Ideally first and last name not nicknames on discourse
1 Like
@Taliskermalt the docuemnt provides references to Proposals, but as you mentioned, this document was written relying on what other DAOs do as well. So would like to see some of these sources as well
- The remit of the Compensation Policy Squad was to compare current compensation to what exists in the web3 world, and biotech world, for positions of similar complexity, skillsets, and demands with the view to make sure that the compensation policy would be attractive to the best talent from outside the DAO, not to cater to the incumbents.
1 Like
Again, this is in the hands of @proofofsteve, I have no information on that part.
2 Likes
It was requested that the data be anonymized and what was determined to be the best option was for each recorded compensation to be linked to a contributor ID, which can if need be be linked to a contributorâs identity or at least username if anon, but is otherwise kept confidential. This way privacy can be maintained, but at the same time there can be transparency as needed for audits and the like.
1 Like
The squad was myself and Alex Milosky, we did not rely on interviews very heavily for the methodology as the concern was more a structural review of policy and less granular.
For the methodologies a few points that we used as a focus can be found in pages 5 & 10. Compared to previous compensation policies the major changes were:
-
âThe 75th percentile of earnings for an experienced person in this field, with this job title, in the US marketâ. To be clear this removes the previous addition of âwith 7 years of experienceâ [as specified in previous compensation guidelines], this change is designed to simplify the process of finding a good market comparison.
-
While milestone/bounty based compensation as a general principle should be kept, when a contributor is being paid more months than not in a given year and is de facto working full time (or as a regular part timer) for the DAO, shifting their compensation to a regular monthly form with a long contract should be strongly considered sooner rather than later.
1 Like
I think you wanted to mention another Alex, not me 
Yep, apologies, corrected.
âI do not understand why Stewards can be paid immediately in VITAs while Contributors and Senior Reviewers need to wait 1 yearâ
All major contributors including Stewards have signed an agreement not to sell any significant amounts of VITA before 2026. They are all de facto on a vesting package with a 2 year cliff regardless of whether they receive VITA or VVITA, in terms of monetary value of their compensation.
While we didnât get into whether there should be audits of previous comp in the reports, we did discuss steps for future transparency starting on page 9 of the report.
For reference VDP-72, which I did not author and which VDP-136 was put in place to review, allocated compensation of 25,000 $VITA per month per steward. In addition to what Todd mentioned here I would point out that under this report $VITA compensation per Steward has seen a 59.812% decrease.
Itâs not an unreasonable position to argue that this should be reduced further. However multiple considerations have to be made.
- There is a value to keeping the current Stewards team and avoiding a loss of headcount and needing to hire new Stewards.
- The Stewards are under heavy restriction, both vesting packages and contractual agreements which apply to both future VITA compensation and VITA they already own, so while the nominal amount of this compensation may seem high its effective value is reduced.
- Stewards need to be quality hires, not âB Playersâ.
The decision the Squad made was that the $VITA compensation Stewards were being granted needed to be drastically reduced, because it represented too high of a portion of circulating token supply, but in order to avoid point 1 from the above, USDC compensation should be increased to compensate. A balance must be struck between providing token compensation to such a degree that it becomes a risk to supply, and also providing high enough compensation to maintain a quality team.
1 Like
@alexdobrin I will add some information to the main post as per a few requests here, could you give me permissions to edit the post?
Itâs a flat amount per month, not a floating amount based on a moving average of price.
This represents an approximately 59% decrease in $VITA compensation compared to VDP-72.
Total $VITA compensation for Stewards was calculated based as a % of overall token supply at the end of a given period as seen here.
The reason it came down to that number was that it was determined that a well balanced $VITA compensation package looks roughly like: 37.5% of the $VITA allocated to compensation goes to Stewards, 6.5% to VitaCore, and 56% to Working Groups. This ends up with a per steward per month rate of 10,047, which is an approximate 59% decrease from VDP-72.
1 Like
25,000 Vita per month?! Wow.
Hi proofofsteve couldnât even find online who this Alex Milosky is
And myself doesnât mean anything - your last name doesnât show here on discourse
Alex works at L1 Digital .
As for me personally I have not doxxed and I do not intend to. However I have been working in crypto for several years now primarily in my role creating and managing the bug bounty program at Olympus.
1 Like
Yes again this was what was in VDP-72 which was written a long time ago when $VITA price was a lot lower. This report (VDP-136) has reduced the nominal amount of VITA compensation by 59%.
Iâd love to live in the world where 10K vita is nominal.
When I say ânominalâ I donât mean small, I mean the amount of $VITA on a per $VITA basis, instead of the amount of $VITA times its price.
For example if each VITA is $2, then even though 1000 VITA is $2000 the nominal amount of 1000 $VITA is just 1000.
1 Like
Not a requirement to have real names on discourse. Please respect peoples privacy if they choose to use nicknames.
2 Likes