Alright Yam Fam, We hear your concerns, for those that have valid recommendations and we are considering options that will allow us to continue to work hard and grow Yam to be more valuable. I see a lot of very negative posts without any useful comments and I’d like to respond to those:
I understand that you are likely upset because you’ve lost money when Yam’s marketcap went down.
- We all have, myself and likely all of the team members have as well.
- After V1, the Yam team has done what it said it would do, everything that has been done has gone thru community voting.
- Nothing has changed from the Yam team, V1 specifically stated that there would be a rebase that would FUND the TREASURY.
- But what about the bug you say???. Yes there was a BUG in V1 which caused the creation of V2. The Marketcap of V2 actually went UP vs V1… The BUG did not cause the loss in MCAP.
- It’s only been 2 months since launch of v3. Contracts audited, things are done that was said would be done.
Yam team is not perfect, yes we make mistakes, but we don’t do anything without voting, and everyday the team is working on making things better.
Speculators do not always make money, but you understand this when you buy ANY crypto.
We ARE in the same boat together, we all want to make the price go up and we are and have been working on it.
After all the scattered ideas, I actually have 2 more comprehensive suggestions for the team compensation:
- We still go for the monthly salary. However, there will be a few amends to reduce the directly payout of the treasury. The treasury provides a price floor for the token price, use as less as possible from the treasury benefits all YAM holders.
Validating salary based on marketing price. YAM is still an early stage project with community funds. I would suggest team to take a marketing price salary. I am a software engineer, I think the salary for software engineers are fair. But we need to valid other roles.
MAY reduce some of the headcounts. Again, YAM is still an early stage project. We may carefully consider what role is essential what is not that essential. 6 full time + 6 part time may be too expensive for the treasury. Some of the work can be outsourced in a form of funded projects. This can be achieved by voting for each role.
Including a mixed monthly salary. USD as a based salary, YAM as a performance salary. Team members especially full time members need USD to pay bills and daily expense. In addition to that, we can pay YAM based salary as the performance salary. YAM can be targeted to 1USD. Team can do things to improve the marketcap to make their YAM salary worth more. I would suggest a percentage of 50% 50%. This should be decided by a vote.
Split yearly YAM compensation into quarterly performance bonus. A performance matrix may need to be introduced. Team can suggest their targets for a quarter with some buffer time. Community vote for priorities and targets go in this quarter. If the performance matches the expectation, team should receive YAM bonus for each quarter. As community will review salary schemes every quarter, yearly compensation may not even happen. So split it into quarters as incentive may be good.
- The second suggestion is a wild idea.
Currently community are split into two groups. Team and investors(speculators). The main conflict between two groups are the team focuses on building products to increase the treasury. However, investors are expecting token price boost and markectcap increase. Those two targets are conflict because treasury gathers money and limits the token price under a curtain range. In addition to that, the current treasury does not reflect its income on YAM holders.
- I would suggest team take part of the treasury as a buyout. I personally suggest 50% of the treasury. After that, team detach the treasury from YAM. Community can vote to stop the rebase or not. This may make YAM a pure ERC20 speculation token with half of the treasury. After this, team can build new products with a solid funding. Investors have an asset to speculate, use the remaining treasury for all the speculation purpose, cex listing etc…
Thank you for a detailed response. I think many of your ideas are workable and can be finessed to reach a good compromise.
Just want to clarify that you mean that you want to make sure we are paying market rates for our salaries right? So we need a list of comparable projects and what they pay? I agree this is important and I believe @feddas has something he is working on. I have seen the compensation at the DXDao and it is comparable (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmTLSa4uyKJ71G1GViysJLVoawqPcHZ8L6B9eZjuMeM8ok)
Disclosure: I am someone who is listed to be paid part time.
I am quite worried that this will turn into a nightmare of micromanagement that severely increases overhead. In the end, as investors, we want to empower the team to work to add value to YAM. Yes we want to make sure we aren’t spending all the treasury. But there has to be some trust in who they think adds value to the team and let them hire people.
There is a kernel of a good idea here, but not the way it is framed. Detaching the treasury will further erode the connection between the development of YAM and the price of YAM. What you are responding to here is a confusion about how the treasury should be used. I agree that this is unclear. I will post a more clear version of this soon, but here is the gist of how to I would like to clarify this:
YAM holders do not “own” the treasury in that they cannot claim it back. The treasury itself will not be used to directly boost the YAM price. It is a communal fund that is used to build projects and YAM holders can direct those funds.
Revenues from the projects that are funded by the treasury are all (or mostly) returned to YAM holders through buy backs or direct rewards. So once we have projects running, built by the treasury funds, the money starts rolling in to the YAM holders.
This closes the loop and returns value back to the YAM holders who are contributing during positive rebases and creates a system where both parties benefit when the price goes up and both want to see the other do well (I already think this is the case but it needs to be enshrined and understood).
exactly, we may need to compare to the salary of a few other projects and similar industries.
For this part, I agree the idea needs to be further developed. However, I do not agree the circle will help the marketcap. The treasury will surely hold YAM price under 4-5 dollars. No matter how good the product is, the market cannot hold a 5% dumping pressure every 12 hours. So the most likely scenario will be: a good product is released, the token price goes up until the market cannot hold the treasury selling pressure. Then prices go down, people want to lock their profit will also sell. So price go back to negative rebase. There might be another scenario that the product may not generate good revenue. In this case, the investment in the product is kind of lost.
That’s why i suggested to separate the treasury into product build part and speculation part. One is focusing on the product only, one is focusing on the marketcap.
