2nd Emissions Range Adjustment & Compensation for Emissions Committee

Temp Check Discussion
22

you havent addressed any of my questions or concerns, we are talking past eachother

23

I though I did sorry I will be more clear:

I think the the memorandum is sort of like having a mandate. I feel if the mandate is clear enough there is no need. Also I would rip anyone, I think the maximum “bad” thing that could happen to the members is being kicked out. No need for more. I think having a clause saying for the time being if other members of the committee feel like it they can kick you out doesn’t need much governance, and since you can kick out you need to also be able to add back in, and that is where I suggested that the labs for the time being at least are the ones that pick the new member.

What I mean by the governance stuff is not having a serious constitution or anything, just you know creating a stuff in a way that in a future governance can be fit into more naturally. In my example is changing the labs for a min vote, and introduce some sort of vote of no confidence for the whole committee by the DAO.

2 Likes
24

I do like the idea of utilizing min as an option for trading fees.

Maybe half the fees can be paid in min at a discount? Then 1/3 goes to min stakers, 1/3 goes to labs, and 1/3 gets burned.

That incentivizes min staking, creates additional trading volume for min tokens, and supports price appreciation of the token.

2 Likes
26

I disagree, a burn was performed to get to 100% supply fast, this again delays the process of releasing MIN fast, I previously proposed, 1 use all ADA staking for MIN Staking plus FeeSwitch.(current MIN staking),

ALSO instead of reducing the emission, it is better to redirect that 133.333 from MIN to Staking MIN, with Staking ADA+ FeeSwitch. MIN would have more Volume and more Value. Emissions are maintained. and the ADA/MIN pool would be more volatile. by decoupling MIN from POOL.

2 Likes
27

agree on the proposal to lower the emissions but a better way is needed to for the monthly payment to save purrito from extra work and it doesn’t look very professional as well.
also need some more info on the committee as per GT questions

1 Like
29

Most of these questions are already answered in the Proposal. But ill break them down one by one and provide an answer.

  1. Are the current members appointed for life, or do there terms expire? - for as long as the committee exists and provided the other committee members dont decide to expell a member

  2. What happens of someone decides to resign or simply ghosts the committee? - they can be expelled and replaced. This is up to the committee.

  3. If a vacancy DOES come up, how is a replacement chosen? - chosen internally by the commitee.

  4. If the committee votes to expel a member, does it have to be unanimous? - no, majority based like any votes that the commitee does (which is why its important to have an uneven amount of members, such as 5 currently).

  5. Does the member who would be expelled get to vote, and if not what of there is a 2-2 tie amongst the other members? - it was answered above

  6. If 6 months worth of payments are sent to Purrito’s wallet then what happens if he dies in a fiery plane crash… is there a way to get those payments back? - I agree this isn’t the best measure. Perhaps it could be changed from a 6 months period to a 3 month period? What do you think of that solution? The problem with dealing with monthly payments directly from the DAO Treasury would be that its inefficient. But if other solutions can be found, I think the committee is happy to consider them. This is a good concern and I appreciate you highlighting it.

  7. This says Marco gets paid more because he does more… what happens if he suddenly is unable or unwilling to do more? Does he still get paid more? If someone else takes up the slack, do they also get paid more? - these decisions are to be handled by the committee. We can add a clause to the proposal where we can contemplate Marco having his compensation decreased from 200$ a month to 100$ and another member getting an increase from 100$ to 200$.

  8. If members just stop participating, do they stll get paid? Who decides if they are participating “enough” to get paid? - this is up to the committee

  9. If the emissions reach the new minimum and just stay there, does the committee still get paid every month just for deciding to do nothing? - yes, the committee will still be doing work and analyzing data.

(these are my personal answers, that I havent run by the other committee members. We will have an internal discussion and make ammendments to the current proposal according to the feedback in this post).

Thanks for your questions.

4 Likes
30

Regarding me getting more. I would prefer if 1 person gets more per month. All WG members vote for someone else each month and the person with the most votes gets the extra comp that month. There will be months it’s me, there will be months where I can’t be as active and it should be someone else.

1 Like
31

So the current 17.28% APR would tank even more?! I’m not sure about that, I’m trying to DCA on minswap LP. Why not wait for the volume go up to decrease the emissions?

2 Likes
32

This proposal only deals with the bounds and clarifying Emissions Committee framework. The committee would have to take many factors into consideration, before deciding whether decreasing, increasing, or keeping the emissions the same is appropriate.

33

My discord is MugaGabe. Yes we ve had some discussiones over there

1 Like
34

I don’t personally like the Emissions/Working group proposal as written.

  1. i think it should be separate proposals. Change the limits in one proposal, create WG separately.
  2. The WG should not have the power to add members to itself. The positions are paid, that let’s the committee commit the DAO to more expenses without a DAO vote. Changing the committee structure should be a new proposal.
  3. it shouldn’t name Marco as getting more pay. Specify instead that the committee will elect it’s own chairperson and the chairperson gets more pay. And the committee can change chairperson any time they want.
  4. a tie vote should fail, there should not be a tie-breaker. If there is a tier-breaker, I don’t understand the rationale for giving the tie breaking vote to Purrito. That essentially gives him 2 votes. Tie votes are not a majority and should fail.
  5. the committee should not have the power to fill vacancies by their own vote. The DAO should vote on new members. If not a full DAO vote, then give that power to the KFC. There should also be some sort of nomination process and time for discussion so that it isn’t just done in private with no input from the community
4 Likes
35

Number 3 has been addressed . The committee will all earn 100 and vote once per month on 1 person to earn 200 based on extra work they did over the month.
I don’t disagree with your other points tbh

1 Like
36

  1. Understandable if you want to make the WG a separate proposal. However we have been transparent all along who was involved even tho DAO funds were never touched for compensation. This is simply a matter of formalizing what is already convention. It tacked onto the emissions adjustment proposal i suppose just to highlight the relationship and importance of the responsibility.

  2. You think adding one member every 3 months (if at all) is too gross? perhaps you would just like a cap?

re 3. we can just record in the minutes who is to receive the double pay.

  1. abstain

5.Committee members are amongst the most active members of the community and are able to draw on and draw from the community simply as a matter of course and common sense. It is entirely unnecessary to formalize nomination with an on chain vote, especially since the current members have not been formalized with an on chain vote. I contend that the DAO would appreciate delegation of this responsibility to the working group itself, since they (I/we) know what we need and who might be able to help in such and such regard.

Any additions or resignations will be announced and open to discussion. And the governance process is always open to initiate any direction interventions if absolutely necessary.

Thank you for reading my wall of text.

2 Likes
38

How is the dashboard going? is there any updates form this side?