I propose implementing a payroll reduction for the DOLA salaries of three contributors. Their additional vested INVs will remain unchanged. This adjustment will ensure that their salaries continue to be fair to INV token holders, given the abovementioned issues.
Rationale:
All contributor compensation is paid from the pockets of INV token holders. We, as DAO members, reserve the right to revise these costs in order to ensure fairness and performance.
I propose these changes to you, INV voters, because the existing compensations of the three selected contributors are unreasonably high compared to the ROI and the market rates for these positions.
My proposal will save the DAO $117,600 per year that can be spent elsewhere, such as on bad debt repayments, DOLA liquidity bribes or INV token buybacks.
To avoid a conflict of interest, I recommend the three mentioned contributors to abstain from voting on this proposal.
Payroll Adjustments:
Wallet
Monthly Payroll 2023
Updated Monthly Payroll 2023
Yearly Payroll 2023
Updated Yearly Payroll 2023
Patb
0xE58ED128325A33afD08e90187dB0640619819413
$13,800
$12,000
$165,600
$144,000
nakamomo
0xBB20d477d4F22d7169ad4c5Bd67984362BE8bad0
$11,500
$5,000
$138,000
$60,000
Edo
0xED9376094Ce37635827E0Cfddc23bFbb6D788469
$11,500
$10,000
$138,000
$120,000
Total Yearly Reduction
$117,600
On-chain actions:
Remove PatB, Nakamomo and Edo from current payroll
Thanks for taking the time to post this. To provide more context for everyone, the current DOLA payroll is the following:
xWG
Wallet
Contributor
Monthly DOLA Salary
Yearly DOLA Salary Burn
GWG
0xE58ED128325A33afD08e90187dB0640619819413
Patb
$13,800
$165,600
GWG
0x27b8D1347bE36Ff697b48d1D74323E6a9f28eA6D
Ishita
$6,900
$82,800
PWG
0x34A7a276eD77c6FE866c75Bbc8d79127c4E14a09
Alien
$14,567
$174,800
PWG
0x9F3614afb3Df9f899caDBFfaA05c6C908059F726
0xmt
$14,375
$172,500
AWG
0xFDa9365E2CDf21d72cb0dc4F5FF46F29e4aC59CE
naoufel
$11,500
$138,000
TWG
0x962228a90eaC69238c7D1F216d80037e61eA9255
cryptoharry
$11,500
$138,000
CWG
0xBB20d477d4F22d7169ad4c5Bd67984362BE8bad0
nakamomo
$11,500
$138,000
CWG
0xc8a6fdd2586af7980776dc610c159a92e9db11c3
99donuts
$2,300
$27,600
RWG
0x2723723FDd3Db8ba2D6f0e1B333e90A7E60A0411
Karm
$11,500
$138,000
RWG
0xED9376094Ce37635827E0Cfddc23bFbb6D788469
Edo
$11,500
$138,000
Total
$109,442
$1,313,300
In relation to the actual proposal itself: I think it’d be good to provide more context/reasoning to justify the reductions and the amounts specifically for each contributor.
Thank you for bringing up this proposal @zee , I think you bring up some important points that needs to be improved within Inverse Finance
Realigning DAO to KPI driven compensation
Need for better communication of value created by individual contributors
Have contributors be beholden to INV holders desires
Making sure that spending is efficient
This is something the core team is conscious of, and what we’re actively working with r3gen finance to remedy. See Season 1 launch | temperature check for initial temperature check. The specifics of season 1 are still being worked on, but we’re hoping to move to periodical funding of working groups, where compensation and budget will be actively decided by a cooperative process between core contributors and INV holders on a bi-annual basis, and driven by milestones and KPIs.
I think the proposal can be improved in a number of ways:
Explain targeting of contributors:
Suggested lowering of Edo’s comp but not Karm’s comp, despite both contributing to the RWG. This is not a suggestion to lower Karm’s compensation, but merely to highlight the arbitrary nature of it.
No rationale specific to targeting these contributors beyond two bullet points: “Poor community growth, Lack of quantifiable KPIs for some contributors.”
