Retroactive grant request for my contributions in the Paladin DAO over the past 2 years.
Context
I’ve been involved in the Paladin DAO since its creation through various initiatives & contributions, especially over the past two years. I joined the transferability event committee back in 2021, then I was a candidate to become a delegate in January 2022, got involved in the premises of Warlord during 2022 and started to work on other tasks around service provider scope, such as drafting proposals & other DAO Ops tasks.
While some of these contributions have been rewarded, the majority wasn’t, mostly because I never made a request before. This proposal aims to recap these contributions and request a retroactive grant for it. I didn’t make the request before because the treasury state wasn’t good enough (still not if looking at stables, which is why I’m only requesting PAL tokens).
Note: Mentioning worth at reception below for references only. I didn’t sell a single PAL received (all locked) & not planning to sell this grant either. If approved, I commit to 2 year max lock the majority & LP the remaining on Arbitrum pool.
Rationale
I’ll start by highlighting which contributions were already compensated as it will be excluded from this proposal, before explaining the different tasks included. The contributions will be split in 3 categories:
Delegate Tasks
DAO Operation Tasks
Other Tasks
Contributions Already Rewarded
Delegate
This category only concerns the delegate scope including forum participation (reading/understanding proposals, asking questions if needed & sharing feedback) as well as the vote on the various DAO governance topics.
The Delegate rewards were approved on PGM-33, so I’ve received delegate rewards from May to December 2023 (46 551 PAL).
DAO Operation Tasks
This part can include various topics such as drafting governance proposals on different topics (Treasury Management, Governance Frameworks, DAO Ops, Growth)
Author of PGM-25 (Curve Ecosystem Holdings Analysis & Strategy)
Author of PGM-27 (Balancer Ecosystem Holdings Analysis & Strategy)
Grant proposed by Figue & approved on PGM-26 for 8000 PAL total received, worth $1,76K at reception price, which represents 2667 PAL or ~ $600 per topic.
These proposals were undervalued imo as it required a consequent amount of work (understanding strategic assets mechanism, treasury analysis, proposals redaction & updates) but not coming back on it since it was voted this way a long time ago.
Multisigs Signer Rewards from May 2022 to December 2023
The PIP-4 introduced rewards for signers with a total budget of 9000 PAL / year valued at 9000$ back in April 2022 (Currently worth 1700$) per year to split between all signers.
For the past 19 months, I’ve received 4 350 PAL as a signer.
Other Tasks
Transferability Event Committee in 2021 - Received 2500 PAL
Hackathon SisterDAO Idea - 625 PAL (Shared for context - Not paid by the DAO).
Retroactive Grant Request
Same as the previous section, I’ll split contributions into the same “categories”.
The following only represent retroactive tasks already executed.
Delegate Tasks
As mentioned earlier I became a Paladin Delegate back in January 2022 and I’m still active today. However, since the reward program started in May 2023, I wasn’t compensated for the previous months where I was nearly the only delegate active.
This section aims to request delegate rewards from January 2022 to April 2023. I’ve tracked my voting power over time using previous snapshot proposals & used the updated formula voted in PGM-46 & used a 3 week TWAP price to define the amount as shown in the table below.
Amounts depending on the time spent on each topics (Including initial research, coordination/analysis, proposal redaction & answers questions / feedback + vote submission)
As we don’t have a framework to evaluate these contributions, I suggest the following one for this request:
Long/Complex proposals approved (1 day+ contributed) 1000$ in PAL
Long/Complex proposals unapproved/replaced: 600$ in PAL
Fast/Simple proposals (~ 0,5 day contributed): 300$ in PAL
PAL price defined on a 3 weeks TWAP from Feb 4th to 24th to attenuate recent volatility.
Requesting a total of 62,1K PAL for these proposals.
Disclaimer: I was working on DAO Ops at APWine when PGM-16 was posted, but it was published on my own initiative.
Multisigs Coordination
Early 2023, I suggested to the committee to start using OnChainDen as a treasury management tool that has many great features. While not everyone got used to it, I find it super useful. Shortly after it was implemented, I started to submit most of the Paladin multisigs monthly transactions, coordinate signers, prepare txs order, bundle transactions to save time to signers, report bugs/issues etc.
This contribution requires good skills on multisigs/associated tooling, as well as a good overview/understanding of the DAO treasury & expenses, high availability/reactivity and requirement to adapt to other signers availability. It usually requires ~ 1 day+ to complete the totality of transactions each month as we usually need several swap sessions, and resubmission of timed out txs is frequent.
This section is focused on the multisigs coordinator task over the past 12 months.
I’m requesting 500$ / month in PAL. (The amount requested is actually quite low for this contribution compared to the value of these skills & the time required, but other members are also submitting transactions such as Quests creation made by Koga).
The table below deduce PAL received as a signer during this period from the amount requested.
I’m requesting 32,34K PAL for these contributions from February 2023 to January 2024.
Other Tasks
“SisterDAO” Contributions (Warlord initial idea)
This part requires a bit more context:
Early 2022, I suggested accumulating part of strategic assets in treasury (enabling hPAL locker to benefit from the underlying voting power) on the old Tokenomics post.
Initially called the Sister DAO after some discussions, the goal for it was supposed to be a community-led project runned by myself as the core team lacked time to do it. I worked on ideas to improve during Q2 2022 , shared some drafts & ideas to the team for feedback. In July where the goal was more defined:
Accumulate strategic assets from DAO earnings into a max locked contract, define which strategic assets to add in a meta governance index, enabling hPAL lockers to benefit from the underlying voting power. As it was supposed to be a tool for the DAO, my goal wasn’t to enable asset withdrawals from this contract, so the amount in it would be only up, creating a strong backing value for hPAL.
I went to EthParis Hackathon and was joined by @Albe & Antoine so we tried to build it. Obviously we didn’t manage to finish in 36h, but we still earned a small prize & were encouraged by the core team to keep working on it as a side project, which we did.
During Q3 2022, we’ve been doing some research related to the expected tokenomics design back then, which was also discussed on the forum. In October 2022, the name had shifted to Warlord and the core team suggested changes from the initial design in order to create more synergies with other existing products.
During the following 3 months, while the devs were working on the code, I was:
Updating my dashboard to estimate yield based on the DAO holdings
Brainstorming & research about which assets could be supported
Worked on an excalidraw to demonstrate visually the idea to the DAO
Wrote the forum post intro first draft (Never posted as the project changed)
Co-Authored PGM-23 to create 2nd mainnet multisig & transfer assets accordingly
Wrote the Warlord Genesis Post explaining the full idea on the forum (Never posted)
Did some legal Research about requirements to launch a project.
