GCCP-XX Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC structure

[simple rose]

This proposal aims to strengthen the DAO by reducing council salaries and restoring full decentralization to the Illuvium Main Council (IMC), ensuring that all voting power is derived from token stakers.

1. Reduction of Council Salaries:
   IMC: From $3750 to $1250
   ICC: From $1500 to $500
   ICC Head: From $2250 to $750

2. Restoration of Full Decentralization to the IMC:
   From 4 elected members to 5 elected member.

Full proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zd2CccPuLc3xKLR1_UXOZOAosYid2I0ppTEsPvOUhDo/edit?usp=sharing

[fallow sparrow]

Looks good

[burnt raft]

now that there's no risk why does IMC get paid more than ICC?

[glacial idol]

I think this needs to split into two. I agree with the council pay but i don’t agree with removing labs from the council.

I do also agree with Filow, flat rate of $500 across the board

[simple rose]

theres still risk

[burnt raft]

how so?

according to Kieran it's just a bunch of anons across the world.

[simple rose]

you can still sue the council, and they could be personally liable

[simple rose]

we are all doxxed to the team

[burnt raft]

but that won't be required anymore if I understood correctly.

[simple rose]

lab reps can still be elected just like before gov v2

[simple rose]

we havent passed a gccp on that

[burnt raft]

then get to it. And why a fixed pay and not 0.1% treasury revenue for each council member?

[simple rose]

im not sure we should give team more work to do with the calculation.
as seen with the outstanding revenue distribution to landowners

i rather propose a low number rather than % of anything

also it usually took team a few weeks to make the council pay

[simple rose]

8 out of 10 council members are doxxed to the public

majority are content creators

i dnt see the point of doing anon council lol

[burnt raft]

lol

ok

[simple rose]

parallel is having their election atm
afaik their pay is $120k/year for full time

8 members

[burnt raft]

now that you mention this, what's up with having council members that are part of other gaming DAO councils as well?

not to mention everyone that seems to have better things to focus on besides Illuvium and their council roles... EthLizards, Illuvidata, Polemos 👀

[simple rose]

[pure granite]

TLDR: Any reduction in current council pay i am supportive of, especially after labs took serious cut backs the council should to. So thumbs up from me ^_^

I did suggest connecting council pay to a higher capped amount but funded from revenue distributions in another related thread. So the pay is dynamic depending on how well illuvium performs and also self-sustainable in the future as well.

I think the pay should also be equal across both councils as well as suggested above.

Finally it would be epic to use vILV more often so more ILV can be staked and the community stakers can be more involved but that is probably for another discussion.

My 5 cents ❤️

[neon token]

Are responsibilities and tasks for IMC and ICC remaining the Same as they are now?

[simple rose]

we prob can do a dynamic pay in the future but i really dnt want to add more work for the team. The revenue calculation can take awhile especially if we have credit card payments. so im proposing just a simple pay cut

[simple rose]

yes, no change

[burnt raft]

paying less it's just an incentive to work even less...

[simple rose]

as if we work harder with more

[twin anvil]

The problem with current pay is that it isn't enough to make it a full-time job for anyone but costs the DAO a lot. I wish we could afford to pay council over $100K each so we could start demanding full-time effort but we aren't in that position. So, yes I agree with lowering pay.

I don't agree with taking out a labs member. I think voting turned out better after we changes it to just have Kieran automatically in.

[burnt raft]

The problem with current pay is that it isn't enough to make it a full-time job for anyone but costs the DAO a lot.

maybe not for you and me but there are those where the council pay is enough for them.

I still don't get why IMC would get paid more when we're not doxxing new council members.

[twin anvil]

I have yet to see a person voted into council who did the job full-time.

More work? Still a risk of being sued. Even if they aren't doxxed most people are easy to track. I mean, I am not doxxed but the team has sent me merchandise and if a court said they had to release that info...

[burnt raft]

but that's the thing... Everyone is under the risk of being sued...

And ofc no one does the job full-time because:

• a) They think there's nothing to do.
• b) They have a 9-5 job.
• c) They think being a content creator is part of the council job.

pick your poison

[twin anvil]

I have never discussed this with a lawyer but I assume IMC has a greater chance of being sued than ICC.

