But it’s also missing the specifics around what outcomes they need to deliver, and how those will be measured. It’s nothing but a list of things they hope to accomplish, and then explicit detail on the $1 million+ they will make for those hopes.
3 Likes
The vesting period needs to be longer to truly create an incentivized, sustainable, long-term vision. This is a lot of $JUP that people will get quickly.
2 Likes
I completely agree with this take
1 Like
Use USDC instead of JUP. That is simple.
1 Like
Voting For. Although I do believe there is a bit of miscommunication going on. I think team can benifit from a slight revision to proposal in terms of clarification.
1 Like
Pretty good write up explaining the full thesis. I’m not sure on an opinion for the compensation in terms of amount, what i did like is that CWG needs to prove itself first to then get the compensation. I didnt understand if its basically 1M tokens per member, but that seems high for a 2 year period of work. Giving jupiter hits $3-$6 fair value.
1 Like
It’s simple - imagine you have a job in the real world. What specific expectations does your boss have of you, and how do they monitor you’re delivering the specific things you should be?
None of that detail is listed here, yet the members ARE being paid $1 million each. This is an egregious grift and should be voted down.
8 Likes
To even submit this proposal is embarrassing. There’s no specifics of outcomes or how those will be measured, yet PLENTY of detail on the $1 million+ they all want to earn for compensation.
6 Likes
This was my notion as well. Im 100% for topped off competitive budgets but be able to measure performance throughout the project. The question then is, what is success for the group? If they achieve whatever that set goal is, perhaps then some, then everyone will be at ease with the numbers. I’d vote yes but urge that this is attached to the overall process.
2 Likes
Personally I am strictly against this since this is sell pressure, instead CWG Core should get share from LFG Projects. %0.7 to jup stakers and %0.05 to CWG Core. This way they are held responsible for projects that they come up with and real incentive if project is good or not
2 Likes
Checks & Balances
There needs to be some form of accountability system in place. To concentrate power like this can lead to corruption.
Quarterly voting by the community on the CWG team would allow for a more transparent and democratic process.
6 Likes
Yes, I wish I did, so I voted for it
1 Like
I echo your sentiment. Afterall, our goal is to be a Global Decentralized Stock Exchange - we have to have leaders willing to vest for a longer time period. This is my only concern.
2 Likes
I’m voting for
. It looks like a great project.
1 Like
Looks like a good team, so I’m for it. When you find talented workers, you want to keep them.
1 Like
It “sounds” good… I think vesting should be minimum 3-4 years.
We can’t really discuss this AFTER the vote.
1 Like
Excellent point. I completely agree.
1 Like
Agree more of a performance based salary and do I read this right 400K Jup per person a year … sounds way to high
also the time frame to vote is way to short
1 Like
This is an interesting topic at hand, and I have read each response with 100% focus; and with that, I want to extend my appreciation for every single post & person that were involved in the thoughts and processes outlined here today. This is what a DAO is all about, and I stand behind this process and its outcome with full support!
After digesting the information being presented in the proposal, I have a few key concerns that I would like to touch on:
-
KPIs
→ There must be performance indicators that are reviewed by the community every X amount of time or we could potentially be locked in with a current standard we feel is subpar. I have no issues with the compensation amounts, and would even argue that $80k/year is too little for their roles in Jupiter’s future; however, to have no clear expectations or results standards is a little crazy! Please publish a clear list of said expectations for the community to review, and take a look at adding in a review period annually, at the very least, if not quarterly. -
Hired Help
→ I believe the same statement I made for KPIs applies here as well; we need an outline of what exactly “hired help” would entail. All too often in this space playing favorites and buddy-buddy take the place of actual talent of those more deserving due to qualifications and experience more so than those selected, which goes for any and all roles in any company/project. I would request an outline of necessary roles, their qualifications, their responsibilities, and expectations. To add to this, a KPI review annually or quarterly, as suggested for the CWG in my previous list item and response. -
Vesting
→ As many others have stated on this forum, typically the standard for vesting is 4 years, and I must voice some concern for the 2 year time frame, half the length of time of said standard. I feel instead of brevity on this proposal we need something more extensive, and what I mean by this is: go overboard with explaining every single detail with breakdowns of how X will have to meet Y to be rewarded Z for XY products and results. Less is more does not satisfy here, and the vesting proposed is too short to be termed a “long term incentive.”
→ I think I would be more comfortable with a 3 or 4 year vesting period, 36 month cliff, or something akin to this model and layout. I know most of the CWG members, or at least know of them, if not have personal experience working with them in this space, so my fear is nothing of their abilities, but more of monitoring and gauging results in contrast to expected KPIs, aka expectations.
All in all, this is a solid proposal, but I need the aforementioned above provided before I can definitively say “yay” or “nay” on this or I would be doing a disservice to the DAO and the Web3 space. I greatly appreciate your efforts thus far, CWG Team, and have faith in your capabilities, but just need a little extra insight and oversight to ease my mind and consciousness. I look forward to any and all responses to my post, as well as the future of Jupiter and further votes on proposals!
- Selly
4 Likes
The JUP equity compensation is far too high without accountability, for roles that ARE NOT full time jobs…
7 Likes