Proposal to Retain Indigo Labs to Provide Services to the Indigo Protocol

[EC_ATX]

TL;DR:

Now that the Protocol has launched, the DAO is in control and the Labs team can only do what the DAO authorizes it to do and pays it to do. Labs believes the services in this Temp Check are essential, that Labs is the best qualified to provide the services, and that Labs’ proposal to do the work on a ‘time & materials’ basis is the most mutually beneficial and reasonable way to proceed.

TEMP CHECK:

The Indigo Protocol is by design intended to be the most decentralized DeFi protocol on Cardano. Key to that goal is ensuring that the DAO is in control and Labs is limited to doing what the DAO authorizes.

The Labs team “Fair Launched” the Protocol with no investor funds so that the Protocol could be as DAO-controlled and decentralized as possible at launch. To continue being maximally decentralized post-launch, the DAO needs to now vote on how to secure future services for the Protocol and Foundation.

Under the Indigo DAO Constitution, the Indigo Foundation is the legal entity empowered to implement the votes and directions of the Indigo DAO. The Foundation’s only role is to implement those votes.

Since the Foundation is not yet staffed to directly support the Indigo Protocol and implement DAO votes with its own team, the DAO must vote to have the Foundation contract with someone to do the work the DAO authorizes. In the first Indigo Proposal from November, the DAO voted for the Foundation to sign a Services Agreement (SA) with Labs which authorized Labs to provide essential launch and some post-launch services to the Protocol and the Foundation.

The SA allows the Foundation and Labs to easily enter into additional work agreements in the future - called Service Schedules - as may be authorized by a vote of the DAO.

This Temp Check asks the DAO to vote to authorize the Foundation to enter into a second Services Schedule with Labs to perform the future services for the Protocol and Foundation that are listed below.

We believe that the services in this Temp Check are essential to the future development of the Protocol and to supporting the Foundation, and that the Labs team is the best qualified and best positioned service provider to deliver these services.

The first part of this Temp Check requests DAO approval of the specific core services listed below which the Labs team believes are needed for the next 12 months. The DAOs of many other protocols have authorized significant payments to development teams, including for example AAVE, dydx, Uniswap and ApeDAO; so we feel that this request is firmly part of how a decentralized protocol must function. To alleviate any concerns with this vote excluding other development teams, the Foundation would have the right to cancel any of the services on 30 days notice and have the services performed by another service provider.

The second part of this Temp Check requests reimbursement of specific past out-of-pocket costs incurred by Labs to develop the Foundation.

Proposed Services and Payments

A. Services to be Provided

We propose that the DAO authorize the Foundation to sign a Services Schedule with Labs for the following services over the next 12 months:

1. Develop upgraded or additional Governance smart contract(s) which allow distributions of INDY from the DAO Treasury where authorized by passed DAO Proposals. Currently, the DAO Treasury funds are locked and therefore inaccessible until a Protocol upgrade is implemented. Any implementation of these upgraded smart contracts will be subject to a vote of approval by the DAO Members.
2. Develop upgraded or additional Protocol smart contract(s) on all aspects of the Protocol, including creation of any recommended white paper(s), contracting for necessary audits, subcontracting with other developers, and performing necessary launch services. Any implementation of these upgraded smart contracts will be subject to a vote of approval by the DAO Members.
3. Continue to administer the calculation and distribution of INDY rewards which have been authorized by Indigo Proposal 1, through March 31, 2024.
4. Continue to administer and improve the Indigo Protocol web app, oracles, and off-chain functions, through March 31, 2024.
5. Continue to administer the Indigo Forum pages, through March 31, 2024.
6. Support Working Groups authorized by the DAO, including ideation regarding additional revenue sources for the DAO through March 31, 2024.
7. Develop and administer the creation of a web app, email accounts, and social media accounts for the Foundation, through March 31, 2024 (unless transferred to direct Foundation control sooner).
8. Develop proposals for additional improvements to the Protocol and the larger DeFi ecosystem, and present to the DAO Members through the governance system.

The Services Schedule will include relevant milestones and deliverables where applicable, allow the Foundation to cancel any of the Services on 30 days notice as noted above, allow the Foundation to conduct quarterly audits of the Services and invoices, and include other terms that the Foundation requires. In addition, the Labs team will commit to hosting quarterly Townhalls to review the work and billing in the prior quarter and projections for future work.

