Sorry for taking a while with the reply, was moving around.
Overall, agree with your points and suggest the following…
Contributor compensations in terms of GEAR will be taken at 200M FDV right now (for those who have been & are working now) which is approximately (smaller or bigger) FDV of the DAO round which should happen shortly. More on that in the contributor call of May 10 [today]. If a contributor is onboarded later, like mid 2022, the valuation should ideally change to reflect a later-joiner). That is in line with how startups do it too.
The bonus structure would then be for current list of contributors:
- X USDC as per the bracket of the contributor, give or take some amount higher-lower. Monthly.
- $X worth of GEAR at the FDV of 200M. Monthly.
- Vesting of each portion starts at 3 months after the supposed reward (if you worked in March, your March tokens start vesting in June, for example) and is then vested over the course of 9 months after that. This can vary a bit, just setting up a framework for now.
And as an extra incentive to work further, the 200M FDV will stay as a benchmark for these workers (not new ones) for 12 months since the start (until next April) at which point new FDV can and probably should be discussed. It can be lower at that point, if bear market really hits hard. But also if it is higher (imagine Gearbox as a unicorn protocol) then it shouldn’t be benchmarked 1:1 and remove any upside for workers, but be somewhere in the perfect balance scenario.
In turn, new workers should be onboarded at above 200M (even if just a bit above) as well, and not be able to get better terms while being later. Or if onboarded lower FDV, it should then reflect other workers too. It’s an open DAO after all, we wanna strive for most transparency.
Also, to avoid issues of ups and downs like:
“token goes up → everyone is happy because their options are moon. But if it goes down, everyone complains because those options are not moon anymore”…
Everyone at this stage should remember they opted in for such a structure and they saw more potential than downside in Gearbox at 200 mark. So re-negotiating only in a bad case, but keeping full upside - should either not be done or be done with extreme caution, to not abuse the DAO. Just noting down.
Now for cases where devs are harder to obtain (always!), as the “company” (not related to DAO at all, but interested in seeing the protocol grow) can use its portion to offer a higher pay to some onboarded contributors. That is for cases of extreme talent / extreme need (like, SC devs) and in that case those people will not and should not be getting tokens from the DAO. They only get USDC for working. That should be the case for 0xmikko, ilgiz, jared, ivangbi, and those who are onboarded on such terms. If in the next proposal you see someone is clearly seen as only with USDC, you can assume they have the bonus structure given by that other portion. In reality, it’s really about an extra warchest which is not in the hands of the DAO but can be deployed and used for the benefit of it. Such a structure can exist for a year at least probably, but down the line, everything will be streamed from the DAO, including larger pay cuts, even if they are VERY big. After all, founding members need to be retained IF the DAO wishes to retain them. That’s for later anyway!