Thanks Paul. There’s several helpful suggestions here that we will incorporate in a revised version. I’ll take your three main points below.
A) Individuals listed above have clear deliverables for continuous future support that is measurable
I’ve updated the table to add a column to show which contributors will need to provide future support. Not everyone should be expected to provide future support. Not all contributors are the same. VitaDAO should allow for many types of contributions. Some short term, some longer term. Take for example, sourcing. As @benji rightly mentions sourcing is essential. Without it the project would have never existed. Sometimes, the sourcer, in this case Sebastian, will contribute continuously whereas other times it will truly be a one-off contribution. It’s not practical to divide up Sebastian’s contribution to say “okay, 2500 is for sourcing the project, 500 for sourcing the med chem and both are fully vested, whereas 2000 is locked up and you need to continue to provide X, Y, Z support to earn that”. If we impose this level of granularity on everyone, it would unduly burden all those involved. Considering the relatively modest funds at stake IMO this proposal seems a good compromise between being not overly onerous on anyone who wants to contribute (and VitaDAO personnel who have to account for it) while still having clear expectations on what it takes to obtain tokens.
B) All tokens received are vested for the duration of the support and cannot be sold
Again, in my view not all contributors are the same. This proposal is a general compromise on how to account for several different contribution types.
Regarding your point about VITA-FAST holders benefitting from these retroactive payments, my quote above addresses this. Many of these people will use their allocations to vote on future proposals. But, future support shouldn’t be required of everyone. Again, many different contribution types should be encouraged. People who disagree can vote against the proposal.
C) Retroactive awards for past support are only awarded for clear quantifiable outputs that were done outside of the context of their duties as defined in point 1). Individuals should submit these claims to receive the awards.
Another good suggestion. I’ve added a column to the table to highlight the specific contributions each person made.
Additional comments:
These people did work for the project. They shouldn’t have to buy tokens for work they performed.
Molecule should make a proposal to the VitaDAO community on this if it feels this way. This is VitaDAO’s proposal for its own contributors.
This proposal was approved as part of VDP-100 when the VitaDAO community voted to fractionalize/IPT the Korolchuk project. As @sarahfriday noted, 5% of VitaDAO’s VITA-FAST share was specified for VitaDAO contributors. Moreover, there has been broad agreement for a long time that people should be incentived to advance individual projects. This was originally outlined in the VDP-26 Dealflow Incentives proposal that also passed. What was missing from both VDP-100 and VDP-26 is the specific quantities of the incentives and which people should receive them. This proposal addresses that.