I think that it is important to take at a few talking points here.
Personally, I believe that anyone that is working as a Ethereum Protocol Core Developer (EPCD) is very dedicated to working towards future progress of Ethereum as a whole. I might be bias, I might not. Based on this article that I have found that interviewed EPCDs at ETH Denver; I come to to the conclusion that finding a well-rounded extremely knowledgeable developer is hard to come by. That being said, the standard is set pretty high for what protocols are looking for in talent. Please don’t misconstrue this as me being dead set totally against empowering core contributors and growing ethereum.
So I am asking myself; If the standards are set high, which is a purposeful decision by the industry itself, why is retaining talent seem to be an issue?
The majority of core contributors have an lengthy history of contribution towards Ethereum, mainly GETH. It appears that everyone is very dedicated already. I’m not too sure how incentivizing retention through monetary donations from other protocols would influence people to stay in their position.
Would we see loss of talent if the PG didn’t exist or didn’t receive funds? I highly doubt.
Out of the 111 GitHub profiles listed in the PG’s membership list 12 profiles so very little to no contributions in the past 3-6 months or longer.
PG docs notes:
Design objective: Protocol Contributors must be active for 6 months before membership
Is this truly aligning incentives for people to work on core protocols? If this is true, is the PG actively telling talent that this is available for them if they become an active contributor to core protocols?
How much incentive is needed to retain those who are dedicated in the work because of what they believe?
In PGs docs it reads
As the Ethereum ecosystem continues to grow, competition for talented individuals will only increase. This isn’t to fault individuals for rationally weighting financial incentives, or protocols for leveraging the power of tokens - this is just the reality of our current context
IMO, if there is competition then that means talent will be retained.
We should look at the market situation right now as well as global events. There is turmoil all around the globe with war, food shortages and overall fear. This is a lot of money to donate. We don’t know the future and what the market will decide for themselves.
This first line in their proposal rationale is ‘How can we give core protocol contributors exposure to the broader success of the projects building on top of Ethereum?’
This can read one of two ways:
It suggest that profits of successful projects should go to core contributors
We should incentivize core contributors to actively participate in the projects that they are to receive funds from.
I think the second read seems to be a better fit. There can be upside in participation of projects. But how would just sending funds create exposure without a requirement for participation.
Also, who is to say that these individuals aren’t actively exposed already? Core devs are building the protocols–how would they not be exposed to upside benefits if they are the ones building it?
I know if I was a core developer and couldn’t be exposed to upside in profits–that would feel like a red flag to me. Don’t core devs have the the knowledge and tooling right at their hands to easily see where profits are being had? Processes like frontrunning or flash loan contracts are complex for junior solidity devs–they are not exactly easy tasks that everyone involved in Ethereum know how to do.
I found an interesting article about employment and wages earned and the particular emphasis on very high wages.