PGM-55: Renew delegate incentives program for S2-24

Summary

This post aims to revise & renew the Delegates Incentives Program from May to December 2024, Previous budget was allocated here: PGM-46: Renew delegate incentives program

Context

Reminder of incentivization eligibility criteria:

  • Governance participation: Initially 80%, update to minimum 90%
  • Obligation of transparency: Explain voting rationale
  • Delegation Threshold: Minimum 10 000 hPAL delegated from 2 stakeholders
  • Recognised Delegates have to self-report on a monthly basis in this thread in order to get their incentives

Rationale

This proposal aims to evaluate the Paladin delegates status & spending over the past months, as well as propose to revise & renew this program for an additional 6 months.

  • Max budget approved : 300 000 PAL

  • 4 eligible delegates: Dydymoon; Bozo; Alex; 0xTekGrinder

  • Current formula: f(x) = 0.125*(sqrt(x^(1.27718))+641.607)/PALy

Where 0,125 & PALy = price of $PAL at every monthly snapshot

Voting Options

  • Renew the current system
  • Rework the system
  • Don’t renew the delegate program
  • Abstain
  • For
  • Rework
  • Against
  • Abstain
0 voters

Hello, thanks for the proposal. Supportive of renewing the delegate incentives program as it’s important to reward active contributors.

According to the rule you included in PIP-23: Switch governance to an Optimistic Council, which is one of the main reasons I couldn’t apply as a councilor in PIP-24:

And since 0xTekGrinder was elected as a councilor (which has a higher allocation), I assume you meant that there are only 3 eligible delegates, correct ?

That’s up to him to chose, but yes it would make sense. You can perfectly do both roles, you just get paid for one as the goal is to favour diversification of active contributors.

The vote is live on Snapshot

Ok thanks for the confirmation.

This rule only targeted 2 of the most active contributors including 0xTekGrinder who was a delegate + signer + building products on top of Paladin & myself as I was active contributor + delegate + signer since 2y+

The main goal was preventing us to earn from $1K to $1,5K as councilor/signer (new compensation up from below $50/month for years) + the delegate compensation (voting power based) so not a fixed amount but below $1K/month for every delegates, and which you can significantly influence since the core team is delegating a lot of voting power.

Pretending you want to diversify contributors is not true as you added this rule in a previous post saying that “anyone can create proposals but only councilors or paid service providers can be compensated to do so” (ignoring the main suggestion of an onboarding program to bring new contributors), and also asked current active contributors to choose between delegate or signer role unless if they did one for free.

Disappointing & concerning to see you decided to censor the forum by deleting an important comment, go against your own recommandation of not changing the majority of signers at once to reduce risks, validate the proposal mostly with team voting power & prevent active contributors from getting involved in several ways, just to avoid rewarding up to $2.5K/month in PAL tokens to 2 very active contributors and to re-centralize treasury day to day decisions/operations (with multisigs related discord channels supposed to be opened to public for a while as agreed on the forum but still private despite many requests)

Anyway I guess 0xTekgrinder is doing councilor since the vote has been pushed so voted for & I’ll post the quorum below.

Quorum PGM-55: 735 253 votes

image
Screen from vote submission day

No the main goal was to incentivise active stakeholder diversity.

You’re the only person I ever met who expects to be paid by proposal.

It’s not ignored, write an actual proposal and we’ll be able to discuss it seriously.

We litterally asked you to simply move it to another post, send you the actual text, you refused because you like to play the victim.

We’re in the process of opening them, the Council has been up for barely a week, this is its first edition, we’re finding our marks. You also fail to mention that we shared a file with all transactions done by the Council since inception (found here).

Hey :slightly_smiling_face: I’m reporting for May and June 2024
I apologize, I have been slightly less involved in the governance conversations, a lot of work IRL
My ENS is tradercameraman.eth
Voting Power: 132.74.k
Delegators: 5 addresses (including mine)

That’s not what I said, just saying I’m not a councilor nor service provider so no incentives in spending time working on more proposals (your behavior with me clearly showed you wouldn’t support SP proposal so didn’t even proposed, but you know very well that’s what I wanted to do)

The fact that you actually think it’s acceptable to abuse of your admin power to delete informations from a delegate before the vote ends (with vague moderation pretext), and still trying to put the fault on me is the kind of actions that really speaks for itself.

If you really wanted this text to be reposted elsewhere, you would just have done it directly (faster & better to make sure to one misses it) but that’s not what you did.

This is also surprising tbh. There has been various requests asking you to make public the multisigs channels, and you accepted. There was 2 channels: One to discuss with the signers, and one fully setup with Den notifications it was only requiring to change settings.

However instead of doing that, you litterally deleted or hidden both channels, and started a new one for council notifications, which required you to redo all the Den settings for all multisigs. Btw the configuration is incomplete meaning that no one is able to quickly see what’s happening (unlike on the previous channel).

Anyway, doing all of this just to avoid making multisigs channels publics is suspicious/weird behavior too.