Draft Proposal: Retroactive Compensation For YAM Contributors

This is a draft proposal to get community feedback, concerns, questions, ideas… before it is submitted to the YAM Snapshot page. This is also related to the proposal for Compensation for the Core Team & Contributors (future work).

Summary

We propose to compensate protocol and ecosystem contributors for their time and effort over the past two months.

Abstract

Utilizing funds from the treasury and a verified list of addresses, Yam protocol would compensate contributors for their work to this point.

Motivation

Protocol contributors have dedicated significant time and energy to the YAM protocol with no compensation up to this point. In order to encourage future contributors, the Yam community must signal that contributions will be compensated.

Specifications

In this vote, the YAM community decides how much yUSD (from the YAM treasury) will be used to compensate the people who helped bring YAM to existence – the contributors who made this experiment a reality. Based on discussions with the YAM Launch Team, there would be 20+ people that would be compensated from this proposal.

Beyond compensation for the launch team (Brock, Trent, Will, Clinton, Dan), these funds will also be used to compensate other contributors, moderators and ecosystem builders in the YAM community. Examples include individuals who helped build wikis, audited code, wrote explainer docs, participated in multi-sig migration rescue, and other online resources like Treasury dot vision. It’ll be at the sole discretion of the YAM Launch Team to decide how these funds are specifically allocated.

With some input from other contributors and the launch team, here’s a rough breakdown of where the funds would go:

  • Mods/Community Work: 20% (split among ~20 people)
  • Ecosystem (tools, multi-sigs, dev work, comms materials): 10%
  • Launch team: 70%

Note: The launch team has agreed to recuse themselves from this vote.

Poll

How much yUSD compensation should be given to the past contributors who helped make YAM a reality? This would be the aggregate/total amount split among the contributors. We’ll use a weighted average so that everyone’s voice is heard.

Options
These would be the options that would appear on the Snapshot page.

  • 50k yUSD
  • 75k yUSD
  • 100k yUSD
  • 125k yUSD
  • 150k yUSD
  • 175k yUSD
  • 200k yUSD
7 Likes

Those yUSD options represent the totality of the amount given out rather than the amount per contributor right?

Correct. That would be the aggregate amount split among the 15-ish people, decided by the Launch Team. I will slightly edit Poll question to clarify.

I suggest we table this discussion until Yam market cap recovers to V2 levels, at a minimum. Maybe this isn’t the best time for this proposal considering most LPs are well under water.

3 Likes

The best way to compensate is to send the Yam, because the Yam is the stabilisation coin, and because the Yam delivers a message, all developers have great confidence in the Yam

1 Like

why not compensate them by yam?
I think they should be compensated, but they should be compensated by yam ,instead of yusd!

1 Like

This is also what I want to say, the current market situation is not suitable for discussing these

1 Like

Compensation for future development by the team would be in YAM. But there are legal and regulatory difficulties with doing it for past contributions because a good chunk of them reside in the United States.

I don’t think this is realistic to be honest.

V2 levels were based on wild speculation at the height of the yield farming bubble and highly influenced by an entirely different tokenomics ruleset than exists for V3. V2 was never intended to exist in the first place and only ever existed solely to be a temporary intermediary between V1 and V3 after the bug brought down V1. It was a fixed supply token that didn’t rebase and was not subject to any of the market psychology that affects V3. It also had no utility other than off-chain governance nor any other possible utility outside of off-chain governance. In other words, it’s valuation has little to no relevance to V3 at this point. Honestly, it’s almost better to think of them as two different projects with different goals now.

Could you list the core team members and all other contributors?
And pls elaborate a bit more how to distribute the compensation to them.

1 Like

First and foremost, there would be compensation for the YAM Launch Team (Brock, Trent, Will, Clinton, Dan). I think the majority of the funds would go to them. They were originally allocated 0% of tokens because this was a “fair launch.”

As for the other community contributors, it will be at the discretion of the Launch Team how much they are compensated but these are a few examples of the people I know they want to reward:

People who:

  • Helped review code
  • Worked on explainer docs or graphics
  • Worked on wikis (like Chainwiki)
  • Built community tools (treasury.vision, yieldfarming, etc)
  • Helped with “Multisig Migration Rescue”
  • Discord/Telegram moderators

Even if the YAM Launch Team tried to get specific with amounts for each person, I think it’d be impossible because the final amount is undecided and the possible options have a large range. That’s unrealistic at this point.