Created some socials for Warlord Team (Ens, Twitter, Gov Forum Profile etc)
Finally in Q1 2023, Antoine had left the project because of low availability & the Paladin team had decided to internalize the project & fully pivot to build what Warlord is today. Albe was hired to work on the technical part internally, but I wasn’t as most of the strategy was already defined.
Sharing the full context to explain that even if most of my work ended up being unused, I contributed during a few months & had big hopes for this project before it changed & got internalized, so I’m adding it to this proposal to at least get my contributions recognized.
Asking a total of 20 000 PAL (which is way less than what I’d have requested if the initial project went live).
BD & Growth
Helped to onboard the Aave DAO as Quest users
Onboard of Jarvis DAOs as Quest users
Communicated about Quest to some DAOs core contributors (Aura, Badger)
Requested the Paladin DAO tracked on KarmaHQ
Not including this section in DAO operations as it’s not something I do frequently, compared to proposals & treasury management so not sure what would be a fair compensation here. Asking an additional 2 500 PAL for these contributions, let me know any feedback below.
Total Retroactive Grant Request Overview:
The table below recap the total grant request in PAL amount as well as value based on the 3 weeks TWAP mentioned above.
Considering the current treasury situations and upcoming expenses (Mimo & Mithras loan repayments) in the next months, I believe it is better to not request stables and only ask for PAL but I’m happy to explore other options if there are counter proposals. I also think committing to max lock is the most aligned behavior I can adopt as my goal is to see Paladin grow over time.
Means
152 246 PAL
Voting Options
Yes, approve retroactive Grant Request
No, rework proposal
Abstain
I’ve following Paladin from afar, and have always saw dydy’s unwavering commitment and loyalty, he’s by far the most active member on the forum. His efforts are verifiable and the work he has being doing is of high quality. Moreover, the compensation with PAL tokens, given the treasury’s current state, reflects a thoughtful approach to financial sustainability. The commitment to a two-year lock-up period for the majority of the grant signifies a long-term investment in the DAO’s success, aligning personal incentives with the broader community’s welfare.
Hello Dydy,
We never had the opportunity to talk yet but I am Seona, part of the core team but speaking my own and personal voice here.
I think your proposal is interesting, however there are some parts I am not sure I get, so I will just ask my questions here :
Have you ever discussed a potential grant with the team? I find it somehow controversial to ask for a grant retroactively here. Even if it was not the right time in the past to talk about it, I think talking to the Paladin core team about it first is essential to get each other opinion and also discuss about the amounts you ask which leads to my second question
What are the amounts you ask based on? As a developer with some xp, the rate you apply for writing your proposals is the same as my freelancing rate which I find a little odd. Even if I am sure your work is very valuable, it seems a little high to me especially since no compensation about this were mentioned in the past (may be I am just unaware of it, sorry if it is the case)
Are you asking for a grant because you feel your work is under valuated ? Having this kind of proposal all of a sudden is very surprising to me and I was wondering what was the purpose behind this.
Yes, I’ve mentioned to some of the core team that I would request a grant a few times actually (especially Figue, Starny & Beguin as well and maybe Koga too).
From your reaction, it seems this topic was never discussed internally before, which is quite surprising.
This proposal was also sent for review/feedback & gauge sentiment to 5 people including 2 core team members.
Could you explain what is controversial here please ?
Unlike most grant requests in the space, this request only focuses on tasks already executed in the past, and fully explained in the post above which allows everyone to judge facts.
Amounts are based on the time spent on each task and on rates that I estimated fair for each different category as I didn’t want to apply my usual rates (which are higher) and as we currently don’t have a framework for grants (except the delegate one where I applied the formula voted by governance).
First, “writing proposals” sounds a bit reductive, but I understand if you’re not familiar with governance (I wouldn’t be able to quickly explain a dev job either) but it requires a bit more than writing.
Indeed drafting proposals by itself is not the longest part - although it can be when it’s not in your native language & sometimes on complicated topics - but it’s not the only thing to do. Depending on the topic there can be research associated, math to verify profitability of a strategy, work on defining frameworks etc, and this almost always requires more time than writing post & publishing on the forum.
It’s also important to point out that once published, the work isn’t finished as you also need to answer any question/feedback that may arise, defend your idea/proposal and try to reach a consensus before publishing the vote, which can also take a lot of time (cf most discussed proposals). Once you’ve done all this, you might still require to reach out to delegates/large voters to get your proposal approved if you’re missing some votes.
Then, there are two other important points to consider when comparing these situations:
I’m assuming you get paid in fiat or stablecoins for your freelance work, which is quite different from being compensated with a volatile asset, as you can spend it.
I’m also assuming what you received is not only liquid but also unlocked, unlike this grant if approved as I committed to 2 year max lock it.
The volatility & lock risks have also been taken into account when defining amounts.
It was not valued often in the past as demonstrated in this post, so yes and because I think it’s justifiable by my contributions.
This proposal is definitely not sudden considering my track record in the DAO imo.
Would you consider contributing to a project without requesting compensation and knowing it could get denied when you ask, then finally doing it after 2 years, and committing to lock what you received for another 2 years before being able to potentially spend any of it ?
That’s basically what’s in this proposal. I propose this as I believe in the project in the long term, and because it enables the DAO to reward me without impacting the liquid part of the treasury used to pay debt & devs in priority.
I am unsure of this, it may have been discussed prior to my arrival or in a discussion I was not part of, or I may have forgot as well tbh
Sure there are two points that lead me to this conclusion :
The fact that it is retroactive, I am not super comfortable about having people asking for grants after they have done things especially if the amount was not discussed in any way before. But it is my opinion about it and it does not mean that what you have done so far is not appreciated. From what I heard you have great insight and are very committed to Paladin and I think we are all very grateful for that.
I see it as a little unfair to the other delegates, and I am not sure if it is a good idea to treat delegates differently.
Ok I see what you mean, the thing is that it is your own appreciation about it and since the amount is quite high (approximately 250% of what you got so far), imho I think it is a lot for now but I am no one to judge here.
Lmao sorry about that I was just trying to keep it short but sure I do understand it is not only about writing
Sure, I guess it is part of the deal when you write a proposal
Yes, usually as a dev you can ask to be paid in the project currency (if there is one) and usually the rates goes higher in that case compared to a stable coin, so I understand your point here.
Yes, and I appreciate the fact you want to lock to show your commitment and honesty here. I also saw someone from core team internally suggesting about a potential vesting for your grant, are you open to this option?
I think this is very sad, because as mentioned before, I have heard very good things about you and even if we have not talked before I knew you were someone with a huge devotion for Paladin.
