Proposal 21: Setting up Powerhouse - Powerpool Management Board

Proposals
75

Sorry, its really hard to follow this conversation but as a summary:

Everyone out of those 5 people will get 50k or 70k when TVL > 100m vested over 18months.
= 140k Dollar if we stay at 2 Dollar (4,30 dollar right now) for a part time job.

I dont know where you guys are living, i live in Austria which is known that its not the poorest country on the globe, but those numbers are extremely high. I need to work for more than 3 years to earn 200k Dollar.

Im part of this community since the launch of yeti and im only around discord and i never heared of @zero and @defi. I guess they are devs and working with the team? But im sure they are very important community members, i just lack the information what they are doing. They also never answered to the latest proposals.

I dont know how i feel about this proposal. I really like the idea of a management board, i really hope that we see some good stuff evolving about it. As we have seen the community has awesome idea and some awesome memebers like @Defly @Glow @JaLa (i just name some, there are many many more) and we need people who have an overview about those idea.

They payment is extremely high in my personal opinion and i would prefere that people are getting payed in USD. I thought we were speaking about 4k a month (which still is exremely high for a part time job) but with this proposal we are looking at 9k+ (if CVP is at 2$, now we are close to 20k dollar a month) for a part time community board. But as it seems this is a crazy space and if you want good and active people you need to pay such saleries.

3 Likes
76

Yeah, exactly. So I think we are both agreeing that the VP banker is not a relevant benchmark here, right?

77

I have no understanding of why the board of managers, would need approximately 280k USD EACH, to help out in a community project… if they are passionate?

Everyone loves money, and everyone wants more. But wasn’t this project started off without a ICO for a reason?

The guys doing the brainwork, coding, staying up late, testing-failing-testing again to make sure it’s as bullet proof as possible, started all this without anything in the beginning.

Are those interested in being Manager’s not investors already? If not, why on earth have interest in it? If investors already, you not passionate about the fundamentals of the tokenomics and community collaboration? Why the need to make so much for your little time?

I propose the following options:

1: Every month the board wanting a big money grab, present a goal to reach. And an agreed payment in tokens are payed on delivery of the goal at month’s end/following month… All voted for by community. All transparent.

OR

2: Board elected is payed in a fixed USD amount, according to vote. Board reports every month on tasks done and accomplishments.

OR

3: The project continues is earlier tradition, with community in power. A group of selected community members in range of 10-20 people work in a coordinated fashion, deligating tasks and execute in a transparent way. The payment is split among the community members handling the tasks. Goal of this group is gaining traction and later we can choose to hire a more permanent board.

I would like to know what a few selected wanting 280k USD for 18month each, would be able to deliver, that 10-20 people splitting the tasks could not? And why these guys feel the need to make this amount of tokens, if they are passionate about the project?

The goal is traction of project and tokens value increase. This means that the 280k USD (current price), would be several times more.

Does not make sense for a community project that chose to start of as it did.

1 Like
78

The proposal is fair for the following reasons

  1. Meets competitive salaries in crypto with equity incentives

  2. Management board members’ progress is reviewed frequently in which we can stop receiving payments

  3. Inactive testers stand to receive the same amount each if not more when inflation is factored in.

Yearn Finance Governance minted over $300M dollars for core supporters. We’re asking for 250,000 CVP or $1,000,000 at current prices for 2 years of work. I would not judge the CVP allocation based on bull market prices but use a more conversation moving average of the last couple of months.

This allocation is smaller than what the team has received back from inactive testers and will fund work that will bring tremendous value to the team. We have all invested months in time and energy helping to build the Powerpool community.

1 Like
79

You’re claiming that we’re trying to do a money grab, but your account is fairly new and your previous comment on another post was in regards to lower the inflation rate. It seems that you’re a speculative investor looking to limit inflation whether that means stopping allocations to inactive testers or core contributors.

Everyone loves money, and everyone wants more. But wasn’t this project started off without a ICO for a reason?

The guys doing the brainwork, coding, staying up late, testing-failing-testing again to make sure it’s as bullet proof as possible, started all this without anything in the beginning.

How did this work for Yearn?

1 Like
80

I don’t think it is contributing to the discussion to accuse community members that raise critiques. Instead, lets try to focus on being more transparent regarding the subject.

Maybe if the management candidates could elaborate about their previous work and the work they intend to do within their responsibility that might be more productive. Personally I’ve seen @Sergey, @vasilysumanov and @DrGonzo activity way more than @DeFi and @Zero. I’m not saying you guys do less but I think that the community deserve more transparency in this matter.

The big elephant in the room is testers allocation imo. Testers have got a promise to get way too much CVP allocation and that is the main reason the management board members feel they deserve a proportional amount. However, this might lead to the project failure due to over inflation.