Thanks, got it.
Is this a 1 time compensation? I think maybe adding a continuously funding plan which will help future development? That will help to achieve long term road map for Yam.

Well do I have a proposal for you! Here’s the proposal for long-term incentive alignment. Check it out: Draft Proposal: Compensation for Core Team & Contributors

Thank you, that’s what I mean. Will take a look.

Yeah, the intention here is to essentially figure out a fair, community approved compensation for the work that his been put into the project so far, and then through the separate proposal that @Wigglez submitted, lay the foundation for base compensation to the core developer team going forward. The community can build on the long-term compensation later as events require.

I am all for retroactive compensation for contributors.
Can we get an idea of how much work was put in?
I would weight more money on current continual compensation then retroactive.

Yup, there is another proposal being discussed about that. View here: Draft Proposal: Compensation for Core Team & Contributors

I think you are focusing on one detail of my comment and dismissing the main idea. A majority of LPs have lost big thus far. Why would an organization reward operators that lose (so far) investor money? This is an aggressively capitalist environment, let’s not set a precedent for giving out participation trophies.

‘V2 level’ was an example, but the point is let’s wait until early LPs are back on their feet before discussing retroactive pay.

1 Like

@smashj9k This argument is a slippery slope. Does that mean if there is a bear market and YAMs lose value due to being correlated to crypto in general, team members don’t deserve to be paid? Which investor is the yardstick for for being in or out of the money? That line is arbitrary and impossible to draw. I can promise you there are lots of YAM holders who are still in the money.

But first, we should be very clear that at no point did any organization sell the YAM token to investors. It gave away the tokens to anyone who farmed. The fact that it could be bought on the secondary market and that the price increased and subsequently decreased was not the organization’s doing. We aren’t talking about participation trophies, we are talking about compensation for the work done to create the YAM protocol. The protocol exists as an entity outside of the price of the token, and we should decide what we should compensate the founding team for the work of conceptualizing and creating what we currently have.

The other issue here is precedent. YAM, as a community has to come to a consensus that work on the protocol will be rewarded. That precedent will encourage others to work on the project and drive value to it. If we cannot hold on to Devs because they are worried that they won’t get paid then LPs will never get back on their feet because YAMs will continue to lose value.

So with this in mind, we should be discussing specifically how much we think the work done to date is worth and also taking into account future YAM rewards in the other proposal. But we have to think about this from a defensible position and not create some arbitrary yardstick of the health of some ambiguous LP’s investment.

3 Likes

Ok then, let’s revisit your main idea.

You are saying that most LP contributors are underwater and that no compensation should be considered until they are not under water, correct?

In my opinion, this stance makes a few erroneous assumptions:

  1. It assumes that the main team are not also contributing to the LPs, which I know to be inaccurate. Early LPs act like they have an exclusive claim to gripe about the project, but all they’ve lost is money, and even then, until they liquidate their position, that loss remains impermanent and recoverable if the community can rally around supporting the people who add value to YAM. In contrast, not only has the main team lost money in exactly the same way that the early LPs did (because they are early LPs), but they have also lost hours and hours of their time. And frankly, you can recoup money, but you can’t recoup time.

  2. It assumes that an undervalued main team will somehow recoup the lost value of early LPs faster than a valued main team. At the very least, it assumes that whether the team is valued by the community has a negligible impact on their performance. I just don’t believe that is true in any realistic scenario.

  3. It assumes that the current price point for the token is at all relevant to this conversation. It’s not. Nor is it reflective of performance. Your position that the team should be judged by the performance of the token within the first week of launching would be like stepping into any job and on your first day, your boss calling you into their office and comparing your work to that of a long term employee. At best, it’s humorous to think about. At worst, it’s disingenuous and counterproductive.

  4. You talk about not handing out participation trophies, but isn’t that exactly what you’re advocating for everyone else other than the people who built Yam to begin with? Yam was designed to function a specific way. It has not deviated from that design. To me, it sounds like we’re trying to reward bad investors for not doing their research and investing badly. Instead, we should be proactively rewarding people who actively participate in the project and community in order to make it better. This includes the main team.

1 Like