B. Payment for the Future Services

Labs proposes that its services be invoiced monthly on a time & materials basis. We believe that time & materials billing is more appropriate given that it is difficult at this early stage in the life of the Protocol to estimate the exact effort that will be needed for each of the listed tasks as would be needed to propose a flat-rate amount. To address concerns with overly burdening the DAO Treasury, Labs will also agree that the aggregate total of INDY payments be capped at 455,000 INDY which is 10% of the current DAO Treasury.

Monthly invoices would be approved by the independent Director of the Foundation after the services have been provided.

The requested hourly rates for various Labs team roles are listed below. These are based on our survey of what other independent development shops working on blockchain projects charge for services. The requested rates are, we believe, fair and reasonable considering what we understand others pay and the cost to Labs of providing the services to the DAO (personnel, equipment, third-party services, and overhead).

Positions and Rates:

Position	Rate (USD)
CEO/CTO/CIO	$180
Senior Developer	$150
Mid-Level Developer	$135
Junior Developer	$95
Marketing	$50-$100
Legal	$275
Admin	$35-$75

Out of pocket costs incurred by Labs (such as for audits or outside developers from MLabs) would be reimbursed by the Foundation at cost without mark-up.

As for the payment procedures, we propose that Labs invoice the Foundation on a monthly basis with payment due within 30 days in INDY, ADA or fiat/stablecoin. The first payment will not need to be made, however, until after the Protocol upgrade called for in item 1 above (implementing the ability of the DAO to transfer Treasury funds to the Foundation). A summary of each invoice will be shared with the community on Discord. We do not foresee any upgrade to the Protocol being ready prior to Q423.

If Labs is paid in INDY and decides it needs to sell any of it, Labs will commit to first share any proposed liquidity provision plans with the DAO for comment and to set expectations.

While we cannot accurately calculate what the total monthly fees may be in any given month, based on limited information available to us about what other teams are paid by DAOs for analogous work, we anticipate that the monthly average may range from $30,000 to $60,000.

While most current Labs team members are receiving INDY on a vesting schedule, that is not compensation for years of future work but the reward for up to two years of past work and future availability (as they will stop vesting if they stop being available to support the Protocol). As with any traditional tech business, in addition to an ‘equity’ upside, Labs and current or future Labs’ team members need some form of regular compensation to pay their real world bills. Labs expects to work closely with the DAO and Foundation for the foreseeable future, and in a decentralized structure we believe that requires the DAO to fairly pay Labs for the services it receives.

Reimbursement of Past Out-of-Pocket Costs

In addition to future work, the Labs team also proposes that the DAO authorize the Foundation to reimburse Labs for out-of-pocket expenses previously paid by Labs for the formation of the Foundation under the Cayman Islands Foundation Companies Act of 2017. These costs should be reimbursed by the DAO because the Foundation was created only to support the DAO.

We propose that these costs be reimbursed in INDY, ADA or fiat/stablecoin from the DAO Treasury following a Protocol upgrade referenced in item 1 above. Labs will commit to not sell any of this INDY without first sharing any proposed liquidity provision plans with the DAO community for comment and to set expectations.

The past Foundation-related expenses to be reimbursed are the following:

Payee	Invoice Date	Services	Amount
Carey OIsen (Caymans law firm)	May 2, 2022	Legal services regarding Foundation structure and formation	$10,000.00
Zedra Cayman Management Services Ltd.	May 2, 2022	Incorporation fees; Pro-rated annual registered office, secretary, director and supervisor services; other related prorated annual fees.	$15,573.00
Zedra Cayman Management Services Ltd.	July 1, 2022	Incorporation fees; Registered office fees; Secretary services; Director services; Supervisor services; other related fees.	$14,900.00
Carey OIsen	July 31, 2022	Legal services regarding Foundation structure and formation.	$3,360.00
Carey OIsen	August 31, 2022	Legal services regarding Foundation structure and formation.	$3,195.00
Carey OIsen	Sept. 30, 2022	Legal services regarding Foundation structure and formation.	$2,960.00
Carey OIsen	Sept. 30, 2022	Legal services regarding Foundation structure and formation.	$1,510.00
Total	$51,498.00

We look forward to answering questions on this Temp Check, and hope that DAO Members support retaining Labs to continue to help transparently build Indigo into an industry-leading financial protocol.

