You’re correct. The ability to delegate votes to more active participants would definitely help. Also the ability to submit near zero tx’s. Let’s discuss this on another forum post though as it seems to readers on this post that the Management Board will be responsible for it.
1 Like
Basically, we agree that such a structure is necessary for the project now.
Our only concern is 70k CVP. Let’s calculate: it is 3888 CVP/monthly and assuming a $2 price (but we all know that if the project will perform well, the price will be higher than $2, significantly higher). So, 3888x2 = 7776$ for part-time job. We think it is a lot.
Our vision is 50k CVP with 24 months vesting. In this case, each board member will receive 2083 CVP/month ~ $4,150. Not bad as a starting point. And with overall project results, this “option” or “protocol-issued salary” (you can define it as you want) will grow. For $4 it is $8,300 per month (and $4 for CVP is not far away). For $10 it will be $20k, etc.
Basically, it is not far from testers - they had 6 months lock and 18 months vesting, you will have 24 months vesting. It means your conditions are even better, as you start earning CVP immediately, from the first day.
Let’s work and achieve results together.
Yeah, and I think you know that team has a 12-month lock-up and 18 months vesting. We don’t receive CVP from the first day. Our first tokens will be released in 2022, and we are ok with that - we bet on our project and are aimed to make it really big.
Also, we think that it will be a good option to schedule community voting in 1 month after this initiative will be started (if it will be approved by the community in the first place). And at this voting people should say do they want you to work on this, or they want to withdraw remaining (vested) CVP back to the community.
2 Likes
I was initially skeptical of this proposal, but after reading the comments I believe this is the best path forward.
At first I thought the rewards seemed high, but IMO the value this board could provide for the future of CVP is worth it. 350K CVP rewards over an 18month period is minimal compared to what we pay out to LPs each month, so it’s worth the investment if the board can help speed to market.
DeFi is a fast moving space. I’ve seen one Index token launch and retain over $50M TVL in less than one month, so it’s not in our best interest to slow down progress on minor issues (especially when the governance votes are more of a formality). January LM rewards proposals were messy, and seeing the translator proposal fail is not what the community actually wanted to see.
The proposed members have all been very active in providing meaningful developments for PowerPool. Their time and attention can get split across other projects, so I would prefer to incentivize them to focus their attention on CVP since time is of the essence. I will be FOR this proposal (but of course I will be monitoring their actions each month to make sure they’re earning it!).
EDIT And I do agree with the recent post from @powerpoolAdmin . I was concerned with the vesting schedule as it vests much more rapidly than the team’s stash, so aligning these schedules more closely makes sense. The purpose of the board is to build long-term value to CVP, so it does make sense to tie their compensation to the long-term success of CVP.
2 Likes
Instead of defining in cvp what translators, management board earn. Wouldn’t it be better to have a salary defined in usd? And at each payment stage have the Power Oracle purchase the equivalent amount in usd of cvp at that time and distribute it?
This would give translators and management a guaranteed agreed upon income amount. It means that no one is earning dollar values more/less than their work deserves.
1 Like
Yes and no. From one point of view denominating salary in dollar terms is a good move. From the other - if denominated in CVP, actors have much higher motivation to make the CVP price go up by all means necessary.
2 Likes
this is a very brief list of high-level tasks I see. even this list I quickly put on paper is very capacity intensive
Product
- Determine the best opportunities for derivative indexes to be captured right now( as well as potential opportunities)
- Analyze GT/protocol tokens landscape and select opportunites for new indexes on base assets
- Structure the whole logic for 1 and 2 (i.e. why we have a certain list of indexes, and where we go with it)
- Revise and adjust CVP tokenomics, including what is the best use cases for CVP now. Back it up with numbers
- Set up an economic framework for the indexes creation to be able to accept / decline or adjust any index proposal within hours (incl economic and risk frameworks)
- Revise UI/UX
Governance
- Determine the rewards the testers will recieve
- Build a detailed scheme of how the Management board works and how the voting works in this new format
- Propose solutions for “exchange govn attack” (see Binance controlling 10%+ of the tokens in circ supply)
Bizdev:
- Assist the PP team in bringing diff types of large investors to PP
Operations
- Determine whether and what are the opportunities for social / reputational tokens within PP ecosystem + NFTs for the community members
- Set up the whole set of marketing and educational materials for PP
- Set up the framework of how PP team and management board works with active community members +compensation plans
2 Likes
If you compare it with the team’s compensation, please dont forget it is 10x smaller in absolute numbers.
1 Like
Ok I’m sold 
. We need this
I see what you mean. They make cvp price go up with their hard work so they should reap the benefits of it.
But still I think without defining salary in a stable way we might run into problems. If the cvp price in usd were to increase/decrease over a month period, does that mean the value of their work has increased/decreased? Shouldnt it be the same as what was it was valued at the start? Those are some concerns I have about it.
I think motivation should be there for board members as I feel that board members are personally invested in the project and want to see it succeed anyway, so that’s why they take on extra burdens for the rest of us right otherwise they could just leave it. For example CEOs, board directors of company get a stable prior agreed upon salary for the work they do.
That’s just my opinion on it.
This is not an issue - most of the projects in the space use either just token payments. or a little fixed USDC part + much larger native token part
this is OK to choose between either fixed USDC or risky CVP payment.
I rather tend to take a risk here
3 Likes
I don’t agree with this calcs:
-
Most important: please mind WACC.