Actually I have done that in the past, I guess a lot of devs can relate as well. That is the reason why now, if there is no compensation talk before I would assume I get nothing and would never ask but I guess it is my personal way of being, so I kind of see where you come from here.
There is no doubt you are a strong believer in our project and it is great, I understand how you feel and your point here.
Summary : My opinion is that this proposal should be reworked. I see no harm if you think you deserve more for what you have done so far, again the team is very grateful to have you as a delegate and for your commitment to us. Since the amount you ask is a little high (to me) I would either consider vesting or decrease the amounts if no vesting. To unsure fairness I would remove the delegate tasks grant you are asking for (even if you were nearly the only delegate as you stated, because to me “nearly” does mean you were not the only one so it is unfair for the others). I am not sure I can decide what parts are fair and what part are not (i.e : if other delegates do the same thing without grant you all should receive something or nobody should receives anything but I really think we should not treat delegates differently as I said before) but I hope someone can give some other opinion here.
I guess you were here for some of the internal discussions after all, quite contradictory ser. Also since it’s exactly what one of the core team said in dm, I guess you’re not only exposing your personal view anymore but that’s fine.
About the vesting, as explained to the person who suggested it, I disagree as it would mean I would have waited 2 years, then have 6-12 months vesting, then commit to 2 years max lock, which would be really unfair for me.
Basically since I don’t want to sell the grant, my goal is to earn yield from it or it’s impossible with a vesting position. By locking it, I’ll be able to boost my vlLIQ rewards and/or earn bribes from projects interested to boost their Quests.
I’m open to supplying part of it in LP in the meantime to lock progressively if requested (I’d need to add ~ 0,5 ETH for 25% of the grant in 80/20 but should be doable).
Also, none of the grants distributed so far had a vesting.
Discussing this topic is literally the goal of this proposal. Although I still don’t understand why you’d rather compensate people based on promesses rather than for tasks done.
I think you might have misunderstood something here, because I’m not treating myself any different from other delegates. I tracked my voting power over time and applied the formula we currently use to reward all delegates, so unfair would be to not compensate me because I was a delegate before rewards were introduced.
Not sure if there were other delegates active enough based on current criteria that would have qualified for rewards, but in this case, they are free to do the job of tracking their voting power over time, calculating their rewards & making the retroactive grant proposal for it.
Also if I didn’t submit PGM-46 about delegate incentives renewal, rewards would probably have stopped after the first period. However we now have 5 active delegates.
This comparaison makes no sense. If you got compensated for a small portion of what you did so far, it’s logical that the ratio of what you received vs what you have left to receive is important …
I was granted for doing 3 proposals (undervalued and I did 13 others)
I got rewarded for 9 months of being a delegate but I did it for 24 months
I received a small reward for being a signer but none for coordinating the multisig transactions over the past year.
I received nothing for working for months on the Sister DAO project
I received nothing for any of the other tasks mentioned
All of this is explained in detail in the post above.
Thanks, and that’s without mentioning a 2 year lock up.
As mentioned in my last message, there were several discussions about it. I clearly expressed to some team members I would request a grant at some point.
It is quite weird and contradictory to see good things said but the globale negative feedback from your comment, which kinda shows the small consideration for most involved community members. Also disappointed to see the core team pushing back after discussing the topic internally since the vesting discussion didn’t happen here.
Anyway, I already answered the vesting topic above, so I will not repeat myself here as the post is already very long.
If you’re speaking in $ terms, not sure how it makes sense to say “your request is ok if you can’t do anything with it, otherwise receive less without vesting”. Then if your concern is that I’d receive too much PAL, or if you’re afraid I would sell once received, I’m open to exploring asking for half of the grant in USDC, which would fix the issue. However, doing that could lead to not enough cash in the treasury to pay for Mithras Labs funding requests which are partially used to pay you.
As said above, also open to a progressive lock while remaining are supplied in liquidity to be able to earn yield.
I never heard of any grants prior to your proposal
During our weekly call with the team Figue mentioned your proposal saying that we can discuss with you about it if we want to, so out of curiosity I went to check
Once I read your proposal I brought the subject in our internal discussion to make sure I understood correctly and we were talking about it, and the vesting subject came.
We may share the same opinion with the team, sure, but I was not dishonest about anything, let’s make this clear here.
To me, may be I am wrong but I do not see why you would have to lock for 2 years after your vesting if you do not want to.
I see your point, but it feels a little disconnected from reality to me. I’ll explain. If you hire someone to do a job you will discuss the price before and perhaps pay some of or all of the amount in advance and then the work will be done, because it is the way contracts work (and I do understand there is no contract here but we all know that some contract are just tacit) and this system is working because all parts agree on the several topics of the contract. Here I believe no amount was decided, and it looks like a one-sided deal at least for the amount and/or your calculation.
Ok, and you were aware that there were no reward at that time and still did it. I really do not get why you want to apply some program that was not running at that time, maybe I am living too much in the present but I really think past is irrelevant for this kind of situation. It would never occur to me that someone can ask for something that did not exist in the past to be applied for the past.
They are free to do so but I am unsure if we can grant everybody equally in that situation (since I don’t know how many people would be involved and the amount) which is a concern if we want to treat delegates equally as I stated before.
Sure but again, to me, it is your calculation, your own rates, your own amounts, the fact that it was not decided before is the main problem here.
I think next time you should probably agree to some amount before, so things would be super clear and nobody is surprised that you come with this proposal since everything would have already been stated and agreed from both sides.
I am sorry you take it this way, I do not think I am negative towards you or your involvement, obviously we do not agree on everything here but I have an open-mind, it is just that you are not convincing me here and I just talk about the points that concerns me here.
I am not.
Sure, so it is not worth mentioning since it is not possible.
I voted against for now for the reasons you must know by now, we will see how it goes.
Dydymoon has been our most active contributor and generally supportive of both rewarding DAO contributions as well as create a more durable framework in order for this to be better set up next time we have such similar situations.
This was discussed yes, but we never had the time to put a framework on. Dydy kindly sent a proposal a few months back, but considering the initial rates (I think it was along 150$ an hour), I simply had no idea how to engage it. I am grateful to see they were revised even if extremely anyone else bills Paladin.
I was not aware we were supposed to share it with all the contributors.
Also worth taking into account the advantages of locking, which is extremely different from vesting.
This is a very important proposal because it sets precedent for contributions in the DAO. It is not just about paying a contributor but building a framework for compensation in:
Proposal creation
DAO coordination
BD
Project management
If we do not accept that these contributions have a cost, then we cannot expect the DAO to really thrive. HOWEVER, it has to be within the means of the project and done in coherence in the rest of the decision. For example. why do all token allocation for the core team come with vesting but a contributor can come in and ask a large allocation in liquid form? Why does writing 2/3 proposals as a contributor amount to a full month of work for an internal governance facilitator?
