PGM-50: Retroactive Grant Request

Please. for the love of god, you have to be more synthetic. 10 pages of text is not an acceptable length for a forum comment.
Besides all the complex arguments and veiled attacks, can we please just get ONE solution you feel is fine?
I’ve suggested, 50 000 PAL liquid and 100 000 vested over a year.

PS. f there are any other topics you want to discuss please create another thread.

Dydymoon, to be quite frank with you, I see your passive-aggressive communication style as very negative to the DAO and the Forum.

This forum doesn’t revolve around you.

Did I review your kind explanation on how DAOs work? Yes, I remember reading through it and didn’t find any value in it.
Believe me, I know in-depth how DAOs work. I know how other DAOs do it. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
It is my opinion, and it is your opinion. If you disagree, disagree, but don’t ace like it is education for the lesser.

… I mean what even say to this? At which point do I stop keeping a straight face?

I wonder what your response to this might be, perhaps: “It seems you’re not familliar with what options are :drooling_face::smiling_face:? I encourage you to fill your gaps of knowledge :relieved::face_with_hand_over_mouth:! I am in fact not saying you should pay the DAO :open_mouth:, I am not even basically saying you should pay the DAO :nerd_face::face_with_hand_over_mouth:. Maybe try writing it down? :memo::thinking:

I agree with 50k liquid or 100k @12m vest. Very fair compensation for the efforts imo.

1 Like

Hi all. I waited some time to see if others would like to participate, but it seems not so I’ll answer the last two comments & add a poll with options I believe are fair.

In addition to explaining my arguments with data & answering everyone’s concerns, I had to correct many incorrect information shared about me, which increased the post…

I did propose 2 alternatives, both limitating concerns mentioned in the comments but I’ll recap & add new alternatives at the end of this comment.

I don’t believe my arguments are complex, just did some comparison with similar funding requests made to the Paladin DAO to demonstrate that considering the period of contributions, my request is quite reasonable.

No “veiled attacks” either, I just asked for some clarification about what appears to be a mistake in the team vesting duration compared to what was voted, but sure I can do another topic if needed.

Sorry if my answers sound passive-aggressive, it was not the goal at all. I was only trying to answer everything properly.

What I meant is: Did you review the full initial proposal with links/explanation to every contribution before commenting its too high, wasn’t speaking about my “DAO explanation”. It’s also why I requested more details about what seems high, potentially with comparaison from other DAOs.

Of course we can have different opinions and we can both express it, but as I remained polite so far, I would appreciate it if you could do the same, as your comment really feels disrespectful.

I maintain that agreeing privately with the team about a funding request amount which is made to the DAO after is not the most transparent way to proceed. Not saying no DAOs are doing it unfortunately, but that doesn’t mean we have to do it too.

My answer is simply that I’m not interested in exploring options for the compensation of this proposal.

As explained a few times on this post, a vesting is not fair considering previous grants/funding requests approved, and since I committed to max lock 2 years.

If I recap the concerns mentioned by everyone:

  • Too many PAL lock would give me too much voting power (Not really + I could reach out to my biggest delegator & ask to redirect his votes, which would balance that)

  • Too many PAL locked would give mee too much emission power (Estimated at a specific time before emissions begins, without comparison with other big holders)

  • Everything in USDC is impossible as we need to repay debts (fully agree)

  • Adding too many PAL in LP would take revenues from the DAO (assuming because the DAO votes for its POL strategy, but irrelevant since it’s already not the only LP).

  • Amount seems high but no comparaison proposed (demonstrated in my long answer than in $ or in PAL it’s reasonable considering the DAO history)

  • No vesting is unfair compared to the core team (Irrelevant as I’m not a team member, so I had none of the advantages such as salary or initial allocation or vesting starting with my contributions).

However, I hear these concerns and I’m trying to find a way around while avoiding being penalized with an unnecessary vesting especially this high (which the reason is usually to limitate sell pressure and we know if I wanted to sell PAL, I could have done it with delegation rewards already but that’s not my goal).

Here are 5 options I consider fair:

  1. Initial proposal: 100% PAL no vest but max locked instantly (If it was possible to request it directly locked I would have done it, but it’s impossible so it involves some trust for sure)

  2. Alternative already proposed: 100% PAL no vest including 50% max locked, and 50% added in LP for 6 months with equiv in ETH on Arbitrum.

