VDP-2 VitaDAO Incentive Proposal

Incentives across the protocol

  • Main goal is to advance the purpose of the DAO of funding high quality early stage longevity research and collecting valuable intellectual property
  • Incentives should help to advance these goals by incentivising top contributors and stakeholders to contribute effectively and advance the overall mission
  • The details of the numbers, execution would be led/decided by Tokenomics and Longevity WG with Input from Core WG and inputs from this forum and discord.

All ranges of VITA and USD are for the DAO’s guidance only and may vary substantially depending on the quality of a submission. The exact amount for a given case will be proposed by the tokenomics working group in collaboration with the respective working group, i.e. awareness and operations (for contributor incentives), longevity (for researcher incentives) or technical (for developer incentives), each of whom may seek advice from the community in Discourse and Discord as well as from VitaCore.

For Contributors

  • **~$50-80 VITA per hour as benchmark: range should based on common pay specific to task: eg. moderating discord would be ~40, longevity, legal or web development ~120, and later modified upon knowing VITA price post-launch)
  • Re-adjust post-launch based on token price and feedback
  • Tasks/Hours should be agreed upon with working group stewards and tracked by the contributors

Each working group steward could move to a more open, decentralized list of outstanding tasks and delegating ownership of them

For Researchers

Researchers are key stakeholders for VitaDAO to thrive long-term, and also the one that clearly need incentives because many might not be onboarded onto ethereum and might also be crypto resource limited.

  • ~$150 VITA (Airdrop) for Researchers and people working in longevity who join and potentially contribute through a survey or something similar with feedback/input or apply as longevity delegate voters (pays for time, gas and involves them)… (vetted, limited to maybe 350-500 Researchers)

  • ~$100 VITA for Selected Researchers voting on Longevity Funding Proposals (incentive and paying for gas)

  • ~$400-550 VITA for proposing the funding of specific research that passes the longevity board to be voted upon by DAO (in 2yr vested VITA)

  • ~$500-800 VITA if the proposal for funding goes through by being accepted for funding by the DAO (in 2yr vested VITA)

  • ~$500-1000 VITA for (~2-5) select longevity IP evaluation board members to do a write-up for a decision

  • ~0,5% of proposed IP sale/licensing amount for the one proposing it and making it happen (in 2yr vested VITA or USDC/ETH?)

  • ~1%+ of IP sale/licensing for referring a buyer/licensee? (in 2yr vested VITA)

  • ~1%+ of IP sale/licensing for the initiator of proposal (in 2yr vested VITA)

For Developers

Developers are key to ensure that the overall structure works safely. Proposal to incentivise people proof-reading the smart contracts for an incentive and another incentive if they find flaws.

Bounties (source: Gnosis + bounty.ethereum.org/#rules)

High threat: up to $50,000

  • Changing the owner address of the authentication contract as well as adding a solver without authorization.
  • Forgery of a user’s signature that would allow to execute a funded trade without the consent of the user.
  • Execute arbitrary settlements without being a solver.
  • Executing a user’s trade that is expired or at a price worse than the limit price (also as a solver).
  • Transferring in tokens more than once for the same fill-or-kill order in the same settlement (also as a solver).
  • Access to user funds outside of a trade.

Medium threat: up to $10,000

  • Changing the order of a legitimate interaction, as well as skipping one, in a settlement.
  • Removing a solver without authorization (also as a solver).
  • Making the contract unable to be operated by any solver, e.g., through self-destruction (also as a solver).

Low threat: up to $1,000

  • Freeing storage without being a solver.
  • Invalidate an order without the permission of the user who created it.

Open Competition?

  • ~50-150 VITA: Open Community Competition for best proposals, explainers/threads of VitaDAO and other similarly valuable community inputs

Case Studies

  • Agree
  • Agree with revisions (please comment)
  • Disagree

0 voters

2 Likes

This looks great from my side! Happy to move forward with this as soon as we are sure it works will with the tokenomics, which should be posted momentarily.

2 Likes
  • I echo comments from others on Discord about having to worry about high gas prices eating up the value of the VITA tokens. Also, many people won’t even know what gas is. Suggestion: let’s have an option to keep these incentive tokens in a VitaDAO controlled wallet so people don’t have to worry about setting up a wallet or even understanding crypto at all to receive VITA.
  • More tokens should be allocated to those Researchers voting on funding proposals. It’s assumed the researcher will have to read a batch of proposals, which will take alot of work.
  • Winning an open competition for best ___ should probably have higher awards than for just doing a task.
4 Likes
  • I echo comments from others on Discord about having to worry about high gas prices eating up the value of the VITA tokens. Also, many people won’t even know what gas is.

agree! we should plan to give small incentives for important votes to incentivise more people voting onchain… imo setting up an abstracted experience is way harder than rolling with the current stack/solution… in current gas environment at 15-30 it should be fairly cheap and only getting cheaper, especially soon with the ethereum upgrades…

the easiest experience could be a guide for researcher to set up metamask, and send us their 0x address. we sent them ~10$ ethereum and some VITA, so they are able to vote… the power is if they are setting up a wallet they can also plug into more things like raising through gitcoin.co etc.

  • More tokens should be allocated to those Researchers voting on funding proposals. It’s assumed the researcher will have to read a batch of proposals, which will take alot of work.

Think we should have researchers and people deep into longevity getting nominated as delegates voting on behalf of others, and getting some additional rewards for doing so… especially for deeper work like a write-up on a proposal

  • Winning an open competition for best ___ should probably have higher awards than for just doing a task.

