On behalf of the group, we appreciate the input and think the likelihood of this passing is heavily dependent on RL being in alignment and supporting the proposal so we appreciate the feedback.
1.) Regarding compensation, we appreciate that some people think this is high. Part of our perspective is while there is “lower risk” as some have called out, we are trying to drive a community led effort to the DAO to bring real value. The DAO is earning 0 today. In addition to the consensus building and voting, part of the proposal is more time and critical thought on research, communication with the community, and publishing results which is something other proposals have fallen short of to date (Myso, Octav, etc.)
We also are aligned in the vision of rotating members and given the frequency and on call nature of this role, we are trying to make this competitive with web3 rates in general. As a group we would consider dropping this to 7% if that is the factor that makes people support this or not, but given there is uncertainty here, would also call out the DAO can always vote to refine this as factors change. (If price of $UMA changes significantly)
There is a lot of variability to compensation with gov tokens and pricing in dollars. Using your formula and accounting for the dillution to staking I get:
2MM UMA x $2.40 x 28% APY x 8% is $107,520 which came out to $21.5K per member annually for the staking portion. Being responsible for this amount of money earned by the DAO requires extra due diligence that results in significant time spent daily by our team. We will be on call every day.
2.) Agreed and we are open to this and hope others want to participate as well. I hope the notion/hypothesis that you and bananachain are calling out is true and that others gain more interest as they see this process stood up. Given the lack of initiative to start this and lower number of longstanding community members to date, I am not sure, but we will add an initial 1 yr term to the proposal so we can rotate members as there is interest.
3.) Agree with you the DAO should be able to see results and that this groups performance is accountable to the DAO. Our working assumption here was that if the DAO was not happy with the results, just like any governance action they could submit a vote to pull delegation. Open to specific %s or SLAs for correct votes, but we plan to participate in every vote.
4.) As a group we think UMA.rocks is a cool idea, and has potential use cases, but think this effort should be community led from the Across DAO rather than another group. We also feel that having multiple voting groups helps keep UMA more decentralized.
@Kevin_UMA - Thoughts on these? Do they satisfy your feedback and are there other factors that RL wants to address or do you think you would support this in a vote? Our hope is to get this up shortly.
