I LOVE the idea and momentum of the team… I would absolutely vote YES to a revised version of this proposal that revisits the extremely short Vesting Period. This is only an outline presented as a working draft with the community in order to reach a final draft elaborating on exact projected and unrealized dollar amounts and the resulting tokenomics.
1 Like
Agreed. But it requires thought and math as well as our good feelings or instincts.
I
2 Likes
No one here seems to be doing the math… We are hearing words, I think we should run the numbers and discuss the short “Vesting Period”.
1 Like
These are my thoughts on the core working group and the current jupiter vote. I would like to say i am looking at this solely as a JUP holder and what i think is best for JUP moving forwards.
I would at some point like to ask for a grant from the CWG for my work with unruggable and making self custody more accessible, especially as i have heavy integrations with JUP. catdets will get to saty safe while also using Jupiter.
I am as active as reasonably possible and i have attended and rewatched the CWG intro and their interview. I have also read through the content on the research forum, and gone to lengths to make sure i have gone through all the available information. I am open to discussions/opinions and i welcome it, and this post has been posted across all available public forums.
Firstly - 100% the CWG needs to be paid. This kind of work is hard, complicated and requires time and commitment. The group members selected have excellent reputations and have been long time contributors.
USDC budget imo is beyond reproach - people should be paid for their time and efforts. I have hears some people say it is too much USDC but we want CWG members to feel valued and wanted and bring their best, and paying a good amount in USDC is essential to achieve this. Call it the cost of decentralisation. 100% support of the USDC also to CWG
Also to mention, it is much easier to point out problems than to point out benefits. The CWG have done an outstanding job so far with LFG, the amas and their efforts. It is to their credit that i have so few complaints, and you have to remember this is the first time this is being tried.
I want to make it crystal clear that i support the CWG role and getting them paid. Now on to my concerns/points.
My personal objection is the size/time of the JUP allocation. The rational of the 10:1 JUP/USD ratio that the team used for the allocation of the DAO funds is understandable, but i disagree with simply doing something because that was how it was initially done and using this for the CWG. The other point i would make is that vesting imo should be 4 years for ALL working groups ? Why this 4 year number - we have 4 years more of airdrops/jupuary and thus following that schedule for the tokens makes sense to me. In turn returning to the ratio i think 10:1 is too aggresive for compensation especially as the first vote will be prededent creating. JUP currently trades at a 1.5:1 ratio, but it would be unfair to use the current price to determine the JUP allocation for the members, and imo i think a ratio of 4:1 against the USDC asked by the group over 4 years would be the correct way to align incentives, with no cliff it should start vesting immediately. Also the group should be paid pro rata for the work they have done since january if the vote is passed.
To effectively summarise my views on compensation:
- same usd package for 12 months - 450k
- 450 * 4 == 1.8mill JUP
- vesting 4 years
- no cliff
- payment pro rate for 3 months work done since Jan - 113k usd + 339k JUP to be distributed to members.
It is reasonable to add 20% to the figures above to cover the individuals for tax purposes on the payments they take.
Also the above numbers i expect to be used solely for the CWG members as they
have outlined. It does not include, CWG expansion, new members or community initiatives.
issue - working group comp package options should have been voted on chain and not through a discord vote. On chain voting has millions of dollar in JUP behind it with multiple people already voting. The discord vote did not get the interaction such an important decision should have and it doesnt align with the ethos and approach of the DAO so far.
issue - all contributors have other full time positions/commitments that are not temporary. Question is how thinly spread are they between their roles and which work takes priority in a crunch. Reference the post and bio
issue - no full time/experienced dev on the core working group
5 Likes
The youtube townhall and cwg intro left me with more questions than answers. Without presenting a real budget for anyone to review it was decided that $10M usdc and $100M JUP was allottted to the DAO Wallet. Now, over 90% of stakeholders are voting to approve allotting $4.5M to the CWG. Again. No budget. Is the plan to allote a giant pool of money and we’ll figure it out as we go?
By the way, i like the.team! I love jup.ag! I love the UX! I love the cats! Thats why im betting on jupiter. And I Voted NO bc i dont know whats going on with these millions of dollars.
Can someone guide me to the budget, the CFO, the project manager? Im totally lost here.
8 Likes
I really liked the CWG presentation, but the jup allocation is too big at 4.5 mil, considering the token has much upside in price, it could end up being a 20 mil usd payout. That’s not good for the jup. Also the vesting should be longuer, 1.2 mil for 3 years would be a fair pay.
1 Like
I believe the CWG has the ability and expertise to make LFG into something great. I do propose that we increase the basic compensation so that they get fairly compensated for the work that they put in. But in terms of JUP Token Allocation, it should be staggered and achievement basis eg.
Guarantee Allocation: 1m JUP
Hitting X target: +1 m JUP
Hitting 2X target: +1 JUP
This method will encourage incentive alignment rather than just a flat-out allocation.
2 Likes
Compensation is too large for this kind of job, so i vote against.
Reduce by 1/3 and i am for it. It would be still be ALOT!
Generally paying this much up front rarely encourage top level work, and more often create laziness.