[burnt raft]

wait... How come the team sent you merchandise? 😛

you must have made purchases before no?

if we're in here divulging customer information we have a serious problem.

[twin anvil]

I bought D1skplates.

[simple rose]

i cant see that council will have enough things to do for a full time commitment. most of the time we have to wait for data from team or implementation

[simple rose]

IMC is more of a decision maker than ICC. sometimes IMC make quick decisions based on discord voting.
while ICC role is more about sentiment gathering and proposal vetting

as for degree of risk.
idk if it shared equally between the 10 of us or skewed to imc

[burnt raft]

well if you guys were trying to use this period with a low playerbase as an opportunity to actually work on improving the DAO I'm sure there would be a lot more GCCPs going out or a gov v3.1 or v4 doc.

[simple rose]

there have been discussions on it

this proposal and the term limit are part of what im suggesting for gov rev

[pure granite]

Yep, that makes sense

[near marsh]

How will we benefit from "Restoration of Full Decentralization to the IMC"? All I see is potential for rifts between labs and the council and the need to appoint and pay for 1 more unqualified person.

To clarify I do agree with the salary reduction.

[wary peak]

Epoch 11 nomination process starting in a bit over a week .... let's get this over the finish line 🔥

[burnt raft]

this should have simply been pay cut proposal if we really wanted to push this asap.

[simple rose]

[neon token]

It could have been posted when other paycuts happened, there would be plenty of time. 🙃

[neon token]

• I don't really see why IMC earns more than Double than ICC with current tasks and responsibilities.
• I don't Like that there is a possibility that there is no one from the Team sitting in IMC (not even as a guest for communications sake)

[simple rose]

25 reached.
<@&1107754780744487002>

[finite kindle]

25 👍 reached, we will upload to GitHub.

Before voting, though, the ICC would like to further gauge community sentiment.

1. Scalable Compensation Model

Instead of a flat pay cut, we believe a scalable model tied to DAO revenue or token price would be a more sustainable and optics-friendly solution.

This idea has come up repeatedly in community conversations, and we think it avoids the need to constantly revisit council pay.
It also presents better optics than another blunt reduction—especially compared to other projects in the space.

Minimum and maximum rails can be set at certain values to guarantee a fair pay and attract the right candidates to represent the DAO.

2. Labs Representation on the IMC

Several community members have raised concerns about removing the Labs seat from the IMC.

It would feel odd—and potentially reduce effectiveness—to have no Labs representation. Unless there’s a strong reason to decentralize this further, maintaining a guaranteed seat for Labs may be the more stable and pragmatic path forward.

Summary

Both of these suggestions have received broad community support, and we’d love to gather more sentiment from you all here in the thread before anything final is decided.

Let us know what you all think about it!

[sick cosmos]

1) Scalable Compensation Model

🅰️: Fixed 500/1250
🇧: Scalable/Tied to revdis with bottom rails of 500/1250

2) Labs Representation on the IMC

🅰️: Kieran guaranteed spot
🇧: Kieran has to get elected

[neon token]

I feel a scalable model with a fix Minimum of 500/500 and a maximum of xyz would be nice to have

[sick cosmos]

And do you think IMC should then get more % to eventually get more than ICC or youd keep both the same?

[burnt raft]

1) if you want option 🇧 with pay tied to revdis what you really need is a top rail not a bottom one.

And I still don't get why IMC gets paid more.

here's my option 🇨 council gets paid 0 and it becomes a voluntary job for those that really care about the DAO and we instead hire a full time DAO manager to write all proposals, governance newsletter and meeting minutes.

[neon token]

With current tasks, i don't think IMC should earn more than icc.
I guess i depends how much one values the "decision" making

[finite kindle]

I think there’s a valid point to be made that the IMC will consist of highly qualified members—and highly qualified candidates should be paid more than the average ICC member, who may have less of a resumé and more of community trust.

I like to compare it to game development: a senior dev might work fewer hours than a junior dev, but still earns more due to experience and impact.

That said, I think that should go hand in hand with a proposal to expand the council responsibilities and implement some form of accountability—like requiring a monthly report on what was accomplished.