I’d love to understand a bit more some details discussions on:
Why are we using a 3 week TWAP when 7/14 are the norm
Does paying on the basis of per proposal open up a dangerous path for abuse in subsequent proposals? Also, are these prices something Paladin can afford?
Should we finance non6contractualised failure (unpassed proposal and failed projects)
All in all I really hope we find a common ground where both the community and OP are satisfied.
So you are basically suggesting to replace the max lock commitment by the vesting right ? (which again is the same comment I received from the core team)
This is a not the best option imo because nobody wins: I can’t earn yield while being vested, the hPAL lock rate is lower and I can in theory sell after 1 year.
To clarify, I didn’t contributed in the only goal of getting compensated. I did it because it was important and as no one else would do it otherwise. Also, none of my contributions can’t be undone even if the DAO decides to not reward it, which is different on a dev job, i guess you can just remove access.
However I think valuable contributions should be rewarded, which is why I’m making this proposal. As for agreeing the amount before, I’m not sure where you wanted this decision to be taken. If it was done outside of the forum it would be worth nothing as not voted by the DAO. (Not to mention it’s a bit complicated to know what you’re gonna do 2 years in advance, don’t you think ?)
This is already what we do with the formula being the same for everyone. I repeat myself but delegates are being treated equally.
At this point you’re repeating yourself and it seems you’re not really familiar with how DAOs work. The goal of this proposal is to discuss the topic.
Then if you’re not afraid I’d sell, I still don’t understand the rationale behind “If you’re not vested, get rewarded less”
Funny how when it might impact your contributions, it becomes impossible.
Fyi it is actually possible if approved by vote, I just did not propose it as I knew it wasn’t the best decision for the DAO.
The fact that you never commented on the governance forum of your own project before yesterday tells a lot about your involvement in Paladin outside of your area of expertise, especially when the first comment is to repeat what you heard from team discussions while saying it is your own thoughts. But anyway, thanks for your feedback.
Wtf are you insane ? This is totally incorrect.
I could not have sent this proposal months ago as many of the contributions mentioned were not done yet. This proposal was sent to you a few days ago (on Feb 21st exactly).
As for the rate, I never requested anything that high to anyone. Please verify what you think before saying nonsense in public.
What was revised from feedback before posting was the sister DAO part by 33% as I wanted to request 30K PAL when i wrote the proposal, which is now down to 20K.
You were not supposed to, it was to get initial feedback so I sent it to people that follow the governance (you, another core team member, Alberto who contributed to Warlord, and 2 community contributors.
Indeed, locking would enable me to earn yield on this grant with the new tokenomics coming as mentioned above, while vesting prevents it.
It’s also why I suggested to deposit a part of it in LP to avoid locking all at once if that’s the concern, so I could also earn yield in the meantime on Balancer.
I already proposed the governance framework, the quest fees framework and the multisig rotation framework, which all aim to improve the DAO over time. If I didn’t, the governance would probably be a mess with many things unclear or not voted on (it still happens on some topics tho, cf crvUSD implementation on the auto-voter).
I could have worked on a grant framework as well, but there were more important topics to handle, and knowing I was going to ask for a grant, I thought it would be better to let someone else do it or at least co-author it, but no one got involved on that front (which is also a reason of why I decided myself to do this proposal).
Happy to help if anyone wants to work on a grant framework !
Because the team vesting started when they started to contribute, not 2 years after.
Again, I’m committing to max lock the totality for 2 years so it would not be liquid at all. In the event where I’d lock progressively, I commit to not sell any and pair the amount with ETH to provide liquidity in the meantime.
Also again, you didn’t even mention a vesting on previous grants, so it doesn’t make sense to push for one here.
Wait, there is an internal governance facilitator ? Who is it ? Was hired recently ? What is he doing for his full time job ?
Didn’t see anything about it in Mithras funding request. Also interesting to know you didn’t even consider the most involved governance participant for this.
Then as explained above, it’s quite reductive to limitate my contributions to “writing 2-3” proposals. Research & feedback post publication also takes a lot of work (just like the past hours I spent answering you to all on stuff you probably already know, which is flooding the topic and might discourage other ppl to read/comment)
There isn’t really a norm on TWAP periods, but the reason is because I started to draft this proposal on the february 4th and finished on the 21st (when I shared it to you for feedback). Then a few other days of feedback & updates, which takes us to feb 25th.
Considering the high volatility over the past month, and as it’s the period on which I worked on the proposal, I made a 3 week twap to attenuate volatility which seems pretty fair considering the price increase on this period.
That’s also one of the reasons I waited a long time before submitting a proposal. I believe my track record shows that it wasn’t a one shot contribution, and differentiate it from someone who would post a proposal that doesn’t make sense just to ask payment after.
Considering the terms & treasury state, in PAL yes imo. In another currency it would request to sell something, which is an issue we already have with debt repayment.
I took into account that these were not implemented (lowered amount for proposal replaced/unpassed and highly lowered for the sister DAO part) but it was still contributions where I spent a lot of time on.
Overall it’s very easy to go against this because everything is public & transparent, but I’d like to remind that the DAO is now funding Mithras as well with the loan payback and is expected to keep going if possible, which if following your logic on this post, should enable the DAO contributors to have more clarity and justification on ppl hired & expenses or compensation requested.
Yet, none of this was shared ofc, and outside approving global budget (which we have no way to verify btw) the DAO didn’t had anything to say about spendings details on Mithras request.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback, lmk if you have other questions.
Actually when you are a developer hired for some job, the people who hire you have the property of the code you write (like legally) , which is usually stored in a subversion tool (most of the time Git) so you cannot really undone what you have done as a developer. Just to let you know about that.
I don’t disagree.
The thing you seem not to understand here is that completing stuff without deciding of the amount and then coming and ask for money is, at least in my opinion, rude as it is one-sided (sorry I could not find a better word to describe how I feel about it)
I understand the proposal is here to talk about this so I am repeating myself again here because I believe I was not clear : I think the amounts are too high and I am not going to change my opinion about it because it is what I think.
Yes, good call, because it looks like you don’t really want to understand my point of view even if I am making efforts on my side to understand yours, but it is ok. Maybe I don’t have good understanding of how forums work, I thought it was about sharing opinions on topics and trying to find some solution for both sides, but you seem to deny everything I say so if my opinion does not matter to you it is fine but tbh I wish you were more open to the discussion as opposite to refute everything that is not going your way. Again, my opinion, and maybe I am wrong. I understand the subject is touchy.
