We had a similar discussion internally already. My feedback on this is that my startup/large tech company shares are not re-computed after the company’s valuation went up or down. I don’t believe that doing so is competitive.
Also, in my specific case, my unvested shares in my current start up are worth well over the 7 figure mark already with still a ton of upside to come. The shares were not worth this much when I started but have appreciated over time as we raised subsequent funding rounds.
Another large tech company reference point is that I have friends who joined Snapchat when their stock price was low. Although they were offered an initial package that was around the mid 6 figure mark. Their current compensation is well over 7 figures annually due to stock appreciation. Their stock package was not “rebased” due to snap 6x’ing over the course of a year.
I would not join a company that offered a rebasing stock compensation package and I don’t know of any company that does this as it would not be competitive.
I see. Well, seems like you’ve all done your research
I was just concerned about sustainability for this. I sure hope it’s not like this every year.
1.65% of DAO treasury might not seem like a big number, but it is when you calculate it’s future worth.
I believe in $BADGER and the core team’s integrity.
But isn’t giving this much allowing a small percentage of possibility of some “leaving” after they’ve “made it”? Do we have back up plans for developers in case someone gets sick or gets in an accident?
It is theoretically possible for each core contributor to end up with tens of millions this year alone from BADGER token growth.
That’s my main concern. If I know 110% that the core contributors are in this for the long haul, then I can 100% confidently vote “FOR”.
@Spadaboom has been very community focused and all the team members have been as well and believe in everyone, but just voicing for everyone in the ecosystem Perhaps you can respond with reassurance.
Thank you and everyone for contributing to this discussion. It’s an interesting process to openly discuss compensation between employees and investors .
Hmm so in terms of % ownership I believe startups give between 0.5-1% of equity to early employees. Generally the first engineering hire would command a significant amount of equity usually exceeding 1% but all early hires receive significantly more equity than later hires due to risk.
There are some differences here though. This percentage is normally based on the total number of shares outstanding of the company versus % of treasury. And it normally vests over 4 years instead of 1 year in our case.
If we were to take the lower bound of .5% and factor in both shortened time frame and % of total shares outstanding versus % of treasury I believe the 1.65% of treasury number is not too far off the mark for a core team of 11 early employees.
Also, it is important to note that we are likely having more of a debate about this due to the immense success the Badger project has achieved so far. If the project were far less successful I imagine there would probably be less of a debate as the % equity would be worth far less.
I was sleeping, woke up and saw this new BIP that already went to snapshot and then you decided to take it out for the looks (For what it seems). You almost did everything, that had already planned, in 7 hours!! Please… Given the amount of users we have now you should change the 100 votes to pass to snapshot since its ridiculous.
Im in for the amounts you are talking, the only thing i dont like and i would change is the daily distribution to monthly distribution as other users also spoke out. And dont do it linear but progressive till the end having the most rewards, as other teams also do.
Why not daily for USDC? Gets distributed using the Badger tree, it is easy, for me that is OK.
I just think that the Badger should be used more strategically and not just dropped daily. I think Badger will become a much more valuable asset in the future - this is why I would prefer this to have some kind of vesting instead of dropping it daily.
Totally appreciate your feedback and encourage you to continue doing so. The core of my response was geared towards trying to get a tangible amendment from you based on your suggestions hopefully referencing relevant and reliable sources. (other startups, defi protocols, silicon valley, etc)
Are you suggesting 1) we give ourselves 5x what we’re proposing and distributing it over 5 years or 2) that we give ourselves 1/5 of what we’re proposing and signing us up for 5 years commitment? Keep in mind, we designed the framework to apply to future long-term core-contributors as well. Neither of these above options you suggest would be sustainable for DAO or for contributor.
We’ve cited a few above.
Recalculating pegs each month would disincentivize core contributors from moving quickly and deploying new products. I’m not saying anybody would, but from a game-theory perspective, that’s just asking for contributors to work slow or suppress the price.
Thank you - many of us feel the same way.
I think I can speak for those listed in this BIP that we’re all excited to continue building out something that could last for generations. We truly believe in the concept of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization and hope to continue to build the infrastructure not only for Bitcoin on DeFi but also the infrastructure for continued development on BadgerDAO for years to come. With the amount of adoption in # of users and $ TVL, we stand a very strong chance at solidifying ourselves as a cornerstone for Bitcoin on DeFi.
Indeed - we pumped the brakes and took a step back due to community feedback. Many of us are responding to thoughts/concerns/suggestions here and on Discord to make sure we address everybody’s opinions. We wouldn’t be where we are without all of you Badgers!
I can assure you that changing from daily to monthly will only incur additional development work and will likely not materially impact the magnitude of incentivization.
Appreciate all of the discussion going on here. I was also surprised it went to snapshot so fast but read up to this point so im aware how that changed. The amounts do seem very high (to me, a little minnow) but this is a brave new world of “startups” in DeFi and this DAO is a rising star, so it begs to be considered the value of the core team and the success of the future of the DAO.
