they just need to buy more ILV. I don't see why we should let ppl with low amounts of vILV make decisions on the project. In fact this is actually how we would incentivize ppl who care about the project to buy and stake ILV.

this is actually the problem with democracies. Where someone who pays thousands of dollars in taxes has the same voting power as someone who earns minimum wage and pays zero taxes.

[frail dagger]

An ILV fee to prevent the submission of slop. Not a bad workaround for sure. Have you considered that a vILV system would actually give individuals significantly less power in the short term?

Considering how many have unstaked their tokens and just how many tokens various members of the team currently have, labs would have quite a bit of sway on any proposal.

I'm not opposed to it, just making a note.

[icy elbow]

for starters yes. But as I said this would be exactly what would motivate someone who cares about this project to actually buy and stake ILV.

[frail dagger]

I could be wrong. But despite every project boasting governance as a reason to hold a token. Not once has anyone told me to buy a token for that purpose.

But it's better than nothing I suppose

[icy elbow]

well there ain't many projects out there with such good IP and passionate community like ours. Ppl buy tokens to make money. Not to be part of the project.

[solemn arrow]

Apologies but that's total crap. Decisions should be made not by high or low vilv holders, but by people who know what they are doing. Otherwise luggis would've been the best shot caller ever, a true MVP.

[icy elbow]

luggis wouldn't be forced to vote you know? He prolly invested in the token to make money and not for the governance. If he felt he didn't have the knowledge to influence these decisions he could simply abstain. And for the record when the voting power is centralized in a few individuals you can't really call that a DAO can you?

but I'm curious to know who are these "people who know what they are doing"

[solemn arrow]

And what if he was delusional about it and thought he knows best? What if that happens in the future? It rly makes no sense

[solemn arrow]

Figure it out

[icy elbow]

it makes no sense to you.

[solemn arrow]

It just makes no sense

[icy elbow]

right, go tell that to other DAOs that work like this.

[solemn arrow]

That makes no sense either. Which daos? What is their product? Maybe it's more in line with their investors expertise?

We are a gaming dao for example, to you the highest vilv holder has the best vision and knows what's best for the DAO? That makes sense to you? Lol

[icy elbow]

Figure it out

what is your proposed vision for the DAO then? Surely the "people who know what they are doing" must be our content creators council members.

[solemn arrow]

Yeah sure buddy, as if I wasn't the one who brought that subject and the issue with it to light

[icy elbow]

actually the more prominent voice about this was @dry pier. But hey I'll wait for your ideas.

[solemn arrow]

My ideas about it are all over the topic where we discussed it. I don't wanna repeat them again cause people think I'm a hater/fudder already for some reason...

[dry pier]

Haven't read all of it but I see a tag from Filow so I'll throw in my few cents to the discussion.

We raised the council pay so we can have more people with knowledge and famous managers and I don't know what not interested. Since then we got no new people interested in Governance.

Since then we still have popularity contest every few months where depending on the pay we have more or less interested people. And we still don't know anything about anybody before voting for them.

How many people are voting next election?

[wispy hemlock]

I actually like this

[frail dagger]

Yeah the council started on this part of the conversation yesterday. Also on our minds

[quartz tangle]

As if lobbying wasn’t bad enough.