my impression: this looks like the salary and bonus of an established company in an established industry.
clarification need: 320k/yr, so 80k a year per person? and 30k/yr for moderator compensation–what is this? so each person is working 2 jobs which means 16 hours a day? is this expected to be a full-time job? can we have clarification on what can we expect from each candidate in terms of commitment and work hours?
4.5mm JUP allocation: how is this divided? so 1,125,000 $jup each for basically 3 years? at the current valuation that’s roughly $1,900,000 per person. if the goal is to grow $jup and the ecosystem, which means we are aiming for a 10x–doable. so at 10x, we are looking at roughly $19m per person? If $jup can 10x, I think everyone will be happy so this is reasonable but what is missing in this proposal is milestone-based. If we have learned anything from the last 3 years is that we do not want unaccountable or un-redressable compensation.
DAO governance has the potential to be widely used even in IRL but coming up with the right model has been challenging if not insurmountable thus far; so I would love to see $Jup get it right and set a precedent. Not only do we need clarity and transparency but also ways for accountability in the event of undesirable circumstances.
I propose to amend this proposal with milestone stipulations for the 4.5m $JUP allocation, clarity on the work-hour and commitment of the CWG, and that the approval of this proposal should be contingent on the upcoming DAO Accountability proposal. If DAO Accountability proposal takes too long to formulate, CWG members can be compensated retroactively.
Great job on the proposal guys, encouraging to see the hard work.
With that said - I will be voting AGAINST this proposal. I find the 4.5M token allocation to be astoundingly disproportionate from what I consider to be fair compensation. Based on the token’s trajectory, we’re saying each CWG member will earn >$0.5M this year… Maybe I’m missing something. If yes, please explain further. If not - I’d like to submit my candidacy for the CWG.
I dont think enough information was clearly laid out to give this much money to a working group. I believe invoices ,reciepts and approvals are necessary to hold accountable the members of the group. You wouldnt just give an employees a bucket of money. Here you go do xyz and heres your bucket full of money. We need oversight, who will do that ? the community in my eyes should with the ability to fire and hire.
I’m flabbergasted that when I have the benefit of all this detailed discussion & 4 proposals within the one topic,that when I go to exercise my vote- those choices are limited to
Yes
No
Abstain
is it possible/feasible or even manageable to throw the more detailed questions to the open community OR are details to be decided here and general support YES/NO garnered from the wider community
As a lot of users pointed out, the amount given to CWG is way too much considering the fact that it’s not performance/work based. Even if the fail to do/deliver anything they’ll enjoy ridiculous amount of money.
I’m for… for what it’s worth I love where it’s at from where it started. I just want to add that maybe implementing more personnel maybe would be a good idea???
Guys, I think given a bold vision, and competing with markets that settle trillions of dollars, $5-10M total package over the next 3-4 years might not seem as extreme, as most comments make it look like here.
I think given JUP’s success so far, it is worth of betting on this initiative as an experiment, but also with a clause that the performance and result of this program is evaluated every 6 months, and program can be shut down, if it is not meeting the required end goals and expectations.
All things considered, I think 1/4 isn’t too crazy if there was some form of stricter accountability. I suppose this is what a DAO is at its core, but perhaps the formalization of the CWG’s budget is also a call for some proportional form of transparency and accountability group/watchdog as well.
I echo the call to reread the post. After casting my vote, I too am surprised on how many people voted “For”. That said, reading some of the comments on this thread, I am not surprised that a number seem to reflect individuals just skimming through the post and voting “For” on the faulty assumption that the vote passing would push $JUP price’s up.
That said, this brings me to my two cents on the topic: I would like to see more concrete guidelines, KPIs, and milestones the CWG must meet to receive the proposed funding allocations.
I believe that trust needs to be built up through demonstrated performance and impact, and not just on one go. I acknowledge that the CWG members are upstanding members of the ecosystem, but it would also be meaningful to outline how community engagement and public input would be a part of the process to truly reflect greater collective interests.
As it is, the proposed budget is significant. It represents a major investment, so accountability must be proportional in that sense. I am much more open to supporting a revised proposal that would address accountability through:
at the very minimum – clearer KPIs, milestones, and phased funding tied to performance, and
ideally – all the above, plus structured oversight and enforceable community involvement processes.
100% agree. This feels like they are exploiting the user base and the way the post was written it really understates exactly what they are asking. I feel like they are getting voted ‘yes’ just due to the fact people think voting yes will give them rewards based off of their stake or something. In any other industry this request would be ludicrous. We were not given details around any of the important factors:
who makes sure they are doing their job
what is theri day to day?
how much effort is being put in by these people?
what happens after 2 years (or before) if they are not doing well.
Even the details around what they are doing is extremely vague, the misc budget is absurd for traveling etc. esp related to what they said they would be doing, there are no success metrics for us to measure on, and the plans/goals for the future definitely don’t support the budget they are requesting.
Eg., approval of eco token list, help jup working groups, and help launch jup grants, lol. I mean what is the ROI if all 3 of those are 100% successful? Definitely not the requested amount that we’d be paying them
100% agree - unfortunately it seems some of these members (or other people internally) must have a large allocation staked to make this feel less than democratic.
I mean, my comment, as well as yours were both posted very early into this proposal and it was already at 60% approval
We have seen many valuable feedback on this proposal with details elaboration , to put it very simple , “4.5M JUP plus other renumeration is simply Too High” , espectially without solid / proper asessment like KPI ,evident of necesscity , and too too centric and .
As alway , too centric probably means corruption as from human history , all we know.
I hope the team shoiuld understand that , this is the very first and basic test for whether the team is truley authentic and listern to the community . If the team decided to ignore the around this 20% against vote and push this scheme forward , it really made the community suspect:
Why the vote period is so short ?
Why the FOR comments is simply no much valuable info / suggestions / questions brought out from them, look like pretty accepting everything without
Trust take time to build , easily disolve for the suspected Act / proposal. the team should value the opposition comments and points , giving details , revise the proposal to make it more solid and persursive to strengthen the trust between the community
One of my first experiences participating in this kind of initiatives and i’m very excited by how everything seems to be evolving. I think it is a very experienced team with a ton of personal and shared knowledge.
However i think there are several parts that don’t seem completely right and that many people in the forum don’t agree with as the vesting period which is really short for the usual industry standards, and the amount allocated, that by itself is excesive, even more so for such a short period. The proposal also doesn’t specify how the performance will be measured, what would happen in case of bad performances or if a member decide not to continue with the project.
As exciting and as really solid most of this project is, i think early discussions on these topics and more clear agreements will be beneficial to the long road ahead. Or said in a simple way, allocating half a million dollars (possibly more) per year to somebody needs a very transparent and clear frame and the proposal isn’t that clear.