  3. Alternative already proposed: 50% PAL no vest but max locked, 50% USDC

  4. New Alternative: 75% PAL including 50% no vest but max lock, 25% no vest but in LP six months & 25% USDC

  5. New Alternative: 80% PAL including 40% no vest but max lock, 20% no vest but LP six months, 20% vested 6 months & 20% USDC

  6. None of the above

Hopefully we can reach a consensus on one of the options taking concerns into account, some being quite different from the initial one with the last one even including a part vested.

(I believe Option 4 makes the most sense as it reduces the total amount of PAL, doesn’t request much stables, avoids direct full lock giving emission power, doesn’t take a lot of LP emissions, and no unfair vesting, but I’m open to any of the above).

Which compensation model for the request in this proposal ?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
0 voters

If one of the new choices reach a consensus I’ll add a comment with updated numbers and submit the proposal.

The fact that you created a poll and added close to NONE of the suggestions is a absolute lack of respect to the time spent by people on this proposal (and considering the length of your writings, we should bill you for this).

So here’s a counter poll with actual sensible numbers, considering suggestions from people who spent time the discussion:

  • 152,000 PAL fully liquid
  • 152,0000 PAL, with a one year vesting
  • 152,000 in PAL, half liquid, half vested over 6 months
  • 125,000 PAL, 60% liquid, 40% vested over 6 months and 4000 USDC
  • Rework proposal
  • Nothing, the DAO should not compensate unsollicited work
0 voters

Ps: it is absolutely ridiculous that the DAO votes on what an individual does with his tokens once allocated.

1 Like

Hello everyone,

This is my first post on this discussion a bit late but I felt the need to let my thoughts settle.

First of all, as everyone in the DAO I believe, I consider you a big part of the DAO and a very good contributor.

However, there are a few points regarding the contribution which I disagree on the amount asked.

  • Delegate tasks: this has already been discussed but in my opinion asking for rewards on a retroactive basis for such tasks seems unrealistic. On another topic, I haven’t self reported for the last two months as I believe that the work I provided isn’t worth the reward, It shows that I don’t think it should be this high considering the overall activity of the DAO.

I still suggest an allocation of half of the requested amount so 17649.03 PAL

  • Proposal Redaction: Considering the 300$ for half a day of work for a simple proposal so a daily rate of 600$. I think it is too high for the size of the DAO. I would suggest a reduction of half so for grand total of 31053.90 PAL to reward your efforts to make the DAO more active

I also have a question regarding PGM-16 since Beguin posted it so I was wondering if you added it by mistake or wrote it and he published it ?

  • Multisigs Coordination: I joined the counsel for the last three months and I can say that you indeed have been helping with creating transactions. However, I don’t think it is fair as we usually have one big swap session per month and the rest is usually little occasional signing created by the core team.
    I would also suggest a reduction to 250$ per month so 14595 PAL.

  • Sister DAO: I think that the research work you have done is valuable but it is for a project that hasn’t launched. So, a ask of 6600$ which is already over what Tholgar has been granted for two developers working on multiple months is too high. We also needs to be reminded that this idea was created during an hackathon which you already won a prize for. I’d suggest a compensation of 10000 PAL for the work done.

  • BD & Growth: It is a point that I can understand and the asked PAL amount seems fair.

On another point, using the 3 weeks TWAP seems just wrong considering that the PAL price has a lot increased. As a reference, the Tholgar grant has been based of actual price while posting the proposal so I suggest we use the price of today which is 0.21$

Here is the calculation to adjust to PAL amount to the current price valuation :
The TWAP has the following value = ($ value / iniital PAL amount proposal) = (25066.04 / 152246.01) = 0.16464168749$.

Adjusted Amount = New Proposal Amount * (TWAP / Current price) = 75797.93 * 0.16464168749 / 0.21 = 59426.19 PAL
The new $ value at the current price would be $12497 which is the biggest grant the DAO has ever allocated by far

1 Like

Hello @Figue, thanks for proposing other alternatives and supporting the option including USDC.

I did say I proposed options considered fair, and the one you supported is similar to option 5 so my poll was reasonable imo. Still not understanding how it’s more beneficial for the DAO to favor a vesting over increasing the native token liquidity though.

Anyway, I thought we found a consensus but I’ll answer the last comment before posting the vote.

(Also, saying that my proposal to find an aligned solution is ridiculous, that the DAO should invoice me for taking the time of doing argued answers, and managing to say that I’m the one disrespectful in a single comment is quite sad tbh)

Hello @0xTekGrinder, thanks for your feedback.

I must say I’m surprised by your suggestions, and while I disagree with your counter proposal and will explain why, I’ll add it as an option in the vote.