Unfortunately the law is probably above you so, yes, sorry. Bringing it to the table was irrelevant to me.
Since we do not know each other I would appreciate if you refrain your comments about my involvement and my work in Paladin, since you have *no clue about it.
But since I have to justify myself there are some fields I am not comfortable giving my opinion on yet, because I feel I have a lack of knowledge on some topics. So yes, that was my first comment here because I did understand what you said and I had an opinion about it. Trying to constantly discredit what I am saying is exhausting to me and bring nothing more than negativity around the whole discussion. And it is very sad.
And yes it is my personal opinion that I did share with other when you made this proposal but again you are trying so hard to make me look dishonest here and it is getting to a point where I feel it is not really respectful towards me tbh.
That being said I think the discussion leads to nowhere and I will keep my vote and thinking that this proposal should be reworked.
Also note that another difference if to finish on this comparaison is that when you’re hired you receive directives on what to do (and have a security that you’ll get paid each month), which is completely different from DAO contributions which, in this case comes from my own initiatives so I need to think a lot about it & verify what’s possible & what’s not, before even starting to do some research and draft the proposal later and then answer feedback like right now.
I knew when I contributed that I might not get anything out of it, however I must say I’m really shocked about the negative feedback received and I wasn’t expecting that.
No worries, you were very clear the first time you said that.
I also explained why I think it would be unfair to remove the delegate part when you suggested it, and answered by highlighting the differences to your comments about my rate for the proposal part being similar to your rate as a freelancer.
Outside of that you are of course free to think what you want and even to do a counter proposal.
I spent half of the night and all the morning answering your questions and feedback point by point, but I’m not trying to understand ?
Not sure what else I could have done then, sorry. I proposed alternative solutions that were not even considered, or even denied for one so now just trying to give context and defend my work here.
As for your understanding about the DAO, it’s ok to share ideas and make constructive feedback and it’s also ok to not be familiar with everything, but how can you judge my contributions & say it’s too high if you never follow the governance and were not aware of it ?
I doubt you had the time to review every link in the post above to really understand what we’re talking about here, but would be glad to be wrong here.
Sorry but this also sounds like you might not be aware of the DAO treasury state and expenses for exemple. What I meant is that considering we have 2 loans to pay back in the coming weeks (one totally at the end of march, and the second one to Mithras repaid progressively and used for runaway) asking for stables would reduce the amount available planned for these expenses and require us to sell some other assets held. Which is possible, but probably not the most efficient to do. Not sure what law has to do here.
So you can say my work is worth less than what I estimate despite having no clue about it since you don’t follow the governance, but I can’t make a comment on your involvement based on facts observed (1st post yesterday). Sure make sense.
Not trying to discredit you, just defending my proposal and explaining as much as I can.
However yes it is very sad to see the core team acting as if I was some random person trying to request something unjustified and this perfectly demonstrates what we discussed above about community contribution being highly undervalued and unrecognized.
Thanks for mentioning it a 3rd time. Have a nice day.
That was one year ago… and you are right, after double checking, it clearly wasn’t 400 but 150 euros, my bad, I wrote my answer a bit late in the evening.
This is because the auto voter is managed by the Devco, not Paladin, I don’t remember any post mentioning otherwisem but sure, governance is a dumpster fire and you are our shining light.
We never did a grant this big for anyone
We do it on the side of our main role no additional person was hired for it, and you know full well why we didn’t consider you. Overall I would really like if we could center the debate purely on the debate and be productive instead of launching side chats.
All of it was shared in the proposal, and looking forward to your comments on the upcoming one
Ah we’re posting screenshot dms on the forum now ? Amazing, that’s next level.
I’ll refrain from doing the same for now as this is irrelevant to the discussion especially without sharing some context.
This proposal mentioned on this screen was never submitted, it was indeed one year ago after I spent a few months working on a project, and just before you decide to internalize it, hire the dev who was working with me on it and exclude me out to do what you wanted. Also these proposals were exclusively on Warlord, so it’s completely different from this one.
At least you recognize the error on the rate, but it’s still not correct tho, it was not in euro but in $ value and expected to be requested in PAL as well. Also I doubt I requested 150$/h to Paladin but that’s closer to what I already received from other projects.
It also clearly shows it was discussed before btw since some had doubts.
In the same week, the Paladin twitter account made announcements for:
Partnership with Octav, only quickly mentioned in msig channel as a test
Implementation of a protocol upgrade with Warlord zap
Implementation of delegation rewards in crvUSD
Even if managed by DevCo, it can be confusing for ppl since it’s not posted by some “Mithras Labs account” and it doesn’t prevent transparency with the community.
Sure these are some minor changes so it’s not a big deal but still. Anyway back to the topic.
So because I contributed a lot and for a long time before requesting something, the amount is higher than if I did each separately, and so I must be penalized by having a vesting compared to other grants, instead of just converting part of it to another asset ?
Considering you told me amount were (I quote) “not inconceivable” in dm, the only issue seems to be the amount of PAL received so switching 30-50% to USDC sould fix the issue.
The other solution I proposed to add in LP in the meantime so I can earn yield would also preventing a one time max lock while insuring that it would all be locked in the end. (Despite this solution not being the best for me as I need to add ETH to pair + I have IL risk + it might earn less than boosted bribes).
That’s all I’m trying to do but I must defend myself especially when wrong informations are posted.
Did you review everything mentioned in the post ? Please add more details on this in your next comment.
Lmao this post is getting crazier with each comment, so basically you’re saying I should pay the DAO for my contributions.
I am not interested in buying more PAL as I already bought some in the past, but also because I receive some for delegate & signer contributions and because I don’t think I should pay to get rewarded or that it’s my role to fill the DAO debts.
As a reminder I proposed to get compensated in PAL to arrange the DAO on the liquid treasury side but everyone prefers to be compensated in stables when possible imo.
I actually made a proposal to suggest OTC deals with projects committing in the tokenomics to reduce the debt amount and avoid selling strategic assets, but it was refused in the whitelist PIP so here we are.
I read the proposal and tried to follow the discussions that ensued. I feel like I’m seeing a debate reminiscent of what happened during pgm 46. I believe Dydymoon deserves compensation, particularly for his work as a proposal writer and coordinator in general. However, the total amount seems high to me, although I lack comparison elements.
For the future, and to avoid proposal spam, perhaps we could only compensate proposals that have been accepted, with a sufficient number of different voters.
Regarding the currency used for rewards, I think the DAO cannot currently afford to compensate in assets other than PAL. I’m not opposed to the idea of vesting for such a significant amount, even though I understand Dydymoon’s frustration.
