[BIP-275] Request to Compensate Contributors in Liquid BAL

I believe not to be misleading, on the contrary. Just trying to get some needed clarification.

Seems like I had a misunderstanding of the BAL tokens purpose on the approved specification here. It would indeed cover “future team members” so all good if you want to propose it to be liquid from now on. I was under the impression they were just honoring previous hires, not future.

However, at OpCo/Foundation level we can’t sign transactions that were not previously approved by governance and would be best if you specify your intentions better. Some flexibility is good, and as long as its transparent we would have no issues moving forward. It is your job to state the correct specifications of your proposal, not of the community (or mine) to scatter around multiple updates and meetings and predict how much this is going to affect the DAO, if you can’t predict it yourself.

To be honest, I think this is the best approach. We are a little late on Year1, so it would be best if you can honor previous agreements. Anything new would mean peanuts for the remainder of Year1 and would certainly be smoother on the diplomatic governance effort imo.

To clarify this question regarding the return of funds to the Treasury, this needs to be made super-clear. These funds were earmarked, but they belong to the DAO. For the contracts terminated and not being replaced by “new hires” (which I believe to be the case for all of them thus far), OpCo has the responsibility to return corresponding BAL to the DAO Treasury and that’s why I reason the allocation would be “another” 600k because you’d be effectively be removing the earmark.

1 Like