Oh boy there we go again. Another heated discussion in this forum.
Some questions from me.
I spent quite some time trying to follow through old links and read the entire post here. Itsā stll not clear to me what each person is being paid and what for. Same as it was last time we had these conversations.
Then why are we having a vote? If this action was voted in the previous term and now needs to just be executed why put it again to a vote? Whatās the point?
I see stewards who are going to get compensated by this actually voting yes in this proposal. This is bad. You should not do this. This is the definition of self-dealing and conflict of interest.
The ENS part of the compensation should be vested yes.
Commitments should be honored. If we voted for this compensation in the past and had people agree to put their time with those terms we should honor it
That said itās quite a big amount of money for part time compensation and for the token part of the compensation vesting is a standard. And not hard-cliff vesting. Something like a stream where you can claim anything vested till the timestamp you claim.
Alternatively since crypto market is volatile do not commit to any hard amounts for ENS tokens. Say we will pay $X in ENS at the price at the time of payment. Nobody loses this way and agreements are clear.
Now as for what I should vote. I donāt like a lot of things here. And I am put in the ugly position of having enough tokens delegated to equalize negative with positive vote and maybe stop this.
There is not enough time to have a clear back and forth with people here.
I believe in honoring oneās commitments even if it was not clear to me when they were made that this would be the outcome. I also voted against the previous proposal where the commitment was supposedly made (Snapshot) . I have a lot of issues with what is happening here. See the above bullet points.
As per this - indeed, it was already decided so in my view this vote isnĀ“t about this, itĀ“s about the MG working group budget for the next period and my support for the stewards in that group.
hence
the vote I personally cast was not about this disputed issue because point 1, it was in support of the overall budget which includes things like:
MG Steward + Secretary Compensation
DAO Tooling
I made no vote on the PG budget which is what I would be partly responsible for spending so if the community would not agree, ofc weĀ“d have to revise. I think this is maybe the piece that needs clarity in policy re donĀ“t vote on issues pertaining to the group you are part of.
Imho this is a vote that contains a contested line item that has already been voted on. So the confusion and tension come from a call for a change to a past vote within a new vote.
Add on: @lefterisjpĀ“s I appreciate your breakdown actually and thoughtful stance given all the above
"Conflict of interest and self-dealing are ethical and legal issues that arise when individuals in positions of authority, such as board members, prioritize their personal interests over those of the organization they serve.
In the context of a board member voting for their own compensation, conflict of interest occurs when the board memberās decision-making ability is influenced by their personal financial gain. This situation creates a conflict between the duty of loyalty the board member owes to the organization and their personal financial interests.
Self-dealing, on the other hand, refers to actions where individuals in positions of authority use their influence to benefit themselves or their related parties at the expense of the organization. When a board member votes to approve their own compensation, they are engaging in self-dealing by using their position to secure personal financial gain.
For example, imagine a scenario where a board member of a non-profit organization proposes a substantial increase in board member compensation during a board meeting. The board member fails to disclose that they would directly benefit from this increase. Despite potential objections from other board members or concerns about the organizationās financial health, the conflicted board member votes in favor of the proposal, ultimately approving their own compensation increase.
In such a scenario, the board memberās actions undermine the integrity and impartiality of the boardās decision-making process, potentially harming the organizationās reputation and financial stability. Additionally, it may violate legal and regulatory standards governing conflicts of interest and self-dealing."
tl;dr You should not vote on resolutions that decide your compensation.
Again though, what I was referring to re logic is what I stated - that vote was already passed so this one technically is not to about revoting on that which seems to be what this whole convo is about. I am approaching it from the logic of gov process as it stands
Arguably, I have not a clue what you do for ENS DAO.
Before recently, as in the past 24 hours, the last time you posted on this forum was this in December of 2023, which is pushing one and a quarter years.
Not only that but you have also never not once created a topic of discussion.
Which quite frankly is bizarre for how many times you have been voted in as a steward.
I hate to use myself as a comparison, but if you look at my forum statistics
Maybe this sort of thing sheds light on why Iāve been quietly singled out as āaggressiveā or "frustrated" without consideration of clear and obvious facts like the aforementioned.
disclaimer: these are facts and not a personal attack
There is no judgement here, itās just factual, thatās all.
I even invited you to comment in your own words if you think you are full time or part time contributor. Thatās all there is to it - just facts. Amount of involvement was one of the pivotal points within that discussion, so thatās why I thought it was important to highlight this.