[DrOctaFunk]

Indigo Labs should absolutely be paid for any and all services rendered that the DAO agrees upon and sets for.
With that said, I have seen several times Indigo Labs tell the DAO that some actions are “inadvisable” or some actions within temp checks “can not be completed”. If we are to start paying out of DAO funds for services rendered, then anything and everything that makes it through the process of being ratified should be performed by Indigo Labs.
If we say we want iGold, then we get iGold. If want say we want i(Currency) then we get i(Currency). If we say we want i100xAvocadoFutureTrading, then we get i100xAvocadoFutureTrading. REGARDLESS of whatever technical issues or pseudo boogeyman may or may not be lurking in the shadows.

Indigo Labs up to this point has done a very fine job at creating a very fine product without asking for anything in return, however, the keys to the vehicle were turned over to us. Now that the power is in the hands of the people, it becomes quid pro quo. We are most likely going to pay up, but what are you going to do for us Indigo Labs? Hoping and wishing that the niche cardano defi ecosystem “takes off”, and volume pours in to magically create value for the DAO isn’t going to cut it. In a years time, when the world is in an entirely different macro state(better or worst, who knows, but most think worst) and another proposal like this crosses the forum, and Labs are once again asking for more money… the same question will present itself…

What does Indigo Labs do with this money to drive value for everyone involved?

[Letran]

cost rate per hours will be counted toward 8 hours / day or per actual work? and how community check the actual work?

With this rate, I think Indigo will go to bankruptcy after few months.

[jrm512]

I would like to know what additional smart contracts they plan to develop as described in part 2.

what does it mean to continue to administer the calculation and distribution of Indy Rewards? I thought these were set in the white paper.

4. I would like to see more information about how they intend to improve the web app, oracles, and off-chain functions. What will it take to allow indigo to pull from several oracles to remove the dependency it has on the Labs controlled oracle? On top of that what are our oracle limitations? I’ve seen the claim that we should be able to work with all chainlink tracked assets yet the oracle still seems to be the issue worth assets like IGold despite chainlink having an oracle for it.

Why is marketing and educational content not discussed at all. I would like to see more of a plan for a marketing budget and strategy, as well as some programs to help educate about the products offered.

I would also like to see some parts of this proposal increase the decentralization if Indigo. right now Labs has us by the balls, if we choose to not work with them on this than the protocol is dead. We need a plan that allows the oracles to be decentralized and the front end code to be documents so that others could make interfaces for the platform. I’m not trying to say we should move away from labs at any point, but they should not have “work with us or die” kind of power.

Labs delivered an excellent product that I hope to continue to see build out and adopted, however based on the performance over the last few months I think that labs is asking for way too much money. They have been unable to produce the products requested by the DAO, how is that going to change by giving them more Indy?

[jrm512]

I’ll add its a bit frustrating to consider approving hourly rates starting at more than 4x the amount I make an hour, and hundreds of times more than the lowest paid employees globally. why are we expected to pay a junior developer what many small companies would pay their senior developers?

I know how to use the adobe suite and ChatGPT and would be willing to take on marketing tasks for a fraction of the price you’ve quoted.

this also isn’t clear the number of employees in each position. Do we need a dedicated CEO, CTO, and CIO to manage a team of 6 other people?

[Blake_231]

Overpriced quotes and nothing should be paid hourly. A set amount to get a job done by a certain date at a specified quality. Simple

[Mike_C]

Do you mind sharing the Annex indicating the services provided by Labs to the Foundation? The signed document I found is only showing blank annex followed by mark-up price on another annex. Thanks

[Mike_C]

Don’t know what other think but hourly rates seems ultra high compared to market practice. Looking at Senior Developer position for instance return 28,000$ per months (8h , 20 working days) or 336,000$ per year!

Sharing source below as well as comparison with some top 10 company average salary

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-developer-salary-SRCH_KO0,16.htm

[gcarrharris]

Indigo should be paid for the enormous amount of work they put in.