Explain rationale for payroll cuts:
No justification is made for the specific cut in salary. Is this to align to some industry standard or average?
Give contributors a chance to justify their salary. We have a lot of cross-collaboration among WGs at Inverse, and someone’s specific role rarely encompasses all of the things they work on.
Avoid conglomeration of orthogonal effects:
While the unifying purpose of the proposal is to cut spending, lumping together revision of the performance of different people and working groups into a single proposal can be restrictive for voters. GWG, CWG and RWG serve different functions and the contributors and their salary should be weighed on individual terms.
Timing:
As mentioned earlier, the core team is conscious of issues raised by this proposal and is working on remedying the situation with a budgeting overhaul.
FiRM is currently seeing very good growth and Inverse is in a better situation than it’s been in a long while. Discouraging core contributors and potentially disrupting team productivity and coherence with their departure could take the wind out of the proverbial sails.
While I agree with the purpose of disciplining Inverse Finance spend, I think there are better ways to go about budgeting for Inverse Finance. It’s important that it becomes a process where INV holders are adequately informed, and where instead of asking for funding or cutting spending on an ad-hoc basis, it’s done consistently, purposefully and with strategy in mind.
Suggested path forward:
Community call with r3gen + WG heads to explain vision for budgeting overhaul along with accompanying explanatory post on the forum. An initial version of the process can likely be presented to the community in the coming weeks, at which point a dialogue on the specific budget, KPI, milestones etc. can start.
If the community of INV holders is unsatisfied with the proposal, and a satisfactory version of it can’t be found, move forward with individual audits of contributors performance going over every contributor’s salary and contributions.
I’m one of the founders at r3gen. We have been working closely with the Inverse Finance core contributors over the last few months to address many of the issues highlighted within your proposal.
Your identification of the importance of reducing bad debt is spot on, this will be critical for Inverse Finance to survive and proposer in the future.
We all want Inverse Finance to succeed, we also recognize that the current proposal and compensation structure has not provided community members with an effective mechanism to provide their perspective on financial and strategic decisions. That will be changing imminently.
We have created a 6 week plan that will cover the following:
Season 1 Strategy post
Growth Strategy post
Product Strategy post
New WG budget and proposal process
Proposals shared for each WG
You and other INV token holders will have the opportunity to provide feedback prior to these posts being shared on the forum via a dedicated Discord channel, and additionally when they are finally posted here on the forum. Ultimately INV holders will determine what is funded, and what is not. We have taken this approach optimising for transparency, improved decision making and empowerment of INV token holders.
Similar to @MT’s suggestions I would recommend we wait until these items have been shared and discussed before making any changes to our current contributor roster and pay. This will allow us to look at the organizations needs holistically and best set Inverse finance up for long term success.
Thank you for your response! I appreciate your points, and I’ll address them accordingly.
Firstly, I want to clarify that I used this proposal as my reference when discussing the current contributor compensations. It turned out that Karm’s compensation wasn’t up to date.
Let’s take a step back and consider the underlying reason for the last salary adjustment, which primarily aimed to address inflation. At the time of the salary raise, the CPI indicated an inflation rate of approximately 6.5%. However, the majority of salaries were increased by about 15%. It’s also worth mentioning that the most recent CPI stands at 4.9%. The magnitude of the raises doesn’t match inflation numbers.
Regarding the rationale behind the salary cut for Edo and Pat, it was an attempt to revert their compensations back to their previous levels. As for Nakamomo, his compensation is significantly higher than the average for his role. Inverse’s audience growth has remained relatively the same for the duration of Nakamomo’s presence as a community lead.
I understand the consequences of this proposal on the team. However, that still doesn’t justify the ongoing capital bleeding due to over-compensation and shouldn’t disrupt the team’s productivity as long as it’s fair. Please also notice that my proposal doesn’t touch on any of the members’ INV allocations.
As an INV holder and an old contributor to the DAO, I believe this proposal serves what’s best for Inverse’s future.
