Salary is approximately correct. So is JUP but that’s for two years not one.
3 Likes
JUP is a long-term incentive. We don’t want then to receive JUP and have to market sell to pay living expenses. We want them to lock it up and use it for governance.
The DAO has USDC funds for operational costs. Salary is an operational cost.
4 Likes
4 Likes
I have read where the JUP was to come from Launchpad fees but I’m not exactly sure of the mechanism. Were they swapping the USDC fees earned into JUP? I suppose we’ll find out eventually.
2 Likes
The vision Meow has for the DAO far exceeds the LFG Launchpad. The team he assembled are regarded as having a lot of positive experiences with several other DAOs in the space. He’s hoping to leverage their collective experience into something very unique and special. There’s a LOT of work to be done and he wanted to have them committed for the foreseeable future.
4 Likes
Ok I see Meow’s vision now:
(1) We have funds to try and create the dream DAO and make something special.
(2) Large incentives for the CWG to give them all the resources possible to carry out Meow’s vision or get booted by the DAO
(3) Best people for this are ones with experience already, so I am completely wrong with saying CWG don’t have experience, because for Meow’s vision they are literally best suited.
Honestly that’s rather reasonable 
and am completely fine with voting 4.5mil in their favour to see if they build the DAO into something special.
8 Likes
You have my support. It looks like it is well funded and it will boost the project at least for 1 year.
3 Likes
I have voted “for” and completely happy with that, but two points are not fully clear to me:
-
if the wallet is destined to the CWG or to its actual components?
-
if the CWG’s members are flexible?
I mean, what happens in case, for any reasons, one of the actual CWG members has to abandon, or, one or more members are required to enter permanently in the CWG? Do they split the pot or it is accounted by the current members?
Also, as pointed out by @h0bb5 (point 2) how is managed the accountability?
1 Like
Correct me if I’m wrong here:
4.5m JUP/ 4 people
1,125,000 JUP per person * $1.3 JUP price
$1,462,500 / 2 years = 730,000 per year
If you want to reward results and not complacency, the incentives should be based on growth, e.g. valuing at JUP 3-4 times current price(Which is very likely in the next 12 months), Or extend out the vesting/cliff period if you really want long term team members.
4x from here means 2.9m per year, per person
Trying to understand how the job requirements listed above are valued at almost 3m, when it would seem 1/3 of that could properly motivate a working group.
19 Likes
Agreed, if they’re aligning with the business world then 2 years is a blink of an eye. It should be at least 4-5 years which is when we can truly see what the CWG brings for us.
7 Likes
yes they do.
For 4 WG members that’s 1.13M JUP over 2 years. That’s 1.47M USD for two years of work plus the salaries they’re getting. Idk just seems like a lot
7 Likes
I changed my vote from Y to N
its a lot of JUP and a short period of time for a small group
10 Likes
Probably the JUP amount is a little excessive, but the vesting period sounds pretty fair to me, considering the ever-changing dynamics in the crypto world.
4 Likes
Yes, you are wrong.
They are asking for 4.5M JUP but only 3M of that is for the four CWG members (three full-time and one part-time). The other 1.5M is to attract/retain new talent and for other initiatives.
So approximately 800k JUP per FT member for 2 years.
Whether or not you feel that is still too much is up to you.
5 Likes
I voted AGAINST. Just as many over here have pointed out that the amount of money that is being given out in a short amount of time which is two years is a lot. 4.5 million JUP given to the CW GDAO is a little too much in my opinion, I understand that only 3 million JUP will be divided between the committee but that is a little too much. I want to know what was the hiring process of these folks who will be part of the committee? I want to know what are the qualifications other than just being part of the Solana Community from the beginning some? Even some CEOs don’t make the amount of money that we are going to pay this group I would want a new vote with a longer period of time around five years so that they show his commitment, loyalty and dedication to this group and reduce the allocation for the CG group to an amount that is acceptable. If the group wants the 4.5 million JUP then we need a detail list of how that money would be spent and maybe there needs to be a quarterly review of how it is being spent.
One thing I am missing is do we have any technical people on this group for example someone who has been or is a software developer or architect, someone who’s been part of a software project who can provide their inside, and another profile that’s missing in my opinion is somebody who has some kind of law or finance acumen we need people with different skills who can be on this committee so they can provide the insight and they can organically grow this Business.
I am sorry, if I’m being prejudiced towards the profiles that are presented here, but nothing they mentioned in their profiles shows to me that they deserve this money or the amount of allocation that any other person on Twitter does. But you want to know if you what skills do you to grow this business organically .
15 Likes
The allocation amount as a signing bonus is wild. Their bonus should be voted on yearly and based on performance.
12 Likes
The Jupiter allocation as a signing bonus is pure insanity.
How about team is motivated to perform and the community votes yearly on what their bonus allocation should be based on performance?
Team should outline yearly targets and objectives and bonus compensation should be aligned accordingly and given based on meeting objectives.
15 Likes
Understood, but we should be conservative about dispersing so much JUP without concrete results or a plan of action.
8 Likes
I don’t doubt the good work that the CWG will do and the amount of time devoted to it, but I am currently voting no on this one. A $350k annual salary for 4 members ($80k annual per member) for the first year seems excessive as a starting point.
I’d like to see some other safeguards in place so a component of the compensation is results-oriented. “Pay for performance” is pretty common in tech these days as is multidirectional feedback. Did I overlook a part that ties compensation together with results (either objectively measured by predetermined goals or through subjective DAO feedback)?
I dont have issues with the 2 year vesting. That is fair.
5 Likes
Thanks for summing this up. Accountability and KPIs are definitely missing.
5 Likes