The solution should be to decrease testers allocation before or at the same time of deciding management board members allocation imho.

1 Like
81

Please see the comments - I believe I answered most of the questions.
And the way DeFi answers is much more polite than the Tokenfuture’s speech
I can call any salary in the world “money grab” this is a not constructive manipulation imo.
Why the guy who posted 5 comments calls me a money grabber?

Please ask any questions - I happy to respond. Re my previous work - please see here


and again happy to answer any questions re my previous background and what I have been involved with PP

Re DeFi and Zero - I am not sure how often they posted here (though as I see they have been pretty active) but I had a lot of discussions with them in discord and telegram, like literally every day

logically incorrect. Correct logic is that the additional MB allocation wont change the whole picture (this is just 2% of testers total allocation) while will add huge value.

  • we are ideating on how to cut the testers allocations in an acceptable way, so the overall effect will be the DECREASE of the inflation!

it would be OK, but unfortunately the discussion on management board has been ongoing since Oct-Nov. we have just wasted too much time. So I don’t think that it would be a good solution to wait for another month

82

Hello there!

Thanks for your respond.

Currently I’m on my vacation so our representative is @Sergey. I’m in touch with him and other active members on daily basis.

If you want to know about me specifically you can check my politician pitch: Nomination for PowerPool Politician (Zero)

Also you can click on my profile and check my participation in PPs life from day one.

Plus, you can search my handle in PPs discord and check my messages: Zero | 0Yakuza#7988

If you can read Russian you can also check my tg channel t.me/notothemoon where I cover PPs news.

If it’s still not enough - please, provide your questions. I will answer them if needed.

2 Likes
83

My activity on the forum, governance participation, gas bills, and communication with core contributors is my main resume. However, I am also working as a business developer and product for another DeFi project. Please see my nomination post to find out more.

My Powerpool Politician Nomination

84

I have no understanding of why the board of managers, would need approximately 280k USD EACH, to help out in a community project… if they are passionate?

This is not a community project, it’s a community governed project. The community will still have the last say at the end of the day when it comes to proposals and changes in the system. The role of the Management Board is to aid the current PP team (and the community) on several other operational tasks which I think we all agree a “little” help wouldn’t hurt. This way the PP team can focus on what they do best.

So yes this will be some sort of PT/FT job role, and as such they deserve to be paid.

3: The project continues is earlier tradition, with community in power. A group of selected community members in range of 10-20 people work in a coordinated fashion, deligating tasks and execute in a transparent way. The payment is split among the community members handling the tasks. Goal of this group is gaining traction and later we can choose to hire a more permanent board.

Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? You are pretty much saying that 10 amateur players can probably be as good as Cristiano Ronaldo (yes pretty shitty analogy). We need professionals here, quality over quantity please. We don’t even have 10-20 people volunteering on an active basis anyway. Where have you been when the community needed help? :sweat_smile:

1 Like
85

I guess we could be arguing about their compensations forever, as everyone will have a different idea, but what we need is to act fast and deliver. I’m sure you’ll be able to find other people willing to work for 4K/month, but probably not a lot of them that already have an in depth knowledge about the project, the blockchain space, competitors, connections etc, and that have followed and contributed for the project since the beginning. This group of people is the closest of what we have as a “best fit” for the management board right now IMO.

I’ve personally been an LP since the first month, and have interacted countless times with all of them, they are pretty much the most active community members we have.

Looks like the proposal has been updated for a 50K compensation as a base, hopefully we’ll be able to achieve a consensus before we go on a vote as it’s pretty obvious no one is against forming this management board.

What’s the worst that can happen? They do a bad job, the community kicks them out after 3 months and we’ve spent 41666 tokens, vs 14.65M which were allocated for the testers.

We need this management board in place today.

2 Likes
86

Hello everyone, in comparison to those that have been here since the project started, I am a noob. Take what you will from what I have to say but I aim to be an active part of this community and hope my lack of previous discussion can be made up with upcoming discussions.

Overall, I am for the Management Board. But there are obviously certain aspects of this proposal that are alarming to me as well as many others.

Problem 1 - payment is too high especially when our anchor bias is $2 per CVP (price has more than doubled since and has not even revisited this $2 mark for over a month), we are allocating a ridiculous amount of CVP to testers when there isn’t a fair output, as well as comparing the salaries of Investment bank VPs to the potential salaries of a community-governed project. They just aren’t the same. Let’s be real about this.

