Draft Proposal: Retroactive Compensation For YAM Contributors

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

No, not at all. I am only discussing retroactive pay here. We must pay developers and other critical strategists at competitive rates moving forward and step up our developer recruiting.

In a traditional setting, Founding Team starts a company, builds an MVP, and then receives capital funding from outside investors. At that point they can pay themselves a salary for living expenses, etc. They don’t go back and pay themselves for their pre-funding labor. Despite all the differences in this decentralized setting, Yam is at “funded MVP” startup stage imo. Your previous work bought you a seat at the table for the salary conversation. Now it is time to commercialize the product.

Another issue I have is the ambiguousness to this proposal. Who are the others being considered outside of the launch team? Name them specifically. Perhaps one proposal for retroactive pay for launch team and another proposal for the ancillaries.

Or, let’s define what % of this goes to launch team?

Or maybe it would be better to re-write this as a sort of “hiring bonus” for the critical members of launch team that have been working on Yam full time and have IRL bills stacking up. Just an idea, I think this would sit better with me, for one.

Paying in Yams rather than yUSD to keep incentives aligned also makes more sense to me.

We are deep in the heart of the Great Yam Depression. Personally I would like to see proposals that grow the treasury, like hiring the team that will be our value creators moving forward. As this is written and with the defense presented on this thread, this begins to look like a cash grab from contributors. I don’t think that is really the case, but that is how it feels to the many of us who are losing badly here. I think you will have a much stronger case once we make it to the other side of the Great Depression. But I am just one idiot investor with an opinion.

1 Like

After getting input from others and launch team members, I’ve updated the original post with some details around how the funds would be split among the different groups of contributors. We would also include these details in the actual snapshot vote.

So I generally I agree with your sentiment. Specifically, I think the most important proposal to pass is the one where there is clear incentive alignment between core team members and YAM token holders moving forward. I want to look forwards, not backwards. Hopefully you’ve seen this other proposal which addresses exactly this: Draft Proposal: Compensation for Core Team & Contributors

That’s the proposal I’m most concerned about and frankly the one that matters most to us YAM token holders.

However, because much of the core team are based in the US, due to regulatory/tax constraints, it will not be possible to pay them a typical “salary.” As a result, we will likely need to retroactively pay some of our core contributors on an ongoing basis. This proposal here basically sets the precedent.

Here is another forum post I did which gives more context: Draft Proposal: Compensation for Core Team & Contributors

This proposal here is basically the “pay your bills” component of compensation (yUSD). I expect we’ll do more of it since there won’t be any base salary. And the other proposal (YAM, 3 year vesting), is the ownership, upside, get-filthy-rich-if-it-works component. That’s what really aligns incentives with token holders.

So in summary, this retroactive comp proposal is just setting precedent for all future contributors. We will reward you for your work.