A truly inviting and well-curated proposal! Congratulations to all the C.W.G Team members for drafting the proposal and the criteria are very clear. If we were to touch the 450K “annual” budget, how do we proceed, do we have a cushion for possible emergencies or do we make an extraordinary placement through another poposal? @c2yptic
2 Likes
Nice bro, good job.
voted yes
2 Likes
$320k/year seems a bit excessive
8 Likes
4.5mm JUP? At today’s prices that’s ~$5.85mm. In two years that could be many millions more. For what? For idea people to make up ideas? Did these guys write the code and build the website? I don’t see that in the writeup.
Crypto distorts our perception of what things cost - we get used to seeing multi-billion dollar coins absolutely ripping and it makes us look at $5+ million and say “Yeah that’s not a lot.” But it is. It’s a huge amount of money for a zero skill job.
We all want to make it, and I’m sorry, but if you want a million dollar payday you should have to risk your capital and develop skills like the rest of us. Voting millions to people for thinking about stuff and being involved in crypto is how we crash this project into the ground.
Vote money to things that matter.
Not to mention allocating themselves nearly a 100k USD salary for the two years? For whitelisting 100 tokens per day? Guys. Come on.
Also show us the expense report for the 100k in 4 months among 4 people. That’s 5k per month in “operating expenses” per person to focus on “processes, communications, and design that affect the community”.
If they want the 30k moderator salary they’re giving to discord, and option to renew at two years, with a 5% bonus on salary paid in JUP? That’s reasonable. I’d vote yes for that. Somebody needs to answer emails.
35 Likes
4.5M JUP ($5.6M) for incentives alignment is insane lol
20 Likes
Let me start off by saying I am not against a CWG and they should be paid for both there time and expertise.
That being said, I can’t help but see negatives in this proposal.
-
The expense budget looks mostly ok for the first year. 80k seems more than fair for each working group member, as well as 30k for mod compensation however, 100k overflow budget (~1/4 of the total budget) is for travel, lodging, etc… Who determines what etc is classified as? What happens to the misc budget if it is not fully used after 1 year? How do we know this isn’t going into the wallets of the working group?
-
Who is holding the accountability of the working group? What if one member were to abandon the project? Do the other members have the ability to vote the person out?
-
Industry standard for a vesting cycle is 4 years with 1 year cliff. I have never heard of a 2 year vesting cycle before - especially for a security/token that has already gone through a IPO/ICO. This would make sense if there was no monetary value already determined for the payout - that is why vesting is so appealing, but really what you are asking us to approve to is paying each CWG 900k - 1.1m $JUP. So really a ~500k guaranteed salary at MINIMUM. It also does not specify the breakdown of how much vesting each member is entitled to - is the mod entitled to any? This seems like it was brushed over pretty fast and it is quite important details.
Overall I vote no to the current proposal until the following are addressed:
- Accountability of the CWG and individual members
- A vesting period of 4 years with a more reasonable allocation.
- What happens at the end of the 2 year vesting period? Are new CWG members elected? Do they get the same vesting allocation?
- A explanation of how the equity was determined and the reasons for the amount.
34 Likes
I agree that 4.5M seems like a lot. However they also did not provide any clarity as to how long this budget is supposed to support the CWG. I would like to see how long this budget is proposed to support the CWG plus what happens when this budget has been fully expended.
If they’re proposing that this budget should carry the CWG through the next ten years with the current token price and a $450,000 budget then these numbers make sense to me. However like i said, there is no information regarding this specifically.
10 Likes
I understand that it is not about how much anyone has done in the past years, but how much they can contribute in the next two, based on the results of their contribution of the last 3 months. The background of everyone is just to have an idea for anyone who doesn’t know them, a presentation letter.
Also looks like working together with them, Meow feels the resonance of his vision.
6 Likes
I vote for…let’s move forward.
3 Likes
Proud to vote 100% ‘FOR’. My vote is to express confidence in your plan, declare my unwavering support in anyway possible way to support you as a DAO member to achieve your goals and trust that you shall be accountable. Hope this goes thru so your amazing team can move on to deliver.
3 Likes
I want to start by expressing my deep appreciation for the efforts of the CWG and the exceptional qualities of its members.
However, I have reservations regarding the JUP allocation strategy. Unlike the transparent breakdown provided for USDC allocations, details for JUP are not as clear. If we were to apply similar ratios, it would imply an allocation of approximately 800K JUP (valued around $1M at current rates) for each CWG member.
From my perspective, this seems somewhat excessive. The absence of defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and unclear accounting of the time commitment by the members raise questions. While I’m not advocating for stringent monitoring—trusting in their professionalism and understanding the autonomy required at this level—the magnitude of JUP allocation appears disproportionate.
Therefore, I suggest a revision of the current approach, favoring shorter allocation periods of six months with renewal options. This adjustment could serve dual purposes: firstly, it could heighten motivation among CWG members, knowing their performance will be reassessed in a short period, rather than receiving a substantial allocation with no immediate accountability over two years. Secondly, given the potential for significant price fluctuations within a six-month period, this could impact the subsequent allocation amount, aligning it more closely with current value.
22 Likes
it’s not a reward, it is an investment.
4 Likes
I fully support and endorse the CWG’s vision of creating a thriving and equitable Jupiter ecosystem. community involvement and best practices is exactly what a successful DAO needs.
2 Likes
I’m vote “FOR” LFG:fire:
2 Likes
I would like to see some change before committing for. 350k/yr per member is extremely high! 30k/yr per mod is extremely low. But do what you want. Did anyone else do the math and seee the red in the future? Or did I miscalculate?
5 Likes
voted 
5 Likes
Am I reading this right?
Each of the 4 members are getting 80k/yr salary plus a 730k/yr bonus in JUP?
5 Likes
good point, didnt they mention that jup is coming from somewhere else? such as LFG launchpad fees? or is that part of the 50MM
1 Like
80k usdc /y / person…
Why not get paid in JUP?
2 Likes
Vesting should be 24/12 at a minimum.
1 Like