Thank you for the clear response. I think again - my argument here is that number of votes or comments on a forum are not in my view the only metric to evaluate impact. More robust and nuanced ways of evaluating engagement are needed. Funnily enough, when I led Gitcoin governance back in 2022, I worked on expanding and creating delegate health scores re qualitative metrics to track engagement in a much more holistic way.
Re full/part time - which is why I mentioned the differences between people and how they work - I think a measure of impact vs calendar time spent is the way we might move fwd
Iām not sure why this was still set to be voted on. There was clear and obvious debate and discussion about this topic round the clock since its original posting.
wellā¦I am clearly a PG steward and you do know this. I was an MG steward before that. As per my responses above, I believe the hourly time spent on a forum isnĀ“t the metric might utilise in evaluating commitment, value, impact. I think it can be an objective and easy one to go if someone would want to say āI cannot see you punching in so I assume you do nothing.ā
Also, Dec 23 is 3 months ago. Taking the holidays into account (and my mistake for not being on the forum at that time), it would be 2 months. I have said it before, I am not as great as constantly writing on a forum vs identifying opportunities to fund Public Goods and creating opportunities for us to actually robustly manage to disburse resources (as per examples I gave) in this year term in a much more coordinated way vs shorter terms as before.
Strongly in support of distributing $ENS to stewards. This is a critical first step to continuously growing the broader set of responsible community members participating in governance, which is key to ensuring the long term viability of the ENS protocol.
With that said, also strongly agree that a multi-year vesting structure is the most logical framework within which to facilitate governance distributions, both now, and as an operating principle going forward for all future $ENS distributed to any third party for governance.
Appreciate everyone that has shared constructive feedback on this topic (the majority of contributors to this thread), the leadership from those that suggested solutions, and the initiative shown by those that have offered to help move those potential solutions forward (@James).
sorry my apologies on the year thing, i am wrong on that one. but stillā¦3 monthsā¦is quite awhile and 0 topics created for what 3 or 4 terms as a steward?
Itās not specifically the hour metric. Itās the entire picture, all the metrics, you know this. The last time i can find of an observably active interest in a topic goes back to march 2022.
Happy to see consensus is forming on a path forward that vests $ENS token distributions. Itās good that stewards are well compensated.
@nick.eth Thanks for putting in the time to expand on the processes that led to (most) Term 4 stewards taking a decision to distribute 40,000 unvested $ENS among themselves as compensation. Iām happy that at least some process was followed for this action.
Agreed. The confusion in this thread reveals that thereās room for improvement in how proposed compensation plans are communicated to the DAO. The forum thread in question had zero replies for months. I donāt believe thatās necessarily because everyone agreed with it, but rather because the context was unclear that the DAO was being asked to give feedback and approve a proposal.
@nick.eth and thanks for the point about the price change in $ENS from Term 4 vs. today. I should have written those ideas with more precision to avoid misunderstandings.
Never said that stewards in general arenāt putting in their 100%. Please check what I wrote:
@estmcmxci hope that clarifies. Iāve had multiple stewards look me in the eye and say these things. These are their own words, not mine. I always assume the best in people. For all the stewards who havenāt told me such things, I continue to believe theyāre consistently doing their best for ENS. For the stewards who said these things to me, I hope they have a change of heart and improve their approach.
Any persons who said these things should remove themselves as a steward immediately. I donāt want my well beingābeing decided by people with this mentality.
Step up and be an adult and apologize to the community and individual persons for this. You know who you are.
These are NOT the values of which I and many others have participate in this organization for.
From what other people who have decided to stop participating in ENS DAO have told me and from my own personal experiencesā¦Iām not surprised. Instead Iām infuriated and incredibly insulted as the justifications I have received for certain requests reflect this ideology almost verbatim.
I hope you are aware that most of my late timing on calls itās due to travelling for crypto conferences, most of the times giving a talk about ENS.
Can you provide me where such subjective metric, ābeing lateā, becomes a reason to challenge wether itās a part time, full time or any of the above?
I highly respected MetaGov decision, the same way I felt their respect towards the initiatives we had on Public Goods, hence my lack of comment because as a Steward I am byass, but what I have seen and read here today, is a lot of burning bridges rather than positive contributions or potential solutions (with the exceptions of the two or three comments from delegates that were constructive)
A lot of you seemed suddenly eager to participate on budget proposals, only when the market is high, and I donāt recall anything of the sort on the past budget proposals we have had, so I beg your pardon, when also your comments seems suspicious on the timing, because a lot of it sounds like if you would have been giving money from the DAO you wouldnāt be here commenting. So please, next time you are here, be constructive, be aware that there are people on the other side of the screen reading, and overall, that ANYONE can make mistakes.