Here’s the thing, this proposal is even larger than thinking of it as just team members from indigo are getting paid. There is concrete evidence from other ecosystems, a really good example that was pointed out to me in the discord was the AAVE vote for retro pay. Aave paid retroactive $15 million to the team plus another 1.5 to an audit. The reason this is so big is that it will effectively help set market costs for some emerging web3 positions.

I believe the numbers need a lot more research. For instance when I shared it with some of the development team on a project that I am currently working on, the devs were all amazed at the $115 junior developer rate. Stating that this would be amazing, if true. I’m not a dev so I can’t comment but in general all the numbers need to be fine tuned.

Hope this goes to a vote after we get some numbers and terms and conditions down. Could be a great project for the work groups and company.

[Syll]

Tbh this proposal seems oddly vague while asking for what appears to be possibly 2.1 million USD for 12 months?

I think this needs substantially more justification and explanation. Simply putting an hourly wage and a estimate of expenses is in no way a clear explanation of what is what.

This is just the easiest example so no offense but I’ve never seen an administrative role which makes more than $35 an hour, and this is proposing over double that as a wage for a startup company?

Now is that salary? Or the hours worked low?
Because if that is a full time position, then this admin person makes more than most engineers. If you see what I mean with this example.

Furthermore there is absolutely no mention of the means of payout, like is this a lump sum or what?

This mention of 30-60k in “expenses” is also extremely vague, can we see an outside of what those expenses are and why they could be double or half month to month?

Honestly would love to see some balance sheets and some actual accounting rather than just throwing $1100 USD and hour at the Dao

Also shout out to the team for all the great work so far. Indigo is a great product.

[Mike_C]

1. Salaries to be revised downward and quoted monthly basis and in line with market practice
2. estimate of expenses and proper justification to be provided. Based on this estimate DAO to approve an advance payment to cover future estimated costs
3. annual filing of audited financial statements AND submission of audited FS and actual invoicing evidencing the expenses incurred over the fiscal year to the DAO for approval.
4. if actual > estimated, DAO to approve additional compensation to cover full costs. If actual < estimated, Labs to refund DAO treasury

[DubbelU]

What happened to the team token allocation? 25% in total wasn’t it?

This is when you should be building value for what you already possess (in INDY) instead of asking for more funds.

This is a little concerning.

[moonshoteod]

The INDY/ADA pool on Minswap has a little under 2M ADA TVL, or about 1M in ADA. 1M ADA translates to about $340K USD. The estimated monthly cost provided here is $30K-$60K a month. If we take the mid point, say $45K, that translates to over $500K USD a year. There is not enough ADA in the pool to support this. This doesn’t even take into consideration of people selling their INDY rewards for SP and LP.

Can the team provide some concrete detail on how the protocol can generate the funds necessary to fund this? Or how they plan to generate enough INDY buying demand to offset the likely sale of INDY by the team?

I understand the team needs to be compensated but do you think the protocol is ready to support this at this moment? Or is this a make or break proposal? If the DAO voted no, will the team walk away? No judgement here as everyone needs to pay rent and bills.

Also, will the team get to vote on this? I think the team owns majority of the tokens in circulation right now?

I am a fan of the project and I commend the team for its transparent and always professional communication. I hope the DAO and the team can come to a reasonable accommodation that works for both parties.

[juanCardano]

on day 1 that you approve this and I sell everything and take it all back. I pay enough in fees (which is fair enough for me).

They have a large part of the assets.

I am now doubting your project.

I was starting to trust. I am giving them a chance, don’t ask for funds. It’s abusive, this proposal. Earn them honestly with what the project has! (YOUR USE)

if not from now on I tell you that INDIGO is going to die as 100% of the project that I said they were bad.

Anyway I am not here to save anyone, whoever wants to lose his money loses it, this is just my comment.

[jrm512]

for the first time I agree with you. I do not necessarily believe the team asking for funds is abusive, they deserve fair compensation for the work they are doing. However to come in like this and threaten “Make us the best paid team on Cardano or else” iv very concerning. I would have thought we would get one or two years of work and development from the 25% allocated before we had to start sourcing additional funds. The way they are doing this will drain the protocol, I’ll bet within 3 months there would not be enough liquidity for them to accept payments.