I fully support recognizing your contributions to Paladin and am grateful for all you’ve done. However, I have reservations about the proposed $PAL token allocation. While not opposed to the value ($) compensation, the size of the token grant at the current market cap seems large.
Your willingness to lock in your allocation shows commitment, but it also emphasizes my concern about the governance power this grant would convey. Therefore, I’m currently inclined to vote “abstain” (for now).
I hope this message conveys my respect for your work and my commitment to finding a balanced solution. I look forward to further discussions on how we can appropriately acknowledge your contributions in a way that aligns with the long-term interests of the Paladin DAO.
I have read through this lengthy topic, and here are my two cents. First of all, I want to say that I was introduced to Paladin by @Dydymoon, and I am very grateful for that. So, I might be biased in a way, but I will try to be as impartial as possible.
Personally, I think this is a great opportunity for Paladin DAO to showcase that anybody willing to be deeply involved with the DAO over a multi-year period could be rewarded for the value they bring. Paladin DAO seems to be in a very good position compared to many other DAOs. You can see debates happening, real issues being publicly disputed, and delegates incentivized to spend time reviewing proposals before voting. As mentionned by @Figue the DAO should ackowledge that these kind of high value contributions (similar to professional service providers) have a cost and reward them accordingly. Contrary to regular service provider here you can see the long-term alignment with a two years contributions and a 2 years lock commitment.
In my view, it seems like many agrees on the fact that Dydymoon should be compensated. The issue seems more linked with the nature and amounts of the compensation. If I understand correctly, the sticking points seem to be:
“The amount asked is too high.” To be honest, I don’t have a lot of benchmarks for this, but I would really appreciate it if some people could bring some comparisons? Or maybe a clear counter-proposal? Technical proposals take time and require a good understanding of the ecosystem, and these kinds of skills are scarce. So, to me, the total amount asked for two years of involvement, paid in a token that will be locked for 2 years, doesn’t seem unreasonable.
“A vesting should be set up.” In my view, this doesn’t seem like a win for neither Dydymoon nor the DAO. Vesting is usually here to avoid contributors from dumping, but this won’t be the case as he is committed to max lock 2years. I understand the concern about the yield granted by the max lock aspect. I think a compromise should be found there, and having a part of the rewards in LP first seems like a good way to do it. Dydymoon will bear the IL risk plus provide value to the protocol by LPing without having all the yields from max lock straight away.
To conclude, I think it is important to have the long-term vision of where Paladin DAO is going. I am in favor of this proposal, however I can understand that some community members are surprised as it is the first time such a big retroactive grant is asked to the DAO, so I really hope a common ground could be found on this.
Its pretty clear (and normal) everyone agrees that good contributors need to paid. No problem here. The problem is the amount and timeframe to pay.
For reference the Tholgar team receives 37,500 pal per person for multiple months of work. We’re talking about 5x this amount, liquid.
If he:
Full locks, it gives ~5% of total emission control (250,000 pal over 2 years currently)
Full LPs, it would amount to 2000-6000$ in LP rewards per month, subtracted from current DAO revenue.
Or a mix of both. Mind you this is free revenue on top of the grant. Absolutely every hire in the core team has had a 30 month vesting, the most recent for similar amounts. Vesting is not about trust, its about preventing value leakage.
It’s not like anyone is purely against the grant, its just that the liquid ask is significant.
I honestly feel that half upfront and half vested over a year is a fair deal.
Hi everyone ! Great to see more comments here, and sorry for the late reply.
Many different topics were raised so I wanted to answer everything and back it up with facts/data, which took some time.
Indeed, what happened on PGM-46 demonstrated that many are not aware of the difference between a delegate and a service provider role. It’s also why the post contains so many details as it’s understandable for those not following closely the governance can be confused.
Thank you for the support, appreciated ser.
Also thanks for mentioning that. I believe you’re definitely not the only one with this issue, which is probably the reason why several people said the amount seems high.
It’s true that we don’t have many examples in the Paladin DAO itself, however I strongly invite everyone to check into other DAOs that compensate contributions in the scopes mentioned to see that the amount is already in the low range of the market cost. Not quoting any to avoid influencing researchs.
Also since we’re speaking about Paladin DAO, let’s compare wih the very few examples we have.
It’s really napkin math so might not be perfectly accurate (please correct if needed) but we now have Mithras Labs requesting $37K/month in cash to cover the costs of 7 people working there.
That’s $444K / year or $888K / 2 years if we’re looking at the same period. According to this post it seems that approx 75% of this is for team salaries, the remaining being taxes & utilities. If you divide this amount equally by 7 (which is most likely not the case in reality as profiles are different), it gives you $126.5K per person over a 2 year period so approx 5x what I’m requesting. Note that this is in liquid assets (ETH atm to repay the loan but USDC once debts will be cleared), and does not include any of the team allocations in PAL which comes on top.
Considering some are full time contributing to Mithras, it’s normal that this amount is way higher than what I ask, but it also demonstrates that the amount requested is more than reasonable especially in PAL, without even mentioning the locking terms.
This is an important point to discuss, and it should definitely be taken into account when creating the grant framework. However, as said above, these proposals are still contributions that had a purpose & took time to realize, so not rewarding it at all would be unfair as it would basically mean you get paid only if people agree with your ideas. However adding some security on the participation rate might be a good criteria.
To give a bit more context on the 2 ones concerned in this proposal:
PGM-XX: Treasury Strategy around Warlord - Replaced by PGM-31: I submitted this proposal which was a really complex one as it included many different topics around Warlord & treasury managements. It took a long time to prepare and draft, and even more time to discuss on the forum about the potential outcomes. Since we couldn’t find a consensus, the core team decided to resubmit with PGM-31, effectively replacing my proposal with a simpler version, making mine useless.
PGM-XX: OTC budget to onboard projects on Tokenomics - Denied in PIP-20: This proposal was made at the same time as PIP-20 and was aiming to allocate a % of the PAL remaining supply for OTC deals with project committing to the new tokenomics system, enabling them to enter with low slippage and allowing the DAO to repay part of its loan without selling strategic asset earning incomes or supporting strategies. As there was some pushback in the comment, I added another option of simple whitelist that was canceling this proposal, which is the one that got approved.
In both cases my goal was to improve the Paladin DAO, and you can see both were discussed a lot (the second one was mostly discussed in PIP-20) so I don’t believe these should not be rewarded but I agree the reward should be lowered, and I did reduce it before even posting.
Again, the DAO can afford an additional $12,5K expense in USDC if we were to switch part of the grant in stables. It would require us to sell some assets which might not be the most efficient, but as explained in Figue’s post about preparing for both loans repayment, we already need to sell some for Mimo and for Mithras at the end of March.