Proposed Solution 1a - split the monthly payment 50/50 between Stable and CVP. This is a literal middle ground between MB being vested in the growth of CVP as well as having a stable form of payment that they themselves can opt to buy CVP on their own accord.
Proposed Solution 1b. - I think this will be best coupled with 1a, but we NEED to address the elephant in the room and get this inactive tester issue sorted! I can feel pretty confident that many, if not all, of those that are worried about the payment being too large for the MB will feel A LOT better about paying MB what is currently being requested if we can resolve this supposed “pandora’s box”. Can it really be that hard to see which of the testers are deserving of such a high reward for literally ZERO output? If we are to suggest a reward for the MB per their output, why is there not a similar criteria for the testers? Especially something as easy as claiming their CVP… Having this issue be a focus of MB right out the gate would be great.

Problem 2 - the “post-factum-yet-not-so-defined-yet-capacity-intensive” list and the timing issue of getting this proposal passed. From the comments, all but 1 have been in favor of passing this proposal and we also know that, if PowerPool is to be an industry leader, we need this to be enacted quickly. but we have to be careful.

Proposed Solution 2a - reduce the assignment from 3 months to 1 month until we have a clear and concise list of tasks that the MB will be adhering to. From that point, we can then increase the assignment back to 3 months once we, as a community, can see results from the MB. If we need to get our foot in the door as fast as possible for longer term growth, then so be it…but as @dae said, we have flexibility! Let’s use it to our advantage.

Proposed Solution 2b - also would be best coupled with 2a…why not make the very first tasks of this proposed MB to, well, create the list of tasks! If it is as capacity-intensive as described, I would assume 1 month is plenty of time to come up with the right tasks for the MB for the problems of today. I do not like the “post-factum” aspect of this what-so-ever but I absolutely see the need for this to pass quickly, so again…let’s remain flexible! Maybe we can have a monthly proposal for an “updated” list of tasks the MB will be attacking once we return to the 3 month assignment. Either way, having a shorter term update from the MB to the PowerPool community will only help everyone.

Overall, this MB should bring great value to this project but it does come with risk. Mitigating the risk of this should be priority #1 for the MB as it will only increase their incentive in the long term.

Hopefully I didn’t beat a dead horse or two. Excited to hear any replies.

1 Like
87

Hey, thanks for your comment!

Well, this is not the first opinion, that the payment is too high. I still cant get when people say this, what is the basis of comparison? i.e. too high comparing too what exactly?
I referred to testers compensation and the founding team compensation and the devs current salaries (the devs involved in 3-4 projects simultaneously), the fact that it is incorrect to compare with project manager’s salary. but seems these data-driven examples are ignored each time and only argument against is “too high”

I am just for 50k CVP + bonus 20k CVP, I don’t want split. Can buy CVPs on my own funds anytime. (and I am a pretty large holder atm and have been since aug)

this is the number 1 thing to be solved. But I am strictly against postponing the MB thing. It has already been postponed for several months imo

not workable. if we do this on monthly basis we will spend all the capacity to setting monthly plans, instead of delivering solutions.
Flexibility is 3 months. I believe 3months will work in case we are in luck. It should be 6 months.

No, this is not “be flexible” this is “guys, go work one more month for free” imo.
I have a number of proposals and involved with several projects on different stages, I will choose those which are ok to pay. Becuse this is natural that you selling your experience and get paid for it.

Re the brief tasks list - please see in the comments I provided above

But all the above is just my opinion. please keep in mind that I have been LP since the day 2 and inputed pretty a lot of time and expertise.
I don’t want to spend more time explaining why I think the exact planning should be done after the proposal passes

  1. For me the list of tasks is pretty obvious
  2. I don’t want to put the whole list in public coz I know that other projects are checking out this forum from time to time and I don’t want to give them competitive advantage before I absolutely sure that we can implement all the core things quickly
  3. Again this is 25% of work and you guys want it to be done for free
  4. Maybe you met a lot of examples when a candidate need to send his/her potential employer the exact plan of what he/she will be doing with gant chart etc, but I haven’t seen this, while I worked in multiple industries.
    To be more precise I saw this and all the time it was a bad experience for all the counterparties involved

So I don’t know this is probably a question of believe, I am seriously don’t know what more can I say, sorry.

If my previous input doesn’t show I am reliable, trustworthy etc, I don’t know what would prove it

1 Like
88

Plenty of engagement which is great guys. It’s clear that this board will do powerpool huge benefits. Like sergey says this is just 25% of what the work is the rest is withheld for competitive advantages. We all see that we need such a board. I don’t think there is much doubt about it. So everyone wants such a board. Great, we can all agree there.

Clearly the issue is payment and I see why it is such a barrier for everyone. Everyone is focused on the dollar value that members of this board will be paid at the end of the day and comparing it as i did many times, to the dollar values that they make, or that they think is too high.