Lastly, I don’t think an uncapped IMC or a very high cap is necessarily a bad thing. If Illuvium becomes extremely successful, wouldn’t we want to pay our DAO leaders accordingly and scale compensation in line with that?

[burnt raft]

"highly qualified members"
sorry had to laugh 🤣

and ofc why doesn't it surprise me your take on no cap for pay.

[glacial idol]

If you leave it uncapped, then i think you have to justify why someone working a few hours a week on the council gets paid more than the artists/developers who make the game. Sounds unfair to me so i’m always going to vote for a cap. It can be a reasonable cap for sure.

Honestly to me:

• 4 elected council members (no distinction between ICC/IMC. reintroduce that when the DAO grows). 1 Permanent labs representative
• Pay becomes variable with a sensible min/max rail, taken out and tied to revdis. (Suggest 500-4000 USD as the range, +250 USD per X increase in revenue, like 50k to start?)

(just my personal opinion not that of labs FWIW)

[burnt raft]

I agree with this, 4 council members would be more than enough. Unfortunately I doubt that will ever get approved.

[finite kindle]

Just to clarify I think there will be extremely high qualified candidates in the long future if the project is successful. And I don't think I would have a chance of getting into IMC. By a long shot.

[simple rose]

im pretty sure Labs seat in the IMC is pretty secured, afaik the co-founders have around 27% of total vILV if compared to the last IMC election turnout.

[burnt raft]

you can have highly qualified candidates but that still doesn't mean they'll win. Elections are based on popularity.

tbh I would rather have a less qualified council member but one that is really dedicated to a highly qualified one that doesn't care about the project besides when its of their own interest or relates to their personal endeavours.

[simple rose]

yea maybe a cap of
ICC $1500
IMC $3750
basically the previous amount and make it only achievable if the dao is really generating good revenue

[neon token]

I think this can be re-evaluated as soon as illuvium gained Popularity and a consistent revenue Stream.
So far a good pay didn't lure in those highly qualified people.

In my Personal opinion the whole Governance structure should get reshaped, there was an attempt to do so as you know. 🙂
Might have been to drastic and or too early.
But as others mentioned, with the current size an icc wouldn't even be needed, if you can place people in the imc which are also actually active in the community.

With current tasks of imc, basically 1-2h of Meetings every (other) week and voting on some proposals (which don't get done by community anymore) and give a rationale on those, every $ more than 500 each month is in my opinion too much.

I think a cap is definetly needed if illuvium totally blwos up and you have councils paid 10k a month for 20h of work, that would be totally out of whack.
I'm of the opinion that one should get paid according to the work he does.... And it's a very Long Way to go to justify more than even 2k for a council seat imo.

[west stratus]

Good luck getting qualified candidates. Who’s gonna wanna participate and put in max effort at such a reduction?

[neon token]

So far pay and effort didn't correlate last couple epochs (maybe 1 or 2 exceptions).
What makes you assume that would Change for Next epoch?

[west stratus]

Then what is the point? It is a failed system

[stuck tiger]

Council pay shouldn't be tied to revenue. There are enough things tied to revenue. At worst it should be tied to a very small percent of profits

[neon token]

Tasks and responsibilities should get a rework imo.
Then you could talk about pay

[simple rose]

council is an elected position. elected positions usually dont have formal performance target like employees. the punishment is losing re-election or getting impeached (vonc)

thats why it is really hard to expect council members to really contribute

people can just chill and collect, and show up 9 months later just to get re-elected, as evidently so

[neon token]

Punishment of losing reelection might work when you have visibility what actually gets done behind the scenes and Media spreading the word.

Vonc doesn't work as it is Set up now

[simple rose]

well yea, especially if u have huge backing or have huge wallet yourself

[neon token]

That too

[west stratus]

Well I think Ima leave this for yall to figure out... speding so much time figuring out how much to pay, how gov should be structured, trippin over performance, and whatnot... I dislike politics in real life and it's no difference here. Watching all the pc bs and vonc and drama... good luck.