~100-250$ is usual price money for these competitions… depends on complexity and what makes sense to do competitions for (best explainer thread? doesn’t need crazy rewards)

2 Likes

As a word of caution to these types of schemes: there will need to be some treasurer carefully measuring and monitoring a spreadsheet of all owed and issued tokens, and the most updated compensation policy. It can quickly get out of hand if there is not a dedicated person doing this.

9 Likes

Pat‘s suggestion makes a lot of sense to me.

I’d add that this role should be at least as transparent and accountable to the community of token holders as all other individuals in roles or working groups (whose work depends directly on this treasurer role, so from a token holder/financial perspective, the treasurer role represents the entirety of all working groups).

In terms of operationalising this:

The treasurer could formally be a working group steward (with or without support from a group of contributors, as needed), be elected by token holders through an initial proposal and publish an updated version of the spreadsheet Pat described monthly.

To be accountable, we could have them post each update as an on-chain proposal, but that requires a lot of time and cost for voting.

Alternatively, we could once implement an on-chain feature where a TBD majority of token holders can fire the treasurer at any time with immediate effect. That may be a better solution because this avoids continuous on-chain voting and encourages soft governance through discussions on this forum, Discord or elsewhere. I’d argue to do just that. What do you think?

4 Likes

treasury will be with the multi-sig, so could be managed by working groups lead of governance and especially tokenomics?

1 Like

This all looks great.

When are we moving forward with this / what are the next steps required to bring this together?

1 Like

will put it up for a vote as soon as the dao is deployed in 1-2 weeks.

1 Like

I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but not the exact VITA amounts. Many of them seem too high.

which ones seem to high? curious to update for an iterated proposals…

could imagine lowering the hourly benchmark for contributors slightly, and also important to have in mind that it would be more for specific scoped tasks and ranging depending on area

researcher airdrops are pretty low imo, devs also low/standard compared to other bug bounties programs

2 Likes

Clarification question around the “125 Vita per hour pre-launch” contribution: I assume it is for additional contributors independent of the supports and WGs that have worked on Vita the last months, correct? So also more about future contributors.

Because it references a “re-adjusted post-launch amount”. So, would your comments @vincentweisser & @timrpeterson be about the pre- or post-launch amount? Or does the differentiation not exist anymore?

3 Likes

It was meant as a reference/benchmark to the proposed contributor allocations in tokenomics, and needs to be decided and approved by working group leads/stewards case by case how they want to budget for specific things they need…

1 Like

Ah okay, thanks for clarifying! So I understand it as more of a guideline for WG stewards to decide incentives for selective tasks. Got it.

In that case, I would agree with your opinion @vincentweisser on potentially lowering the hourly benchmark. Maybe something in the realm of 75 VITA or even less? Now, I am thinking more about future tasks.

2 Likes

Since VITA is not a stable coin, these ranges would probably have to be updated quite regularly, depending on the VITA volatility.

One way to reduce the number of needed adjustments (and votes, since these changes would probably call for a vote?) in the future would be to implement a floor and ceiling for the rewards per hour. This could also be used for recurring payments to core team members, service providers, etc.

The ElasticDAO does something similar for their team member salaries. They’re paying them in ETH but a similar approach could be used for VITA as well:

Another – admittedly less complex – approach would be to denominate the rewards in USDC or DAI. But that’s prone to volatility as well.

Thoughts?

5 Likes

Great points! I think in general in should be determined in market-based comparative payments in usd and translated into Vita. So if a dev puts in 10 hours and usually gets paid 70$ it could be 700$ worth of Vita for that effort, but ultimately its up to the working group leads to find a good solution that works best with contributors, some might prefer a lower direct stable coin payments for example.

3 Likes

This is from another thread but it seems relevant to the discussion here:

2 Likes

Just to help me visualize this, I put together this spreadsheet based on the proposal: VITA Incentives (Baseline Guidance).xlsx - Google Sheets

Feel free to add positions/roles/tasks to the list. Hopefully, we can move this proposal to vote quickly, but I sense some uncertainty without the more definite understanding of how much certain tasks will be incentivized. Hope this helps.

1 Like

Following recent discussions in the governance wg and elsewhere on Discord, a few more suggestions:

  1. I don’t feel strongly about this one, but I would replace all amounts of “around x VITA” with “around y USD worth of VITA”. Given that this is an onchain proposal which is a hassle to make changes to afterwards and given the fact that the VITA token is not a stable coin, this simple change might make this proposal much more future-proof.

  2. Some incentives might be prone to being gamed, and it’s probably a sisyphean task to account for all possible cases, so it might be a good idea to include a disclaimer to all applicable categories (all except developer bounties?) saying something along the lines of:
    None of these items constitute a binding offer and all payouts are subject to review by the corresponding working groups in order to oppose fraudulent behaviour. In case of disagreements, a neglected payout can be escalated to a Discourse vote first and eventually to arbitration on Kleros Court.

  3. The proposal already includes this phrase which I think is a great idea:

The details of the numbers, execution would be led/decided by Tokenomics and Longevity WG with Input from Core WG and inputs from this forum and discord

I’d just add some detail and place it more prominently in the proposal:

All ranges of VITA and USD are for the DAO’s guidance only and may vary substantially depending on the quality of a submission. The exact amount for a given case will be proposed by the tokenomics working group in collaboration with the respective working group, i.e. awareness and operations (for contributor incentives), longevity (for researcher incentives) or technical (for developer incentives), each of whom may seek advice from the community in Discourse and Discord as well as from VitaCore.

  1. For simplicity, I think we can merge the two sections of “For Contributors” and “Open Competition” to one.

Other than that, I think this proposal is great and probably good to go for an onchain vote soon.

3 Likes

Great feedback, thanks Theo! Will write it in and put it on-chain asap.

2 Likes