2 Likes
Also 4 members is way too small, add an additional 3 members with the same overall compensation of the previous 4, to now go towards 7 members. This I feel like is much better in all regards
3 Likes
Hello Cats and Cadets,
Curious about the turnaround time for reviewing my message? I’ve noticed mine was sent 7 hours ago while others were approved just 2 hours ago.
To be concise, the resources you’re requesting are quite extensive. I suggest considering a longer vesting period, perhaps spanning 4 years, aligning with a full halving BTC cycle doesn’t seem excessive.
Additionally, there should be mechanisms for accountability. If the community disagrees with performance, there should be an option to vote out those involved. While the general idea is commendable and a working group is necessary, the current approach reminds me of situations where influential individuals appoint others without input from the DAO. The pool for the working group selection should be at least three times larger than the final team.
I hope those with the power to approve postings realize that a DAO only thrives when those in power prioritize the collective interest over their own. Otherwise, it’s destined to fail sooner rather than later—I speak from experience.
3 Likes
If you cannot assess, then you should abstain.
1 Like
For 3 million JUP allocation need to have a lockup period of at least 3 years minimum, there is not accountability etc within the proposal so they should have that vested interest (JUP) locked, in my honest opinion 5 years. I understand crypto is a competitive and high salary industry, but the compensation (including JUP allocation) is honestly crazy for the lack of accountability. I understand the JUP team is trying to pave new paths and break barriers, but established business foundations (BoD or majority owners) do have practices that work very well they should consider.
3 Likes
I originally thought that out of the 4.5mil Jup tokens allocated, 10% were for the team and 90% for the treasury, which would be fine. The whole proposal looks great, but that large of an allocation without an explanation of performance based distribution and with such a short vesting period is too high. At my job, I get a bonus that is up to 10% based on my performance which is dependent on weighted, measurable performance goals. I feel like this would be the best way to execute this aspect of the request, even if the base percent is 2 or 300 any salary would be fair. With a price of $1 per Jup the current bonus would be 14x annual salary
2 Likes
The way it stands now I have to vote against it.
-
Excessive Funding Request:
The proposal outlines a significant funding request, including a 12-month expense budget of $450,000 and a 2-year $JUP allocation plan of 4.5 million JUP tokens. Such a substantial budget raises concerns about the efficiency of resource allocation and the potential for misuse of funds. Without clear justification for the proposed budget and allocation plan, it’s difficult to assess whether the requested funding is appropriate. -
Lack of Transparent Accountability
While the proposal mentions the intention to design and suggest accountability mechanisms for future workgroups and DAO compensations, it lacks specific details on how accountability will be ensured. Without clear guidelines and mechanisms for accountability, there is a risk of funds being mismanaged or misappropriated, undermining trust within the Jupiter community and compromising the success of future initiatives. -
Limited Evidence of Impact:
Although the proposal highlights various initiatives and accomplishments of the Core Working Group (CWG), such as facilitating discussions, creating launchpad processes, and maintaining token lists, it lacks concrete evidence of the impact of these efforts on the Jupiter ecosystem. Without measurable outcomes or evidence of tangible benefits to the community, it’s challenging to justify the requested funding and allocation of resources. -
Concerns Over Token Allocation:
The proposed 2-year $JUP allocation plan raises concerns about the potential impact on token supply and distribution within the Jupiter ecosystem. Without careful consideration of the long-term implications of token allocation, there is a risk of diluting the value of $JUP tokens and creating imbalances within the ecosystem. Additionally, the vesting schedule and cliff period for the $JUP allocation should be carefully evaluated to ensure alignment with the interests of the Jupiter community and the goals of the DAO. -
Need for Greater Community Engagement:
While the proposal mentions the importance of community participation and feedback, there is a need for greater transparency and engagement with the broader Jupiter community. More opportunities for community members to provide input and voice concerns about the proposal should be incorporated to ensure that the funding request reflects the collective interests and priorities of the community.
Conclusion:
while the proposal outlines ambitious goals and initiatives for the Core Working Group (CWG) to empower the Jupiter ecosystem and drive decentralization, there are significant concerns regarding the requested funding, accountability mechanisms, evidence of impact, token allocation, and community engagement. Before proceeding with the proposal, it’s essential to address these concerns, provide greater transparency and accountability, and ensure alignment with the long-term interests of the Jupiter community and the goals of the DAO.
11 Likes
Is there any mechanism or check-and-balance to determine the future release of the CWG’s incentive?
There should be two basic components in the incentive program, fixed + performance driven payout. If the DAO voters can have participation in the future release or determining of such performance driven incentive, it is more acceptable
2 Likes
With voting power being dependent on how many $JUP tokens you have it seems pretty easy for $JUP whales - of which all the DAO candidates undoubtedly already are - to simply pass anything they find beneficial to themselves.
Am I wrong?
3 Likes
I supported these people to advance the DAO. Take Jup to the moon. Otherwise, the support and trust of thousands of people will be wasted and a disappointment.
1 Like
well said. Agreed needs to be clear accountability
1 Like
My vote is for “CWG” there are wanting to move forward and grow!
1 Like
2.5MM incentives in one year cliff for one year and after two years what happen?? It’s not a long term vision.
The time doesn’t matter only your performance. What’s the ROI for the DAO ? What is your KPI?
Crazy crypto world same like political real world
2 Likes