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.