[JWolfish]

AAve was launched in January of 2020, although it has roots as ‘ETHLend’ back to 2017. The proposal referenced, paying Aave Companies $15 million for previous work on Aave, was executed in September of 2022. I don’t know what funding they asked for between those dates, if any. But that was a solid 2.5 years after the rebrand to Aave and 6.5 years after the launch of ETHlend. Aave is one of the most successful protocols on Ethereum, and is multichain. It generates a significant amount of revenue, and is the third highest TVL protocol amonst EVM chains, with $4.5 BILLION.

Indigo is months old, with a few million in TVL, it generates very little protocol revenue, and what little it does generate is currently being paid out 100% to token stakers. Most protocols and startups are bootstrapped for years by venture capital money…very very very few are ever in a position to have their product start paying its bills mere months after being launched. The statement is that Indigo has no VCs is not entirely true…the VC in this case is literally EC, the CEO of Indigo Labs, as he’s stated he’s put over a million dollars of his own money into launching Indigo. I completely understand if he is tapped out right now…that’s a lot! Unfortunately, I do not believe that Indigo right now is in a position to pay off that venture debt. The inference that Labs will accept more tokens to cover this debt, on top of the 25% already allotted to them, is, in my opinion, the worst possible way to pay this debt. There is not enough liquidity on Cardano to cover the sale of this amount when EC and his employees need to sell INDY to pay their mortgages and grocery bills.

By putting forward this proposal now, EC is essentially indicating he is tapped out. Fair, he’s done a lot. We obviously want to pay our developers, and they deserve a salary NOT PAID IN PROTOCOL TOKENS so that they can pay for their lives. As I see it, Indigo has three potential paths forward.

1. Submit and pass some form of this proposal, ‘paying’ the entire debt in INDY tokens, accepting the fact that much of that sum will have to be sold off over time into Cardano dex liquidity, potentially crashing the token price significantly for current holders.

2. Raise and implement new fees on the platform, and probably also reduce the amount of current fees going to INDY token holders. These fees would generate ADA, which I find to be a somewhat better way to pay devs…we could also implement a treasury management committee to manage the ADA collected, possibly converting much of it into stable coin. The danger here is that new fees anger users, reducing fees to INDY stakers angers them, and Cardano defi is still in an infancy stage…there is not a lot of activity to even generate the fees.

3. Sell a chunk of the INDY in the DAO treasury to a third party venture investor for a lump sum. This will not impact the miniscule liquidity on dexes, and some sort of cliff and vesting schedule could be negotiated. This will then give the DAO ADA or stable coin to implement a treasury management committee that can then begin to pay these bills. Additionally, I would strongly suggest to Labs that if they feel they are cash crunched, they need to look into doing this ASAP with a chunk of the very generous 25% of total INDY already allotted to them. Liqwid also secured themselves funding this way, it’s not a bad way to go, honestly. Fund yourselves, so we can continue to bootstrap Cardano defi into something that can sustain itself.

My thoughts…I am not a venture investor nor do I have any business funding experience other than running basic operating budgets for many farming (actual agriculture, not token farming) operations over many years. The DAO should probably find someone who is experienced in these things to have these negotiations with Labs.

[EC_ATX]

The Labs team welcomes this discussion and the opportunity to educate everyone that this is a good and necessary proposal that’s beneficial to Indigo’s decentralization status. As we’ve stated, we will take the time needed to answer all questions and concerns before moving this Temp Check to a Poll or to an on-chain Proposal. It’s critical for us, that that through this process, we preserve and build on the faith and trust we have established with the community over the last two years!

We very much appreciate all of the posters who have commended the Labs team for building one of the most complex and robust DeFi dApps on Cardano; we feel that this Temp Check is the way to keep building as a maximally decentralized project.