In case we implement WACC=60%, 70k CVP, 18m, then time-weighted monthly average will be
2.7k CVP
*Why 60%? because projects like FIL and POLKA had 30-50% discounts for 12m locked tokens. So 60% is actually pretty optimistic -
historically we should rather take $2 per CVP (I know all the argument against this statement)
-
probability that we are getting into a bear market is quite high and nothing will help in this case neither to CVP price nor to ETH price
-
In case we adjust CVP tokenomics the price can significantly fluctuate in a period of several months
So rather ~$5k for a part time job. Is it a lot? well, for someone of course yes. but ask devs who involved part time on several projects getting hundreds k $ per year from each, or many other crypto space representatives
Also, lets not forget that each of the proposed board members has inputted pretty much for the last 6 months. A way more than 80% of testers I believe. Like literally put 10-100x more time and helped with value added stuff (aaaaand pandora boxes is slightly opening again)
2 Likes
Rather than try to speculate about future CVP price to ensure fair compensation, instead could we agree to revisit the Board’s rewards every 3 months? As long as the rest of the community engages in discussions and keeps the Board in check I think this would work fine.
If the price of CVP drops but the Board is creating a lot of value, the community would increase their CVP reward to keep them around. Conversely the Board would also have to defend their high rewards if CVP price increases. The Board members would quit working if they felt the compensation wasn’t enough, but if they were truly creating value then the community should have no issue continuing to compensate them.
Given the volatility in crypto, I like the idea of being able to revisit rewards. Given that board members can be removed every 3 months, why not take this opportunity to justify their compensation also? We have no need to lock into a 2year contract - we have flexibility here!
If we’re open to revisiting rewards quarterly, then I’m fine with starting rewards being anywhere from 2K-4K CVP per month per member. Compared to LM rewards this is a drop in the bucket, but the potential value from having this Board is very high IMO. I would even be in favor of scaling back LM rewards slightly more than anticipated to help fund the difference (it’s not like people will be exiting their LP positions anyways with current gas prices 
).
It seems we have consensus that this Board would be a great addition for PowerPool. The users selected have all demonstrated long-term commitment to PowerPool and have provided significant and well thought out contributions. I would love to see this Board go live as soon as possible so that PowerPool can stay competitive, and I have no concern with the possibility of slightly overpaying in the short-term because I believe the return on investment will be great (and we can always fire the board if it isn’t great 
).
2 Likes
i think the board should have a odd number of members 3 or 5 incase of disagreement we need a tie breaker.
So far the proposed structure is 5 members + 2 votes from the core team. So it’s an odd number
Dear Sergey, I think the money requested in CVP for your tasks (assuming that CVP price will really go substantially up, because there is not indication that bear market is round the corner) is quite much and what @powerpoolAdmin proposed is more fitting, BUT I still would not mind give you and other board members what you request, IF your job is properly done. And to see whether your job would be properly done, I think you also define goals you are supposed to achieve in as much details as possible so that the community can decide at the end whether it is really done or not.
For example, if thanks to your activities PowerPool should gain more attention in media, please define what is the minimal achievement that should be reached… if one of your goals is to increase TVL, please define what minimal TVL should be reached in what time and so on…
To make it short, besides having your tasks defined, you should define also the goals to be achieved so that the community can easily assess whether your job was fruitful or not.
But be it as it may, I am glad that you and other are part of the community and trying to help as much as you can… <3
but this is what I am suggesting in this proposal, sure.
Yes, absolutely
+scaling back the inactive testers reward
I think though we should better have a set reward size and justify it increase or decrease in the future
4 Likes
I dont want to shitting promisses on the community.
I think those who followed the process could pretty clearly see what was the input from my side when I even acted alone. So hopefully noone doubts in my credibility.
As I mentioned in the above comments properly set up tasks and goals is at least 25% of work.
I briefly put a brief plan of what we are going to do - this was 20/80. To go in more details will be a much more time consuming part.
In my pretty extensive experience this will significantly push forward the date when we start work.
I strongly recommend to do this in following way:
- If the proposal passes and everything is set up
- The MB comes out with a more detailed plan and goals and discuss it with the community
Otherwise please go to Delphi (nobody will argue they are reputable professionals + they have a pretty large team) and discuss where the $500 mn TVL they mentioned in Proposal 9 (if I am not mistaken)
yes mate, I know! It is always good to have as much certainty as possible, but please trust me if we start to set targets before we start actually work it will take another 1-2 months.
Taking into account a very start up nature of PP, personaly I am OK with OKR principles with rather “as much as possible” for each task.
*also please don’t forget - whether it is McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Procter&Gamble - whatever, nobody asks the candidates to lay out KPI (or OKR) on an interview (i.e before a candidate is hired and started receiving salary and being aligeble to the bonus pool/option plan)
2 Likes
Awesome discussion so far everyone!
Despite some disagreements, I think we see the huge benefit and efficiency this will bring to PowerPool in a critical time when competition is heating up and several aspects to address in our own project.
When can we expect this proposal to go live for voting? Coz of crazy fees, when this proposal goes to vote i assume it will be a snapshot vote right? Or is it too important for a snapshot (i.e instead an on chain vote)
How does a snapshot voting works comparing to onchain? Sorry for dumb question maybe… but I am still learning in progress 
snapshot of holdings is taken and you can vote accordingly to this snapshot. Users don’t send on-chain transactions, hence no gas fees.