[simple rose]

ape dao tried to cut their council pay from $19k to $10k and the vote was lost

yat siu, animoca, defended the pay lol

it was a token voting

[dry musk]

I like the council pay be tied to revenue and we can re-visit or amend this but a pay cut is necessary now so big 👍 to this and hope it passes. I was even thinking that council pay should be stopped for the next 3 epochs.

[twin anvil]

I was hoping council pay would be in fuel rather than ILV, at least for now with things as tight as they are.

[knotty smelt]

Curious to know how many current council members will be running next epoch after these reductions.

[simple rose]

[uneven sail]

this is off topic but i dont see why we need two differnent councils.

ICC had to have a meeting just to know what IMC said in their meeting. stupidest shit ever

[fiery pivot]

I have held the position ever since Gov v2 was being proposed, having an ICC is not optimal when most of the work can be done by mods (gathering sentiment). I would dare to say just increase mods pay to tack on the work of ICC (sentiment and admin work) since they actually have set working hours as opposed to council.

Maintain the IMC where 4 members are elected and one is labs appointed. This has been working ever since and in my experience, most information always hinges upon the lab appointee being present and sharing the updates.

On this note, I would like to have a more structured reporting at a high level every month. Topics would include, financial reports (runway and burn strategies), development updates, direction, etc. As it stands, its usually talked about only when someone brings it up or is triggered by a community question.

On the pay and responsibilities, removing ICC would save the DAO (less increase to mods) at the same time still maintain the 'attractiveness' of the IMC position for talent to come in and want to run for the position. Aside from the "risk factor", the biggest difference of IMC and ICC is the heavy responsibility of making the decision of what is good for the DAO. While sentiment of the community is important to factor in, parroting what the community or even a handful of active members shouldnt be the reason why a council member votes that way. Its making the tough choices and discernment based not only on sentiment but also on sound business acumen.

I try not to compare council to a board but it does share similar traits. The main one is being the over-all decision making body of the project. Its not expected of the council members to be fully-employed with working hours, nor should it be compared to operational employees of Labs. Simply because, rank & file employees are not expected to make over-all decisions of the project. This is why we want to have talent with certain expertise and understanding of what decisions to make to push the project forward. It is important to distinguish the expectations and responsibilities asked of from the role.

Lastly, on the salary cap and what not, I think this just complicates things. When were getting more revenue and profit, then an increase is something that can be discussed when that happens. I would rather we focus on the amount that is commensurate to the following: 1) Risk; 2) Attraction of Talent; and 3) Current status of the project's runway.

[simple rose]

Scrub
Why do you think a Labs appointee having a guaranteed seat in the IMC is necessary? The council can invite the appointee to come to the meetings. Afaik this change was only made starting from Epoch 8, did the council had issues in the 7 previous epochs? based on the epochs prior to gov v2, we saw Labs appointee won the elections.

i just checked, Labs won the last 4 out of 7 IMC elections before gov v2

[fallow sparrow]

On one hand I agree with only 4 council members, but my main concern is that the IMC voting on their own pay structure is just flat out weird. The ICC is essentially the communities shield against the IMC, and I think they do an excellent job. Speaking from internally, the ICC often pushes back on the IMCs decisions through the lens of the Community often and helps engage with further robust discussion, I'd hate to lose that tremendous value.

[fallow sparrow]

I personally agree that Labs always needs a seat. But I wouldn't be against having 5 elect and 1 labs liason with no voting power honestly.

[fiery pivot]

Because the overall "sentiment" of Labs should be heard as well. Many times there are things being pushed which are not feasible both in development and in timeframe.

You base your assumption that labs appointee can always be elected. If that was the case then you have to pay the 5th seat. And what happens when a labs employee isnt running or worse didnt get elected?

To add, the reason why "Labs" won election is because the community wanted insights from Labs in the decision making body. Gov v2 formalized that.

The system works with 4 imc members and 1 labs appointed. I dont see what you are trying to solve by making it 5 elected and paid positions. Labs appointed is only 1 vote out of 5. Theres plenty of decentralization there.

Id rather be 100% sure that a Labs c-suite is in the council than roll the dice of a possibility we have a council without one for one reason or another.