Many of the questions raised are core to the concept of what makes a DeFi protocol decentralized, while others go to how businesses function. Below are our thoughts on the points raised so far:

1. THE DAO HAS TO CONTROL THE PROTOCOL. This vote is needed now because the Labs team cannot dictate or control further work on the Protocol without a DAO vote. As @droctafunk said, at the time of launch “the keys to the vehicle were turned over to” the DAO. Having no small group in control is core to decentralization, and core to not being legally subject to various laws and regulations that may apply to centralized DeFi applications. This Temp Check is just one of many where the DAO will decide what work will be done and who will do it. Contrary to some online speculation, Labs has no keys to the protocol or the DAO Treasury. The system is in the top 5th percentile of DeFi protocols in the industry that has a truly upgradeable system through on-chain Governance.
   The DAO voted for Labs to provide launch and post-launch work, as we’ve been conducting with regards to Web App updates, etc. to date; now we are asking for authorization for the next 12 months to continue showcasing our ability to you all as the most trusted dev shop to support the Protocol. We are not aware of another DeFi project that launched with our high-level of decentralization, so we understand how this process may seem unusual. But this vote – along future votes for other services to the Protocol – is core to the decentralization goal of the Indigo Constitution.

2. THE DAO HAS TO PAY FOR WORK ON THE PROTOCOL. The DAO has to pay whoever it votes to do work on the Protocol. Again, this is to us what decentralized means – that no small group controls the Protocol. Launching a decentralized protocol does not give the launch team any special rights or any additional obligations post-launch; what happens after launch is in the control of the DAO.
   We are grateful that many posters agree that the DAO cannot reasonably ask service providers to perform work into the future for no compensation, and that point is the heart of this Temp Check. As we said in the Temp Check, the fact that Labs team members are currently vesting in some INDY grants is not payment for years of future work; it is more analogous to an equity grant given to a tech employee in addition to their pay and benefits, and not as a replacement for any pay and benefits.
   Several posts have asked about audits, and the Labs team is happy to include an audit right in the Services Schedule for this work.

3. HOURLY RATES CAN BE CHANGED. Many posters have reasonably expressed concern with how paying for the services might over-tax the DAO Treasury. We do not believe that paying reasonable rates for necessary work will over-tax the DAO Treasury and the proposed hourly rates are based on what we understand other dev shops using US-based workers charge. A few experienced blockchain developers have confirmed in their Discord comments about this Temp Check that the proposed rates are at the mid-or low-end of market.
   Nonetheless, we are happy to agree to lower rates. We just need additional information as to rates actually paid in an arm’s-length contract with similar dev shops for similar work. We ask that anyone with a source (@gcarrharris ?) share any dev contracts or other information with us. You can share as a DM if you are not sure that you can or should make the information public.
   @Mike_C: Contractor hourly rates are not comparable to employee salaries broken into hours. A worker would charge more for doing the same tasks as a contractor than a salaried employee’s hourly rate because of the temporary nature of contractor work, the lack of benefits, and their higher taxes (in the US). Salary numbers also do not capture the significant costs of benefits (or equity grants). The Services Schedule we propose would allow the Foundation to, at any time, hire its own employees to provide the services instead of Labs; but we do not believe that using Foundation employees would be less expensive for the DAO for the near future.

4. WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR FLAT RATES. Without knowing the exact work to be done and how much time it will take, no one can come up with fact-based flat rate fees for these necessary services. For example, we do not know as we sit here today what may be suggested for upgraded smart contracts – the developers need to assess feature options and what is technically possible with what amount of resources, and then there need to be conversations with the community, Working Groups, etc., on what will be proposed to the DAO for vote.

5. OUR ROUGH ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST IS $30-$60K/MO, OR $360K TO $720K/YEAR. Claims that Labs’ work will amount to $1million or more for a year are not rationally based in our view; they involve unreasonable assumptions that someone will always be billing at each proposed hourly rate for 40 hours per week, every week. As said in the Temp Check, we believe the total charges - for all hourly billed time - are likely to be in the range of $30k to $60k per month; still a significant amount, but far short of $1 million for the year. We would be happy to agree to include an aggregate payment cap of at most 10% of the current DAO Treasury, or 455,000 INDY, for the 12 month term of the services to address concerns regarding draining of the DAO Treasury.