Weāve just posted a TEMP CHECK proposal outlining a vote that would add the discussed vesting to the steward ENS allocations.
There is certainly room for a wider discussion on steward compensation (as the post briefly discusses) but we have 9 months remaining in the current term before we need to have any changes nailed down.
This post has now become a pretty hectic environment, Iād encourage all readers & commenters to give everyone some time to chill & reflect! These discussions are important but as things become more focused on $$$ and impact measurement thereās always going to be disagreements.
The only other open loop is given the current 5.4.1 vote didnāt get to quorum what do we see as the next steps? I suppose getting this vesting proposal up before the next voting period in April would be the only option? Open to any thoughts on this!
pretty highly, actually. IĀ“m one of those show vs tell people and I believe impact is in IRL action which is what I have always been committed to in everything I have done in this space.
Am I always right? Absolutely not, but we all grow and evolve and intention behind the action is what I always hold myself to - it may not be how everyone else sees things but it is authentic perspective that we should aim for. And this is mine.
No, itās not. Itās misleading to frame steward responsibilities in the diminutive mode. āPart-timeā is certainly one way of putting it, but Iād rather acknowledge that the responsibility that comes with being a steward is well worth the compensation, regardless of how many other roles stewards play throughout the space.
In fact, because our current stewards are so actively involved in other ecosystems, that makes them even more valuable.
ā
I acknowledge that compensation should be administered by a nonpartisan entity or individual, but letās not slander our stewards. We should continue to discuss how we can appropriately manage budget and compensation plans without vitriol.
I also acknowledge that according to Rule 10.5 in the Working Group rules, the āMeta-Governance working group is responsible for defining standards for fair compensation (āCompensation Guidelinesā)ā, but does that mean the same thing as āself-dealingā? I think not.
This is just my professional opinion and does not reflect the Meta-Governance Working Group as a whole, but compensation should be administered according to precepts described and developed by the bylaws, to be executed by a nonpartisan role.
ā
Certainly, the Meta-Governance Working Group can take responsibility for creating the compensation guidelines and incorporate community feedback. However, I believe the compensation plan itself should be proposed by a nonpartisan individual who is not a current steward, and then put to a vote by the DAO. This approach helps to reduce potential conflicts of interest.
Thus, the Meta-Governance Working Group should have the power to suggest compensation, but not to enforce it. Right now, we are all working under the presumption that the guidelines are a mandate, but they are not. They are merely suggestions, which a certain faction has assumed to be conclusive.
I am still of the sentiment that we should honor last termās compensation guidelines, but given the current discussion, itās clear that this is still a matter for debate. While we may have agreed that Meta-Governance is responsible for setting compensation standards, we havenāt yet reached a consensus on the implementation and enforcement of these standards.
Thankfully, we can incorporate the feedback from this discussion into the bylaws.
Bingo. I figure itās a shame that we have to renege on the original agreement.
To avoid any confusion, I will reiterate here that governance distribution should not be framed primarily as compensation. Governance distribution is a responsibility and empowers individuals to shape the future of the ENS protocol.
Of course, it is up to the individual to decide what they do with that responsibility, and should they choose to exchange their voting power for financial gain, so be it. If an individual values this over their civic duty, then let them be judged on those merits instead.
ā
Fair enough, letās stipulate this in the bylaws then.
100%
Sorry, I still disagree with framing stewardship in a diminutive mode, e.g., as a part-time role. Additionally, I donāt agree that governance distribution should be primarily viewed as compensation, and I believe it is being framed as such in this case.
I agree 100% that governance should be distributed to encourage long-term alignment, but I donāt understand why a certain faction of delegates are so reluctant to distribute it to stewards who have clearly demonstrated their commitment to the DAO for the past 800 days. Seems a little unfair, donāt you think?
ā
Ditto.
ā
Okay, fair enough. Letās move to include this in the bylaws discussion.
ā
Okay, accessor.eth. Simona has already cited several examples of how sheās made a demonstrable impact throughout the space. If youāre worth your salt, you wouldnāt antagonize this individual at the first opportunity. Instead, youād take responsibility for your oversight.
ā
Agree 100%; bumping this so it gets a little more visibility.
).
the ENS!