I’ll go out on a limb here and say that it was an oversight not to have obtained explicit buy-in from the DAO on compensation plans via a social proposal. In hindsight, I believe the Working Group should have put forth this issue to a vote.
—
I have also suggested including this amendment in the forthcoming bylaws, as well as considering other key feedback points that emerged from the Meta-Governance Funding Request discussion. To avoid a conflict of interest, I have proposed that a nonpartisan individual should execute the compensation guidelines defined by the Meta-Governance Working Group.
—
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18875/18875f6c436167b33c59c89e69db72de82faac6e" alt=""
This discussion here, is exactly the same, we are talking about disclosing REAL salary of Stewards, it doesn’t matter what is the structure of that compensation - it cannot be opaque. Especially given the fact that ENS is public good. Everyone needs to understand how much Stewards are compensated and for what services.
The Term 4 Meta-Governance Working Group has outlined the full steward compensation, detailing the amount each role receives in USDC. Reading this table, I can discern steward compensation and it is clearly defined.
—
IMHO, this proposal should only address the governance distribution, and whether or not to apply vesting to the current term. Therefore, I would suggest that the voting options should be as specific as possible:
- Option 1: Apply vesting to governance distribution for the current term.
- Option 2: Approve governance distribution as per Term 5 guidance.
- Option 3: Abstain