6. THE DAO CAN AND SHOULD CONTRACT WITH MANY SERVICE PROVIDERS. We agree (as noted by @jrm512) that the DAO should also directly vote on and have the Foundation contract with other services providers – for Oracle services, MLabs or other developers, accountants, lawyers, etc. The Protocol will be stronger with a diverse array of service providers and all should be contracted through the Foundation. This concept also plays into the idea of eventually establishing a Technical Working Group of ecosystem figures to provide technical oversight and support to the Protocol. These resources could be paid in some form as service providers.
   While we think work by Labs is needed now and this Temp Check is necessary, the Temp Check is clear that the DAO can end any service at any time and hire someone else to do the work. Our hope is to have a broader collection of service providers supporting the Protocol, and our Temp Check has been designed from the start to give the DAO maximum flexibility to pursue that goal.

7. THE DAO CAN AND SHOULD CONSIDER OTHER REVENUE SOURCES. Part of the work Labs wants to support with this Temp Check is considering how the Protocol might generate other revenue streams, as @moonshoteod and @jwolfish raised. But for now, the DAO only has INDY, and any agreement would accordingly have to be based in INDY (since the Foundation could not promise to pay with something that it does not have).
   The Labs will gladly agree in the Services Schedule with the Foundation to accept payment in ADA, USD or stablecoin should the DAO be able to do so.
   Selling DAO Treasury INDY (as @jwolfish suggested) to an investor is a possibility for the DAO to consider – but the services in this Temp Check are needed first to upgrade the Protocol in order to make such selling of DAO Treasury funds possible.

8. ANY PAYMENTS BY THE DAO REQUIRE A PROTOCOL UPGRADE. We of course appreciate that INDY liquidity is low on the DEXs at the moment, but note that it will be several months before any Protocol upgrade of the governance smart contract - which upgrade is needed for the DAO to make any transfers of INDY to Labs or anyone else.
   Therefore, if this Temp Check is approved on-chain this month or in April, the first payment to Labs likely would not be made sooner than Q4 2023. We would also propose that the full amount owed to Labs when payments are first possible would be paid out in three installments as opposed to one lump sum. We hope that DEX liquidity will be improved by then, but regardless the Temp Check commits to telling the community about any liquidation plans of any INDY paid to Labs.

9. ABSTENTION DECISION. Lastly, while we cannot tell Labs team members how to vote with their INDY as all DAO Members are free under the Indigo Constitution to vote on any Proposal, myself and many other Labs team members have voluntarily agreed to abstain from voting on this Proposal if or when it eventually moves on chain. We want to be cautious here though as we do not want to set an expectation that anyone will abstain from future Governance votes, so this should not set expectations for the future.

We hope that this post helps expand on our thinking a bit. We continue to believe that this Temp Check is constitutionally and legally essential, and in the best interests of the Protocol and all INDY holders, and we look forward to further discussions.

[moonshoteod]

Thanks for the detail reply.

This is similar to traditional business with multiple owners. Some are silent owners, with less shares, that don’t do any work. Some are majority owners that do all the work. It is fair for the owners that do all the work to be compensated. When the business is not generating enough money to compensate the owners that do all the work, or to cover other operating costs, all owners will have to decide if they want to dig into their own pocket to continue to fund the business through the hard time.

Since no concrete plan has been presented on how to make up for this funding, you, the $INDY owner, have just been asked to shared the burden of funding the continued operation. You might not feel like you are funding it but you are in the sense that the token price will likely drop unless the project can find additional revenue to offset this request.

This is a fair and transparent request, but you have to figure out if this is right for you.

[Bathori]

I would say it is fine to develop the necessary smart contracts to make possible Indy DAO treasury payments for the different services required by the DAO.

Now for these 2 points:

• Continue to administer the calculation and distribution of INDY rewards which have been authorized by Indigo Proposal 1 , through March 31, 2024.
  Should not the automation of the process be included in these services?
• Continue to administer and improve the Indigo Protocol web app, oracles, and off-chain functions, through March 31, 2024.
  Should not the integration with a decentralized Oracle (when available) be included in the above?

Best regards

Edit:
Additionally for item A. Services to be Provided: in general:
What is the estimation of hours per each position described in the proposal required to carry out the listed Services?

[diwalost]

If the DAO is paying the Lab in INDY, then can we create a vesting system where such INDY paid are under vesting schedule? Whenever lab wants to sell them, they have to create a DAO proposal specifing the amount and if the proposal is passed only than the vesting is lifted on that amount of tokens only.