INSTEAD I encourage you to look at cvp amounts and set aside the dollar value for a minute. Since cvp amounts they get paid is actually what really affects the protocol and the rest of us not what the board makes in dollars.

First lets make sure everyone knows that the payment (including if bonuses are met) of 70k * 5 = 350k NOT released in 3 months

70000/18*5 = 58,333 cvp is what will be released for all 5 members for 3 months. Or 41,666 cvp if bonus goals not met.

This is not much inflation at all for cvp over 3 months and the project and the rest of us will extract so much benefit from their connections, expertise, marketing.

Conviniently ignoring tester tokens as if it’s not a valid argument to base it off is wrong, because it is valid. 192 Beta/gamma testers were given 50,000k each for barely any work in most cases. This board will reduce those allocations as well.

Thankfully another community member sparked the revision of tester tokens Beta & Gamma Testers Low Activity < 2 weeks ago. If this person didnt do that we were doomed to face 9.6 million tester tokens entering the market. No one complained b4 they raised that issue.

Tester tokens will also vest over 18 months like board members tokens so let’s compare it over
18 months:
9,600,000 testers vs 350,000 board
3 months:
533,333 testers vs 58,333 board.

It’s not even a close comparison. And yet we were almost willing to do nothing about testers tokens until it was brought up at the last minute.

Also currently our index cvp reward programs are costing us more than 1 million Cvp PER MONTH and killing the projects potential. Why aren’t we scrambling to reduce this bleed of mindless printing asap? Instead we are focusing on why 58,000k cvp must not enter the market over 3 months (in return for a huge benefit of the ideas and connections, and time of the board.)

If we don’t like what the board has done over 3 months? then we can say to hell with it. Scrap the board. We give away 58,000 cvp and that’s, it no real damage.

But what happens if we don’t pay this board 58,000k cvp and settle for a less competent board say? We are likely to see that this project cannot capitalize on its tech innovations, it cannot make big connections with others, dpi & piedao will pass us, we wont have the same level of quality of ideas and innovation, etc.

So let’s weight up the risk everyone
Lose 58k cvp, a drop in bucket compared to the millions we have printed over months. And project likely dies wondering while competitors eat us up.
Or the fact that we give 58k to these board members that been active and contributing since the start of the project months ago when they were doing it for no charge, powerpool at a crucial time where we need structure and cohesiveness and directions tries to establish dominance as others catch up to us so that we have something to salvage. I think the latter is far better.

Hope u put aside usd comparison as I asked and see that in terms of cvp this allocation is relatively nothing.

So now let’s look at it in usd. If the board does their job and this project excels to the top and cvp moons, who loses? Do we lose by paying the board? The board gets alot of return but they deserve credit don’t they. And we stand to benefit as investors to the project when it moons.

I hope we can move past it, put their payment into context interms of testers allocation, cvp inflation, and actually see that they can bring so much benefit to this project that piedao and dpi can’t get and we want to capitlize on this now when its so crucial.

Remember elon wanted to be paid in tesla stock not dollars! Now he is the richest man in the world, I don’t hear tesla stock holders complaining today!

7 Likes
89

Great explanations and arguments! Thank you. Let’s get the proposal onchain asap :slight_smile:

2 Likes
90

can we pin this post and delete all the other comments above? :innocent:

you guys need to use more emojis in your comments, it’s 2021 ffs

3 Likes
91

BRAVO :wave:t2: :wave:t2: :wave:t2:

1 Like
92

Thanks @everyone for the discussion, the proposal is live on snapshot

Please vote!

https://snapshot.powerpool.finance/#/powerpool/proposal/QmQtMQJyqDjsqAqS8452p38c6R4trZ89zUtVuXiC3f7Tsk

1 Like
93

In the snapshot proposal https://snapshot.powerpool.finance/#/powerpool/proposal/QmQtMQJyqDjsqAqS8452p38c6R4trZ89zUtVuXiC3f7Tsk

It says that in addition to the base 50k cvp that there is 20k to mb members if additional conditions are met (I) $100 mn TVL achieved or (ii) DPI TVL is outperformed.

So the additional 20k is to be vested linearly over a period of 18 months like the base salary right? Also the vesting would begin from the time that either of those two conditions are met right.

E.g if we hit 100mn TVL in on 1st September. Then that 20k would start linearly vesting for all members starting in September for 18 months and ending on 1st March 2022?

Also what happens if we hit those achievements, after some or all of the current management board members leave, I assume only the management members who are elected at the time of that achievement will be rewarded?

94

yes

yes

Yes again

for the last paragraph, I would propose a better logic obviously, but this is a pretty time consuming operational thing which is not adding value to the project itself, thus so far have to prioritize the value added stuff (like tokenomics amendments and new indexes creation)

2 Likes