That makes sense on the LM Committee side. I had tagged a few times, I stopped as I started to think Fire Eyes were no longer involved as I hadn’t heard from them for a while. I should have reached out to yourself or someone else at Balancer Labs on this!
In terms of incentives for Ballers this sounds great to me. Part of the challenge we’ll always have recruiting Ballers is they’re weighing up using their time for lots of different things: there’s opportunity cost everywhere in DeFi. It would also hopefully help mitigate concerns Ballers have with committing more time. The Sablier stream works well for longer term alignment, and the liquid 100 BAL/mo means that the program doesn’t discriminate against those who don’t already have some wealth.
Yes, echoing @Fernando, I am more than still more than happy to participate in the liquidity mining discussions, I just hadn’t received any info on how to be involved. I’ll DM you @bakamoto20.
I take full responsibility for the lack of participation in the LM Committee @bakamoto20.
Will look to participate in these conversations moving forward, irregardless of this proposal. Thank you for calling this out.
I’m fully in favor of this payment mechanism - both for this proposal and others moving forward.
Fully echo this sentiment. Fire Eyes is meant to be one of many contributors being compensated for playing an ongoing role in governance. I’m very glad that @Fernando see’s the same and wishes for all Ballers to see an increased incentive as well.
We want to do whatever is most important for Balancer at any given moment. We wish to be a leading resource for feedback on existing proposals and a sounding board for new proposals moving forward.
We will likely lead some proposals, and be contributors to others. We wish to be an ongoing active voice in Balancer governance - however it evolves.
At the time of writing, there are currently 9 votes on this poll. I propose we give it until the end of the week and assuming it is still in favor, define an updated scope as per the feedback in this post to take it to a Snapshot post.
@Andrea81 - assuming the next reply will contain more clear specification on the scope of work, do you have any issue with this being put to a Snapshot vote?
I agree with bits of what everyone has been saying and I think that it’s been valuable that this feedback has bubbled up so we can actually fix it. I will vote “Yes” to engage but with a couple of points to be addressed.
It’s clear that @Fernando and the team value the input. The key problem here has been more of a lack of visibility than actually the quality of the output of the team. Going forward we probably need to figure out some way/mechanism to ensure that there is more visibility to the broader community
100% on this. This is one reason that turned me away from Ballers to be completely honest. It’s been thanks to @LuukDAO dangling the fun grants project my way that I’ve been slowly getting back into this. To this point I actually agree with both points that were raised:
The ask is pretty reasonable given it’s a team of 4 and with a very in demand skill set
Ballers and other contributors should be compensated more if you expect them to juggle competing priorities
I can see the risk here but also at the end of the day I personally believe we need people like @Coopahtroopa and co to push this forward. I see this engagement more as a mechanism to engage and facilitate governance rather than a “take control of governance”. The DAO needs some form of coordination layer that we just currently don’t have
I get this confusion and one point I want to say is that nobody really has done it so this path is very new. From my pov, Maker is the closest to decentralisation but it feels they have a coordination issue where there isn’t some guiding light for everyone to rally around (see Kain’s post about this). Leadership is going to be super key and I believe @Coopahtroopa is proposing that they lead the governance for the next 6 months and see how it goes.
I have raised my concerns and sought answers. I also see that most of those who have taken part in the debate are in favour of your proposal, first of all, Fernando. As for me, I have already offered my willingness to accept this proposal. Only your last post made me a bit “nervous” .
For me, you can go ahead with the vote and let’s hope to work together.
I’d also like to show my support for Fire Eyes and this proposal in general. I’m one of the many who have witnessed their (not always very publicly visible) highly valuable contributions so far, and I really believe Balancer is lucky to have them as partners in the challenging task of evolving our decentralized governance.
Re the streaming BPT idea, is it really possible to compound BAL this way once staking contracts are implemented? Only staked BPT will get BAL, and there’s no staking token assigned to the staker, right?
This is a good question. I think it’s still too early to know this since the implementation of staking contracts for 80/20 BPT is still an ongoing discussion and that also still need to be voted and approved.