[simple rose]

This proposal can save the DAO $15.5K, surely another $1.5K is a good price to pay to ensure all of the IMC votes are derived from vILV.
Labs insights will always be considered, and we will continue to work closely together with Labs having or not having a vote.

The system of 5 elected members worked fine for 7 epochs. I dont know what gov v2 was trying to solve by giving Labs a free seat?
I dont understand why we should force labs to have a vote, if Labs dont want to run for IMC. If Labs run for IMC, the cofounders have 27% of vILV.

For me, every council vote matters, there is no "just 1 vote"

[knotty smelt]

It's kind of like building a car by having people vote on which car parts they want to use. A Labs member is like an engine. Prior to the change, people felt obligated to vote for Kieran to have a seat, because it wasn't viewed as optional to not have him sit on council. I don't think that's changed. #1361546297680593048 message

We also didn't have vote splitting on Snapshot at that point, so doing 60% for Kieran and 40% for someone else wasn't an option.

I think it solved the engineless car problem pretty well though TBH.

Separately, I think if we really want to drill down into saving costs, we should probably be considering moving to a single 5 person council. When we cooked up Gov V2, we wanted to be prepared for what could happen if the game really blasted off out of the gate, and didn't want to be left in the position where we weren't able to parse player feedback or get informed ideas about different elements of the game and ecosystem (via game/strategy/community subcouncils).

Currently, a single 5 man body can absolutely handle governance, and it might actually be better to bring some of the communication mandate back to IMC. Uploading proposals is mandatory work, which resolves the issue some people have with council being a bit AFK. Beyond that, there's a handful of governance topics and player feedback to stay informed about when considering proposals and implications.

I'd advocate for a single council of 4 elected members, tasked with uploading proposals, tasked with communication about governance with the Labs appointed admin and the community, and tasked with voting on behalf of the DAO. It saves the most possible money and stops us from looking like a construction site where one guy is shoveling and the rest are standing around with their hands in their pockets watching.

If it needs to change in the future, good, we can change it then, but let's cater to the reality now.

[lapis cloud]

Your car engine example doesn't make much sense. Kieran or a lab representative can always join the imc meetings as an honorable guest to discuss important topics to give insight on things which the council does not have access to. Why does the labs representative have to be part of the council, what is the logical reason for this requirement?

Also if the council responsibilities would be to gather community sentiment and write proposals, then you can easily scale it down to one person, it would be more than enough for this type of tasks.

I liked @neon token idea regarding council reform the most out of all suggestions.

[simple rose]

In a business sense, I do invite our suppliers and contractors to project meetings, but not once we offer them voting power in our shareholder meetings or business decisions

[lapis cloud]

Let's lower the pay to 200 bucks and see who are the dedicated ones and who are the free loaders

[simple rose]

after further discussions with the ICC, it is probably better to set a low base salary, add incentive based on a % of treasury's revdis, and put a cap

ICC
min $500 + 0.05% of treasury's revenue, max $1500
example
Revenue $1m.
Treasury's revenue ~40%, or $400K
ICC salary = $500 + $200, or $700

if we generate $1m/month we prob wont mind the add

to hit the cap of $1500, we will have to generate $5m

[deep canopy]

please refer back to the initial message with the proposal.
#1361546297680593048 message

It's now been slightly changed to incorporate a sliding scale in stipend based on monthly revenue and a lower minimum threshold of 500-750-1250$ for the three types of council seats (ICC-ICCHead-IMC). alongside that, a max stipend cap is implemented so that council pay can't go out of bounds whenever Illuvium is majorly successful.

Understand that this is just a GCCP, and any future community/council member can make ammendments and have the stipend and tasks and even entire council structure be changed for the better.

I'll upload this version to github and get it in Rich's hands so that ICC + IMC can vote on it.

With nominations starting tomorrow, and pending council changes, this proves to be an eventful period!

[neon token]

i honestly liked jeremy's proposal of increasing the pay based on profits and not revenue.

[deep canopy]

Probably a good next step for council pay changes.

This step reduces pay by 2500 per IMC member and 1000 per ICC member.
In total, 15K~ per month.

Once revenue picks up to a break even point, stipend based on revenue vs profit would amount to 0.45% of 600K, or ~2700$ difference.