Considering the current deleted snapshot is ~60/40 how will you (we) change the compensation framework if the snapshot does not succeed? My concern is that the feedback in this thread could potentially still be a small fraction of those that have/will vote. Were there so many negative votes because of how fast the snapshot was posted (and they didnt change their vote) or is that because they dont agree with the actual compensation framework?
Essentially, if the proposal fails, how do we proceed and who will actually voice the communities concern in a way that helps the future proposal to succeed? I know the team worked hard on coming up with what you believe to be an appropriate compensation framework and wouldnt want you all to be frustrated if the proposal fails (or for you to just say screw the community and do what you want LOL).
Overall, I’m for this, but I think the breakdown of who gets what should be part of this or at least the formula used. Something like this to calculate the USDC amount: Salary = ((ProratedFormulaForTime) * (BasePosition * LevelBonus)) * (PT/FT)
Then to determine the badger price, treat it similar to a stock option. Just be consistent and transparent as to how that is calculated as well. Badger price at open on coingecko.com on the day they officially joined the team? Then just take the USDC amount divide it by the coingecko price to get the number of badger they would receive. That seems fair to me.
I don’t get your reply to me. I am defending daily and never proposed monthly. You should perhaps read again and respond directly to the community member that proposed that?
Re rebasing based on future price points. As mentioned this is completely non-standard with any tech company, other than a dick move Mark Pincus pulled at Zynga, and I can’t think of any reasonable engineer who would go for that.
Re vesting, I agree given time frames that you can think in shorter than 4 years, but also think 1 year is too short. In particular I would think of a cliff that happens after some reasonable time period past the 20 week mining period. I think there is a reasonable concern with many defi projects that they are a bit of a shell game where people pile into the airdrop/farming periods and its unclear what the long term success of a project will be when the 300% apy’s become something more reasonable. I think it makes sense to push the cliff out to the point that the team is incentivized to really create something of at least moderate lasting value where the investors have a chance to get out before any preciitous drop. I would suggest something like a 2 year vest with a 6 month cliff from now which should take us past the current mining expiration.
To the point of existing startups paying 7 figure salaries today, that is because their stock has already appreciated, they didn’t start as 7 figure grants, and a starting 7 figure total comp still strikes me as high, at.7 figures you are looking at dir or above at a fb/google or sr dir at a multi billion dollar “startup”.
Part of the problem here seems to stem from the fact that we are discussing comp of a project that has already reached a reasonably high valuation 180M market cap based on current emissions and 1b+ based on total tokens. From the discord channel it sounds like some of this comp is meant to be for past work, I think it makes a lot of sense to seperate out what is for past contribution and what is for ongoing compensation. Keep in mind you are currently hiring these contributors for 1 year, if they leave after that you have just set the precedent that you pay folsk 1M+ a year, and likely more for the senior folks, so anyone new will likely demand the same level of compensation. That is very different than if you are saying hey these folks have provided value already, we are recogizing that adn paying them .5M for past work and giving them a future comp of .5M. I repeat my frustration that I am discussig average nubmers when clearly different levels are getting different comp, I see no reason for that lack of transparency regardless of what number we decide on.
One random note on taxes, defi taxes are super unknown in general, but if I had to structure this I would “give” the tokens to the contractors with a restriction on trading, and the option of the dao to take back unvested tokens. This could i theory allow appreciation on those tokens to be cap gains rather than income, if you lived in the us and you were planning on properly paying taxes.
The reason is that the value created by the DAO (including the success of Digg and other products that might come in the future) gets captured into the Badger token only.
Digg intends to get close to its target price of 1 BTC, not to capture value.
Yeah, what the hell. I saw it was removed which is good. At the time I’m seeing this it’s 9 hours since the bip was posted. I’m on here a lot but can’t be on here 24/7. There should definitely be a minimum time that bips should be up for discussion to prevent stuff from being rushed through. People are here from time zones all over the world.
@cryptoyieldinfo An interesting point and something we also discussed. We had mentioned in the past that the intention is to use DIGG that’s currently in the treasury for efforts towards making sure DIGG stays at peg. This may change over time, but this is one of the main reasons we did not choose to compensate in DIGG. It would’ve definitely been a sweet way to compensate people though.
@Devin There will be a BIP in the coming days to redefine the parameters for quorum (increasing it from 40).
If there are no major objections, we will move this to snapshot Feb 9th. We currently have 130 votes for and 15 against this BIP.
For this level of compensation is there any level of reassurance we can have that for the 11 core contributors this is their full-time position and they are 100% dedicated to Badger’s success.
I’d also support extending vesting to 2 years instead of 1 year if this could be on the table. If 1 year then people might be raising queries about long-term success of project even 6 months from now.
.