My suggestion: for now we would make a standard vesting contract (by OZ) that’s revokable. Then once the staking contract is up and running we can revisit this to make sure FireEyes would still get the BAL from liquidity mining from these BPT.
Looks like we are getting somewhere with this, it’s great.
@Fernando@bakamoto20@Andrea81@LuukDAO@Coopahtroopa I would like to propose the following: rewrite this proposal (should have been an RFC, actually) into one that will have _ to create a Governance Advisory Board, where each advisor would be paid in BPT in the 80/20 pool. I suggest the following:
The GAB would have 5-7 seats (odd number if there is any voting that needs to be done)
Max 2 or 3 seats can be occupied by people associated with a single organization, to avoid too much conrol.
New GAB members can be voted in by the existing GAB (uniformly?) or through a community vote (should we say that in case of a snapshot vote there should be a min of X votes?)
The GAB prepares a report every 6 months based on which a new grant would be approved.
Each GAB member gets 900 BPT per term (6 months).
I think _ would be perfectly positioned to set up the GAB and recruit more people. What do you think?
Separately, I will post an RFC proposing to reward Ballers for the work they do - there would be a small ballery and then per project rewards.
If Fire Eyes sets up the GAB and then recruit people for the remaining seats, how can they guarantee impartiality? Also, if I’m not mistaken, the FE group is composed of four individuals which already would represent the majority.
Probably, I would send one guy to the grant committee, leaving only three members in the GAB. Then recruit the rest independently to assure a more democratic structure.
We see this as a unique opportunity for Balancer to pioneer compensation for specialized, active governance participants. DeFi protocols hold billions of capital, distribute millions in liquidity mining rewards, but virtually zero goes to governance participants. We hope to change that with this proposal to the Balancer protocol & community.
Given this is new for DeFi as a whole, we’ve decided to refine our scope and reduce the allocation to make it more digestible for the Balancer community. Additionally, in full transparency, _ has been approached by two industry-leading projects to help with their upcoming product launches, which is limiting our bandwidth from the original proposal.
As such, we’re more than happy to reduce the compensation (rounded down to the nearest meme number!) and increase the vesting period. This includes:
4,200 BAL in BPT tokens, vested over 18 months with a 6 month cliff.
As mentioned in the original proposal, this will include recurring workshops with the community, Ballers, and Balancer Labs in addition to active governance participation in the forums and Discord–all with the goal of driving more adoption to the Balancer protocol.
As a first point of action, we’d love to collab on the finalization and implementation of the token economic design currently being worked on. Additionally, Marta’s feedback on a governance committee is interesting and we’d be more than happy in helping build that out if there’s appetite/consensus for it among the community.
Given there’s a fair amount of support for this proposal, we’ll be pushing it to Snapshot this week for voting. We hope that the entire Balancer community will participate in this unique vote looking to pioneer compensation for governance!
I am writing to you with reference to the agreement between Fire Eyes and Balancer, which would include participation in Governance, workshops, interaction with the Baller group, community expansion and the intention to increase the adoption of the Balancer protocol.
Work with the community to finalize and implement a strategy for the BAL token to expand beyond governance, including potential ways for value capture and benefits for LPs.
Acting as Balancer Protocol Politicians
Develop new governance proposals and lead discussions on improving the Balancer protocol, and generating value for the ecosystem.
Propose BAL and BPT token integrations into other DeFi protocols
Partnerships
Help onboard new partners for Liquidity Bootstrapping Pools, Balancer Smart Pools, and other protocol-unique applications like Aave Safety Modules.
Balancer Market Position & Narrative
Continue to develop the narrative of Balancer v2, asset managers, and protocol-unique applications.
I am sure that given your professionalism and experience, the already achieved results are worthy of your reputation and the trust placed in you by the Balancer team.
As the collaboration is fast approaching the two-month milestone, I would be extremely grateful if you could give a full account of your valuable work so far as I am sure that your absence in all community and internal calls over the past two months is due to very valid reasons.
.
_