I think you are way overestimating the sell pressure from rebase buys. It is 5% of the rebase amount.
The rebase amount is deviation from the peg divided by 20. So imagine the price of YAM is $1.20 then the deviation is 0.20/20 = .01. Assume current supply is 11,416,674Y so the minted amount would be
11,416,674Y * 0.01 = 114,166Y. This YAM is virtually created via the scaling factor and shows up in everyone’s wallets.
Now the minting happens. It is 5% of the above amount of 114,166Y:
.05 * 114166 = 5708.30Y or $6849 at 1.20 per YAM. With 2.5M in liquidity in our sushiswap pool this is about 1% slippage (roughly equal to the amount of YAM that was distributed to all holders). If we can increase our liquidity then that number goes down more. This is one reason why incentivizing liquidity in our sushiswap pool is so important, and it may be worth looking at increasing the incentives. We should be aiming to get as much liquidity in the sushiswap pool as possible.
What this isn’t accounting for is that if we are buying back YAM with revenues then the slippage from the YAM mint is further offset by slippage in the other direction when we sell YAM into the pool. So more revenues equals a higher price which nets YAM holders more YAM and also funds the treasury. And if revenues are used to buy YAM then that YAM can be given to sushiswap LPs to attract more liquidity and further limit slippage.
We are all open to discussions of what the treasury funding should be and the above calculation is the kind of the data that we need to have a real conversation about setting these rates. A lower rate means more returns for YAM holders now if there are positive rebases, but it funds the treasury less. And the goal of the treasury is to create more positive rebases in the long run, benefiting all YAM holders.
I don’t think we should expect the price of YAM to reach 4-5 dollars. And if it does then it is a pretty clear signal that the price will rebound back down quite hard. Buying at this point is dangerous. But If the treasury works as intended it will generate revenue continuously. So during positive rebases we are taking some profit to fund the treasury and this will correct the price back down to $1 faster than if we didn’t have it. But if we have revenues coming in during the times YAM is under $1 then that will help push the price of YAM back up. We are taking a bit of our upside of positive rebases to build the products we need that will limit the effects of negative rebases.
The team staffing looks heavily over bloated to me.
Two developers and seven managers/strategists, seriously? Maybe one more manager for 20k to manage the seven managers?
Why does a DAO require a YAM Manager and an Operations Manager? Not possible to merge this role into as single vacancy?
A single person dealing with brand and marketing should be more than enough at this early stage too. There are tons of top freelancers around the globe who could take over jobs on demand
Its 3 devs and 3 non-devs. plus 4 part time which equals 1 full time.
So to clarify:
3 Developers (Brock, Nate, and 0x)
1 Core strategist/Project Manager (Trent)
1 Operations / HR (Feddas)
1 Marketing and Brand Manager (Chilly)
(4) 1/4 time:
1 Set manager is managing the finances of the fund (Krugman)
1 Marketing (KW710)
1 Brand development(designer)
1 Contributing strategist (me)
2 community mods.
These roles are also pretty fluid. People help out with lots of different things.
These roles have come about from months of working on the project. These are the people who ARE working on the project. There is a lot to get done.
I under stand this. But people need the price to go back to 20 to recover their 90% loss. That’s why there is always a strong argument about the price. You could say they are speculators etc… but they need a hope to recover the loss. In addition to that, in a speculators heaven, people would expect to buy a speculatable token other than a token with a very limited price range. @rossgalloway when you bought your ETH at the high price, you expected the price raise or just stay? In a project, there needs to be something to attract people.
YAM has the potential, if the price boosts, team can also benefit from holding the YAM. And team also got part of treasury to do a long time development without distraction.
We could consider this after Umbrella. If Umbrella is not generating a lot of revenues, which means building products may not contribute to the treasury and marketcap as much as people thought.
We can also look at other project. how they structured their team. In terms of adding value to the project, it can be simply measured by the treasury growth…
I think there needs to be some realism there is not that much that anyone can do that will quickly get YAM’s marketcap back to 100M. Giving back all of our treasury wouldn’t get anywhere close to that. The way that the marketcap gets back that high is by building cool shit and getting our name out there as people who build great DeFi products and run a kick-ass DAO. Those products make YAM holders money and DeFi apes start to think YAM is cool again and jump back on board. Add that to a crypto bull market and we can be right back up there. But we need to actually build shit that works and is innovative. That means we need to hire people to make those things. It’s going to take hard work. But have the start of something great.
Well, talk is talk, I suggest hold the compensation proposal, wait for the umbrella release and see how a product can change things. Based on the data we have from the umbrella, we can have a solid ground for compensation.
Fixed onetime payment for Umbrella, measure the results and performance of Umbrella and recalibrate the compensation framework afterwards makes sense to me.
Actually we need to align the Yam holder and the team. Yam holder provide the price support to Yam and help to accumulate the treasury, the team work hard to develop the Yam protocol and deliver new products. I think both should be rewarded. But in this proposal I only see the team benefit from the treasury growth. On the other hand Yam holders suffer in the price drop. Maybe it’s the reason why more than 50% people vote against the proposal.
Treasury is owned by all Yam holders including the team members. So buying back Yam in negative rebase match the interest of all stakeholders. The salary proposal should based on wider interest. Otherwise people will think the team only care about their own interest. It’s not good for the long term goal of Yam.
Darkknight, We understand, we are reworking proposal and will have an update tomorrow.
Good! Looking forward to the new proposal.
Everyone, thank you for your comments, they have been heard and here’s an updated proposal: