BIP 35: Long-Term Core-Contributors

@Spadaboom posted the following on Discord earlier today when asked about the numbers: "It’s not the annual salary. Salaries range from 100-300k with 50/50 Badger/USDC. Why that number is that way is because of the peg price of Badger for this compensation. These core contributors have been involved well before launch and some of the first discord members. Those that were I proposed a lower peg price of Badger.

That’s not all 11 but a good chunk"

Of course he has not been here to comment on his own BIP, and engage in the discussions with the community. Which is unfortunate because the objective for a BIP is to engage the community so we can come together on a decision regarding a specific topic, and put it into action.

The community is discussing and providing feedback. The person that introduced the BIP is not.


I thought the amount of badger was excessive and I wanted to do the monthly rebasing but you’ve convinced me it’s reasonable to keep top talent for the long term. I’m on board now and thanks for taking the time to explain your position. Also I’m in the wrong business :rofl:


That’s great news on changing the quorum parameters. Another thing I’ve been asking for that I hope you will continue to consider is announcing the BIPs on twitter as well.

Instead of basing our proposal on feelings, we pulled examples from traditional companies, startups, other blockchain companies (DeFi and not).

This is what we did.

Rest assured. If there’s something in particular you have in mind, feel free to share.

Chris’s last comment was just 12 hours ago. @j.audefi , @jonto, @shakeshack , and I have also been addressing community members concerns. BIP 35 has also already been accepted by a supermajority of Badgers.

Almost 1mil$/person is too much.


The intention of this forum is to have productive and constructive discussions around BIPs, and to gather feedback from the community.

You are quoting one specific sentence and missing the whole context. And I have never proposed monthly as you mentioned in your reply to me. That was someone else (again, please read).

So, let me remind you the whole context:

All my replies have been focused around this. I tried to explain why I think that the Badger portion of the compensation should have a different strategy, and be used as some form of long term incentives for the core contributors.

A constructive discussion would focus on: “I see your point, but let me explain why I disagree”.

Instead of doing that, you are quoting specific sentences missing the point. Or you provide me with another definition of vesting, when hours ago I clarified what I mean by that:

Again: a constructive discussion would focus on: “I see your point, but let me explain why I disagree”. I wish you could have done that from the beginning.


I see where the misunderstanding is. Thanks for clarifying.

Hey, let’s take this opportunity to reset and capture what you’re looking for.

Do you have a concrete suggestion to improve the BIP? I believe there was some initial confusion as to how things would be distributed, or what parameters needed to be met, do you have direct suggestions of how this should be altered with justifications?

Can you please explain how this will work in real life? Personally I have no issue with high salaries as long as there are results and each member has clear accountability and is meeting his targets. Projects and companies break up and die due to team issues, trust issues, meritocracy issues and bad communication. How do you plan to manage this?

1 Like

I’ll give my 2 cents regarding this proposal.

  • Stablecoin salary looks ok
  • Badger salary could be on the high side, but it would be ok if there’s a cliff – i.e. tokens start vesting in 1 year. This align incentives and I assure you will also take the pressure from dev team if token underperforms (bc no one will be accusing team of dumping). Also, this is much more aligned with standard startup practice: 1 year clif, 4 years vesting, 25% each year.

The team has done an amazing job and I’m sure many would agree they need to get properly incentivized and get rich if Badger succeeds. But this should be aligned with long term vision.

As Buffett said to Airbnb’s Brian Chesky: “get rich slowly”. Getting rich slow isn’t actually slower, it’s slower in year one, but it might be faster in the following years. It’s much more sustainable for the protocol and for the team itself.

Get the big chunk of your payment in tokens that are locked for some time, aligning your incentives with us, the protocol holders. This is just the beginning.


well put. I fully agree.


Thank you along with @spartacus_rising @dgntec for the amazing job done! Regarding the core-contributors :

  • the stablecoin part is ok

  • for the badger salary, It would make sense to give a try with SourceCred. It tracks & automates value creation across plugins to give a reputational score. The badger salary would be distributed in proportion to this score across time…it will foster also the decentralization as well

I’m a contributor at SourceCred, can share some more information if needed.


I had to sleep on this. I understand what half of the people on this list are doing, how much time they are spending on it and why they should get paid. On the dev side it is really easy to understand, because you can go look at work committed into github and understand both the quantity and quality of work developers are committing.

The Ops side is a bit less transaparent at the moment. I hate to mention specific people/roles, but I have to in order to explain:

I see all of the Senior people on here every day doing work and being involved and never sleeping. For the most part I think their work is good. I don’t think they tend to all be that great about taking, digesting, incorporating and responding tov feedback from the community all the time, which would be something they could improve on for 1+ million a year a sallery.

On the midlevel side, I see Donald’s design work all the time and if he’s not designing for badger full time he should be. We need as much media as we can get. For Emissions/treasury management I see a few BIPs from Po and Mason, but it is unclear how much time they are really spending on this and what other work they are doing. I also understand that they got paid pretty big grants for the BIP’s the wrote and work they have done and we voted recently on a BIP to reward people with upto 1000 badger for participating in governance. BIP-28.

I’m just trying to figure out if any of the mid level ops roles are actually full time jobs, and it’s unclear how much we’re talking about paying these people. It seems like a lot of the work can be handled by bounties. Again for the kind of money we are talking about, I would like to see more energy put into BIPs to make them more human readable/have better TL;DRs. I’d also like see more of a job description and a summary of what these people will be doing every day.

On the Junior side, again it depends on pay. If these people are making normal Junior salleries to learn and help out mid/senior level peoplethen cool. If they are the best paid Junior Operations People ever to grace the face of earth, I think they should be working on projects that are challenging and will be judged by the community according to very high standard. Their team-mates should take shared responsibility for making sure that their work is of the highest quality.

Lastly, we are a tech company and it seems right now that we have 3.5 developers on staff + Digg-whisperer and an ops team of 8 people + support + 3 of the 4 seed team members. In many years of work experience, tech companies that become too ops driven tend to not execute well on techincal tasks. It feels to me like we are lacking in Technical Operations people to do things like product manage, create clear roadmaps, align developer work and prioriites, etc, and are maybe getting a bit heavy on our full time ops team.

Finally, if I want a million dollar job at badger. How do I apply? Where are the open positions? Who decides if I show up on a BIP to be voted for, and who decides the positions that badger is looking for. Who decides who to hire and how much to pay them. I know the answer seems to be the community, but I imagine a community vote to hire someone who hadn’t been vetted by the team wouldn’t go over to well, and would be counterproductive if it passed, so I think a team that is seeking to pay themselves this much money needs to make it very clear how one can become a part of it.


As an overal reset, I will point out what I’m seeing in this entire discussion.

  1. There seems to be more contention about a vesting scenario vs. the amount being proposed

  2. General sense of confusion regarding the allocation to the individual members based on part/full time and the level of their role

  3. Uncertainty about the internal monitoring of performance, and who is monitoring the monitors

  4. Clarification on the individual roles and a little info about these people seems to be a desire

If anyone from the team is addressing this BIP in the Discord, great. I believe you need to post those things here as well. Pretty much word for word. I know that Discord is easier to get quick points across when it’s full of users, but not everyone is tuned in there. For example,

That was written by @Spadaboom in the discord after this BIP was posted. If it had been included/edited onto the post, I believe we could have avoided some confusion.


fwiw a year is a very long time in crypto

An HR should be hired ^^ but who is recruting the HR … that’s the question ! :rofl:


Ah, yea it seems most of the conversation here could have been avoided if how the compensation was computed was clearer. That is correct. This is not setting a precedence for 7 figure compensation.

The comp is as spada mentioned - 100k-300k and a combination 50/50 stable/badger. This TC is competitive but well within the normal TC range. The badger/stock component is high because this is based on the price of badger when the core team member began making significant contributions. This is also consistent w/ how most stock packages work (they are priced at the valuation of the company when you joined). It is definitely a little awkward discussing retro-active stock grants after a project is successful. Like I mentioned before, this would be much less of a conversation if the price of Badger was still < $10.

This means that going forward, future core contributors will be offered a similar package of 100k-300k TC (based on seniority) with the stock component (badger) at some trailing TWAP (due to volatility) at their start date. Higher TC may be offered to “exceptional” candidates who can bring tremendous value to the DAO.

Performance will be assessed by the seeders and a small senior core (there is an element of both self policing and peer accountability). Core team members will be assessed on progress against the roadmap. Obviously this will have some level of subjectivity as its not uncommon to hit a variety of roadblocks when executing on a technical/operational roadmap.

I can give some background on myself and my role here at Badger. I’ve spent most of my time building platform and core infrastructure at a variety of startups/large tech companies (ride sharing/finance/cybersecurity/health etc.). Most recently I was the first/founding engineer at a high growth database startup (built from the ground up for scale - targeting specialized workloads at large tech companies).

My role at Badger up until now involved working in tandem w/ a seeding engineer to launch Digg. Went through many iterations of validation/review testing to gain confidence in the implementation. Going forward, I will be driving execution on CLAWs and various other integrations (we have quite a few in the pipeline). Some other responsibilities include strategy/security review etc.


Thanks Shakeshack.

If core members had a short paragraph each their background and role like this I think everyone would be reassured about the proposal.

It’s looking like this might be the best team in defi.


I’m very appreciative of your response, thank you.

I believe you will put some minds at ease here with addressing the breakdown and sharing a little about yourself. Communication from team to community has challenges and BadgerDAO has not been immune to this, but your above comment is setting a good example. As did some of @Mr_Po BIPs.

I hope that some of the other members of the team will follow your lead here and provide a little background on themselves. It helps to knit the team and community closer.


I’ve spent most of my time in strategy & innovation consulting serving Fortune 500 clients and startups ranging virtually all major industries in multiple departments/functions. Most of my work is delivering high impact, short turn around value to client sponsors whether by designing implementation roadmaps, market sizing/GtM strategy, or organizational restructuring. My team has been responsible for one of the largest corporate acquisitions in the past 5 years and delivered greater than $100m in annual run rate savings on cash flowing synergies alone. I’ve also aided in the launch of incubators and secured funding for multiple ventures.

My contributions to BadgerDAO traces back all the way to setting up the discord itself months before people knew what Badger was. Since then, I’ve worked on every part of the DAO except for development. Aside from providing discord support, structuring our teams, pushing on most major BIPs, vetting applications/complaints/proposals, onboarding new badgers, one of my proudest contributions is having led the team for building out the BTC bridge which will come live soon. I’ve personally helped build the team from scratch and continue to leverage my network inside and outside of DeFi for the benefit of BadgerDAO.

Happy to elaborate more. Shake has asked that senior contributors provide some background/experiences in this thread, so keep an eye on for those comments coming in…