The difference between the need to gather 230K (Amount of Mimo loan & interest + 40K for Mithras) or 242,5K (if we add 12,5K for half of the grant) in USDC/ETH in one month is not high, which is why I keep saying that it should be considered if paying everything in PAL without vesting penalty is that much of a concern for everyone.
It would also be best for me because I would get rewarded with funds I can actually use now.
The above data was written yesterday so might have changed a little but as a reminder, the DAO treasury total excluding PAL & locked assets is around:
$24K on main multisig excluding POL (or $150K including stable/eth part of the POL)
$177,2K on the collateral multisig excluding POL (or $410,2K with ETH part of the POL)
$1K on the arbitrum multisig excluding POL (or $13K with ETH part of the POL)
Excluding the POL that’s a total of approx $202,2K, to which you can add:
The protocol fees & yield from strategies that will be generated by end of March (hard to estimate but I’d say at least 15K as last swap session we got 9,6K on mainnet and ~2K on Arb + the yield on the 2 other multisigs)
Approx 30K AURA unlocked by mid march on locked msig currently worth $24K.
That’s approximately the amount needed excluding POL (even though I think we should sell some stables in POL which we can build back later over AURA but that’s another topic) with current prices so not taking into account the market starting to wake up, but also assuming it doesn’t drop.
Even in the event where we’d have to sell the AURA unlocked & would be missing some, selling 5% of the non PAL in the POL would make an additional $29K liquid, which should be more than enough to cover everything.
Long story short we can afford to pay half of the grant in stables & repay debts.
Thanks for understanding. On my side I’m against vesting as it just doesn’t make any sense to favor this over a max lock commitment imo, and because none of the grants before got any vesting so it would be unfair & illogical (especially as grants are usually used to pay for expenses).
I hope this helps everyone with a better understanding of the treasury state & expenses.
Feel free to ping me if you have any questions.
Thanks for the feedback & support, appreciated.
The token amount is not that high tbh. If we compare with the Tholgar grant (biggest distributed so far in token amount iirc) we nearly distributed 75K PAL (down to 55K & 1 ETH to cover expenses).
According to PGM-38, they started to work on Tholgar when Warlord launched in June and requested the grant in mid September so that’s around 3,5 months of contributions for building it, to which we can estimate 1 month for additional contributions mentioned in the post prior to the deployment (requires confirmation or correction from @0xTekGrinder or @0xMemorygrinder on this estimation).
Again it’s really napkin math but assuming it was splitted equally, that’s 27,5K PAL each for 4,5 months, excluding the ETH. Assuming it took 2 years to build (just to compare with the same period as this proposal and taking the PAL amount as above), it would have actually made 146K PAL each, which is very close to my request, and it would actually be higher by taking the initial amount requested which was converted to ETH as well.
It’s also worth noting that the decision taken to reduce the grant in token size & avoid selling pressure back then was not to request a vesting, but rather to reduce the amount of PAL to convert remaining in liquid assets.
As for the market cap, it’s easy to say that now but I could also have made a similar proposal at the bottom price a few weeks ago, which would have more than doubled the issue.
Now imagine if 2 years ago I took the same deal as what I proposed (when PAL was trading at $1+), I would be unlocked now and would have contributed for 5x less than what I requested in usd value. Of course it can also happen the opposite way (which I hope tbh) but no one here can guarantee how much PAL will be worth in 2 years, as this ecosystem is really moving super fast and I could also end up with nothing.
What I propose is not only showing commitment, but also the risks I’m willing to take to avoid impacting liquid treasury (despite having expenses to cover, just like everyone else).
As for the concern on governance power, it is really irrelevant imo because even with this grant approved & max locked, I would still be very far from the top voters (who are probably either core team members or investors, which are not voting often but with considerable voting power when they do).
Looking at one of the most controversial proposals like PIP-14 which had the highest participation ever in votes amount, the biggest vote was casted by 0x8b53 with 890K votes (last time it voted).
Notes: The voting power is boosted when max locked and this address didn’t relock so currently has 1:1 voting power on 715K hPAL including 350K locked. This address also had a total vesting of 1,125M PAL (2,25% of the supply), of which 546K were claimed & 499K are claimable as visible on the vesting contract here: Read Contract → lockedAmount = total vesting; releasableAmount = Claimable; TotalReleasedAmount = Already claimed).
The second biggest voter (0x9F8F) voted with 771K last time (on PIP 14/16), holding 514K hPAL locked but not relocked so 1:1 voting power. It also had a total vesting of 675K (1,35% of the supply) including 479K claimed & 194K claimable.
The 3rd biggest voter on PIP-14 is Figue.eth, which despite voting more often is similar to ones above: 439K hPAL including 250K locked but not relocked so 1:1 voting power, and vesting of 2,13M PAL (4,275% of the supply) of which 595K were claimed and 1,39M are claimable.
As the 3 have similar patterns with same vesting terms & received from same contract & since Romain public address is one of them, I’m assuming these are all core team members. By adding the claimable amount, we can see that the vesting is ending soon which means a massive amount of PAL could be locked anytime to increase governance power.
Plus, if I remember correctly the last community call, it was said that all investors are now unlocked as well and that all the ones that wanted to sell did, which either means that others are waiting to be in profit again to sell, or they are planning to lock to participate in governance & benefit from tokenomics emissions.
On my side, I currently hold 95K PAL max locked on my ENS dydymoon.sismo.eth (as it’s max locked & since I have delegated voting power there too, this address currently votes with 335,4K votes), and if this grant was approved and max locked, it would increase my holdings around 250K PAL (0,5% of the supply) and this address would vote with ~ 560K votes including current delegations.
I can assure that even if I had 2 or 3x that amount locked, it would not represent much compared to the current total voting power, and even less compared to the estimated 20%+ of the supply released to the team & investors (as well as the projects/individuals that might enter the VF) which could all lock in theory.
Considering I’m the most active delegate, I don’t think having an important voting power is really an issue. However if these potential new lockers (who will further dilute current voters & lockers) don’t properly vote or delegate, it can actually be a risk of having proposals failing even if most delegates already voted as we have dynamic quorums, meaning that as more of the supply is locked, the quorum to make a proposal valid also increases.
Also, my goal is not to control the governance or to be able to pass controversial votes on my own (as demonstrate my track record including the renewal of the delegate program despite the 1st one not having much traction, to bring more diversity in the governance discussion & votes).
Moreover, surprised to get this concern from you @starny as you know very well that I’m quite concerned about decisions being taken by few people rather than by most governance participants possible and doing what I can to improve that aspect.
Hope the above helps everyone to have a better view how the locked hPAL supply could grow consequently if part of the team and/or investors and/or projects clients of Quest and/or any newcomer that can just buy on market or OTC were to lock once emissions begin.
I sincerely believe there is no way to be more long term aligned than what I initially proposed, which is a 2 year commitment in DeFi where everything moves at a crazy pace.
Interested if you have a counter proposal on something that would be even more aligned.
Hey Alex ! Thanks a lot for the feedback & support, appreciated !
As mentioned above in this comment, I really encourage anyone to look at other DAOs on this to be more familiar with the topic. Not sure I wanna quote a specific one for this as they don’t have the same size & don’t wanna influence the references, which is why I also took exemples in the Paladin DAO (despite that we don’t have much left).
Thanks. Indeed I haven’t seen an actual counter proposal that is not penalizing me despite having proposed two alternatives so far.
Well, thanks for this new comment full of inaccurate data & misinformation. Really starting to feel offended by your behavior in this post.
“There are no issues to reward outside of the amount & the timeframe” lmao
You are right, asking after 2 years of contributions is too early, should have waited until 2027 and requested 100$.
Not exactly, Tholgar members requested 27500 PAL each (not 37500 as part was switched in actual liquid assets = ETH), and according to the proposal it was for 3,5 months of work, which should be around 4,5 months with previous contributions.
Just calculate the same amount of PAL per person & per period on the same timeframe as this proposal, you would have seen the request is pretty similar without taking the ETH into account and higher if you take the ETH (in PAL amount).
As for the liquid part, I said multiple times I was committing to max lock instantly so this argument is irrelevant.
So you’re proposing a new tokenomics, but when its approved and a power user & involved DAO contributor belives enough in your project to max lock & stay aligned it’s an issue, despite other addresses having the ability to control much more than what I ever could ?
Also, are you aware your token is tradable & that anyone could buy that amount or more to control emissions ? (didn’t double check this 5% share tbh but I imagine it’s atm so before emissions begins which will bring many newcomers or remotivate old lockers, diluting current ones)
Not to mention I clearly expressed concerns about the emission proposed (I actually voted for a rework on PIP-14 but top holders showed up to make sure it would be approved, and I voted abstain on PIP-16) so it’s weird to see you being worried now.
Wait, so anyone adding liquidity on PAL LPs is now subtracting revenues from the DAO, just because we’re voting with its vlAURA holding to reduce PAL emissions while still sustaining the PAL liquidity ?
It reminds me of something I suggested to you in order to align LPs with specific gauges as I proposed on the Aave SM but you said it was ridiculous, I guess it wasn’t after all if you don’t want users to dilute the DAO strategies.
Anyway, to clarify I never proposed to be a full LP, it would be way too expensive and risky for me to source 2 ETH+ to pair it all. What I can consider is 25% (could try to push to 50% if really needed but would require around 1 ETH to add), of the grant paired with ETH and added in the 80/20 on Arbitrum.
So 25% of the grant + associated ETH would represent ~ $7,8K in LP. According to Aura Finance UI, the current APR of this pool is ~ 37%. Assuming I stay 6 months in LP with 25% before locking the remaining, it would make ~ 240$/month or 1440$ over 6 months. You can double that for 50% so 480$/ month or 2880$ over 6 months.
Even by taking 100% (which I’m not interested to do, but just to demonstrate you don’t seem to verify any number before posting nonsense) so a total of $31,2K LP, it would make 962$/month or 5770$ over 6 months, which is actually lower than your top estimation per month.
Not to mention this is accurate now with this APR, but may change if the DAO has to sell some AURA, reducing its emission power.
Hard to estimate what would yield the tokenomic part since it’s not live and we’re far from being able to distribute actual profit sharing in it so it will only be PAL rewards for some time.
On top of a grant that would be instantly max lock to support the project so not liquid at all according to my initial proposal* but again you keep pretending to not understand that.
Also since you estimated I’d control 5% of tokenomics emissions on my ENS if I max lock this grant + adding my existing locked hPAL: 250K PAL locked so 0,5% supply would control 5%, how much would you control if you were to lock the majority of your 2,13M PAL vesting so 4,28% supply (fully released in 3 months) + anything you farmed/bought on your ENS ?
Also how much would control the biggest investor if they were to lock now, or any other big holder currently liquid ?
Ofc I know you most likely won’t lock it all, but that doesn’t mean you can’t, same for others.
I am also requesting you to edit/delete this which is also absolutely incorrect and misleading for anyone reading only a part of the discussion please.
First, you’ve told me enough time I’m not a core team member (who are also receiving a salary in cash every month btw), so there is really no reason to compare here.
Then, it’s great that you bring up this topic, because I noticed something this morning about it when augmenting my answer, which I’d like to ask some clarifications about:
For context, the core team received an allocation of 15% of the supply approved by governance as can be seen in PGM-1 forum post & vote. However when checking some data to demonstrate the important amount currently released, I noticed the proposal specifies the duration terms to be 6 months cliff + 3 years vesting (at least for genesis team members as more arrived after so terms might have changed).
My concern is coming from the fact that the duration from the vesting contract returns 30 months as you just said, which either corresponds to 6 months cliff + 24 months vesting (if cliff is accounted prior to the vesting, which is how I understand PGM-1) or 30 months vesting (if cliff is included in vesting duration). If I’m correct, it would mean that one of the first governance proposals was not executed according to its vote, resulting in a reduction of 1 year (or 6 months) on some of the team vesting, including yours.
I also double checked with the formula (Total vesting amount - Claimable - Claimed) to verify proportions for which the remaining match the 3 months left to vest, meaning that these are ending in May 2024 instead of May 2025. This results in a single address having 1,39M PAL claimable (2,78% of the supply) when a part of it should still be vested 1 year from my understanding.
I believe this point should be explained and fixed as it’s concerning if initial vesting terms were not properly set up, especially as the DAO doesn’t have any idea about the initial repartition, about who received the remaining, how much and under which terms, potential vesting stopped, unallocated left if any etc
(Important to note that only with your ENS, it’s nearly 10x the amount requested here that can be either liquid or locked anytime but to be fair also that you and others 0x mentionned didn’t claim since a long time ago to not increase the circulating yet)
Taking all this into account, it’s probably easier to understand why I’m surprised about so much push back & concerns despite the full details added and max lock commitment from an identified grant recipient.
As said several times in this comment, especially on some data I had to check with sc calls and since I’m no expert, don’t hesitate to correct me if anything is incorrect.
Looking forward to more feedback & lmk if any additional questions !