To be honest I’m tired of arguing in this thread, plus I believe we all lost enough time here, but as you shared detailed feedback, I’ll explain / answer my views for the last time.

Not sure why you think it’s unrealistic. The delegation rewards are defined by a formula voted by the DAO so it’s the only one we actually have a framework for, making it the least controversial. I was the first active delegate and it was the case for a long time, until rewards were introduced, so it would be really unfair to not reward it retroactively.

Not asking your delegate rewards because you estimate you didn’t spend enough time to deserve it is your choice and I respect it, but it doesn’t mean it should penalize other delegates who are active and dedicating time to this task.

These are time estimations (lowered when I made the proposal) and this rate is already considerably lower than I usually request to other DAOs (& it’s in the low range of the market cost on these tasks).

The proposals made all had the purpose to improve the DAO Ops or Treasury, and took time to think about their feasibility, doing research / reaching out ppl if needed, writing the proposal, answering everyone’s feedback to find a consensus, publish & implement the vote.

Also I did this proposal now because 2 years of contributions without compensation was long enough, but also because I know it won’t put the treasury at risk (which is also why I requested PAL tokens, and committed to lock).

Yes I wrote it, then sent him to review & publish it.

One big swap session per month was initially the goal, but unfortunately we didn’t manage to do it since a long time, which required us to do several as we often got stuck.

Creating most of the transactions also requires more time implication as it means aligning with most signers availabilities, make sure to not send these when gas is too high, coordinating signers once tx are launched, plan the different transactions to reduce the total submitted, and building bundled transactions to win time for signers.

First, the project hasn’t launched mostly because the core team imposed changes in the initial design, then hired the developer who was working on it while excluding me from discussions to internalize and ship an updated project faster, so it wasn’t really my fault.

Then, in your grant proposal it says you both worked around 4 months on Tholgar before it went live. I’ve dedicated time and efforts to the sister DAO for 10 months.

Finally, Tholgar got exactly what was requested at the lowest market cap possible without vesting and even got a portion in ETH to cover expenses and prevent selling pressure so the terms are quite different.

600 PAL for 36h of Hackathon so basically nothing, after which we were strongly encouraged by the core team to keep working on it for months and request a retroactive grant later (which was supposed to be around 100K PAL …)

The situations are quite different and I believe using a TWAP is fair considering the recent high volatility. The Tholgar grant was allocated in the bear market, with the PAL price very stable. Moreover, it was allocated at the bottom price, and without any vesting requirements, but the usd value is now 2,5x.

On a side note, according to my estimation above for which I asked a confirmation, if we compare both grant requests, you actually requested more in proportion of the time spent, and received a bigger share of the grant in liquid assets (Not taking into account the PAL & ETH prices increase since it was approved ofc)

Finally, this proposal took a long time to prepare, then was sent to the team to gauge sentiment which took a few days, then was submitted & discussed over a long period, during which the price of PAL moved a lot so I shouldn’t be penalized by it for trying to preserve the liquid treasury when asking a compensation.

So, you don’t only want to divide everything by half, but also to take advantage of the recent price increase to lower my request even more, leading to a total reduction of -61% of the total PAL amount initially requested. Wow.

I was already disappointed to see pushback for what equals to ~1,05K$/month over 2 years in a volatile asset with a max lock commitment, but this counter proposal is reducing that by more than half, which really feels insulting considering my contributions in the Paladin DAO requiring various valuable skills.

Anyway, everyone is free to think and propose what they want, I’m confident about my skills and the value I bring to the DAO.

If no other comment arises I’ll push the proposal tomorrow with the following options:

  • Option 1: Approve retroactive grant request of 125K PAL including 60% sent liquid but max locked, 40% vested over 6 months & 4000 USDC. (most voted on the last poll)
  • Option 2: Reduce requested amount by 61% to 59,42K PAL (counter proposal)
  • No, deny the retroactive grant
  • Abstain

Thanks to everyone who took the time to participate in this thread.

Just maybe worth adding that delegate compensation was added in May 2023, so its pretty disingenuous to say you contributed 2 years when you have been paid for almost half of the duration…

Then is untrue, but then again, not worth wasting times on the topic again.

I’m not sure delegate work and dev work are comparable, rates have always been higher for the latter,simply because it is a harder skillset to master.

Anyway, let’s focus on the matter at hand, the compensation amount

The proposal has been published on snapshot.

Quorum PGM-50: 797 065 votes.