Would it be interesting instead of requiring a vesting schedule for Indy, to require this Indy to be sold for iUSD and this iUSD to be provided as liquidity in DEXes for a certain vested periods of time by the recipients of the payments?
Another option would be to convert this Indy in to ADA, get a CDP for the necessary payments in iUSD, the DAO should then manage this CDP to make further profits for the DAO at least in the form of ADA staking rewards.
If I understood it right the 25% INDY vested for development are to be seen only as a bonus and not as a long term way to pay the developers of the protocol. This is fair to say but I think we should discuss to maybe lower this 25% and use the percentage to pay partly, or completely this specific proposal.
Doing so we can secure ~1.5 years of development (1 year paid plus the time the Labs needs to update the smart contracts) when during this time we can propose/discuss more detailed plans and also let the liquidity -hopefully- to flow in, both in Indigo and into Cardano.
How can we users without development skills understand if the price paid is right for the work done? Is it not possible to develop payments based on proposals? example: we want to integrate a stablecoin as collateral, the hours of work are calculated and those hours are paid every time there is development. This would incentivize the work and continued development of the protocol.
Honestly, for the payment method, the solution is not easy, selling the token would be counterproductive because people would abandon indy making it lose even more valueā¦ a small commission would be added to the treasury and perhaps stake part of the DAO indy to have of the % on the closure of CDPs
I also think the rates quotes are on the high side. But it is also important to to compare apples with apples:
The prices you are looking at for Bloomberg, Salesforce etc are salaries. The prices quoted by indigo labs include personnel overhead cost (insurance, benefits, admin cost etc.) on top on that salary because the Dao would not pay the salaries but pay indigo labs to all-in manage the workforce. On average the personnel overhead cost can range anywhere from 10% to 40% (can be more or less depending on a number of factors).
Hope that helps to make a better comparison.
Edit: Was also referenced above by EC
First of all Iām certainly not opposed to individuals getting paid what they are worth, what they deserve or what they are owed. For the sake of transparency the DAO should be entitled to detailed receipts of expenses incurred and preferably henceforth approved prior not in post.
With that said I think we first need clarification on what exactly the 25% team token allocation was for. I was under the impression team token allocation was for work completed and future work. Now we are learning that team tokens were just a hiring bonus and reimbursements are still owed and will be due every 12 months. So what exactly was the 25% for if not for compensation.
The fact that EC holds the largest portion of $Indy in circulation has been difficult to digest. Now considering EC invested $1 million of his own funds and nearly 2 years of his time and energy, maybe thats fair in light of his personal sacrifice. But now the treasury is to reimburse some $55k for legal and clerical fees paid out before the DAO was created. Does this mean the DAO is going to eventually reimburse EC his full $1 million investment? Why not back pay for 2 years salary too. Again Iām not against people getting paid what they deserve I just donāt like surprises or being left in the dark in regards to contract agreements.
Everything being billed T&M seems a bit ambiguous and vague. Why is it impossible estimate costs. The administration costs to run this forum should be as simple as paying the web clientās monthly fee. Why does this require an hourly rate. If we must pay hourly because contractors donāt know what it will take to get the job done then maybe we should be paying contractors that donāt need learning curve pay.
When can we expect the Foundation to be staffed? When can we expect to see some financial oversight of the Labs. Why is there so much trust required in this ādecentralizedā protocol? When can we begin to discuss making this protocol profitable and self sustaining.
I think an aggregate payment cap at 8% is a step in the right direction. Detailed documentation of services rendered, contract agreements, expense reports, independent audits and DAO oversight are necessary for voting confidence. Itās likely there will always be a need for hourly contracted services but certainly not every business expense needs to be a blank check.
Maybe Iām being too harsh but Iām more interested in being honest and asking the hard questions. I have nothing to loose and I would love to see Indigo become the industry standard for decentralization and DAO governance.
I am concerned about proposing due to previous criticisms, but well, given your clearer explanation, I agree, but I say make the release quarterly and if no results are seen, vote at the DAO every 3 months to release the funds, if people are not happy they can vote not to continue funding this. If no changes or improvements are seen, people would vote not to continue to release those assets.
Also, (Iām afraid to propose, but oh well) I suggest(Iām not an INDIGO developer, just an idea of mine for anyone who doesnāt understand) that 1% or 2% of synthetic settlements go to the Indigo team, but to not affect the liquidators or debtors, raise the settlement limits.
For example, iBTC and iETH would settle at 112%. This way, the team would not ask for funds and this would be for 1 year.
I also propose that those funds go more to protocol improvement and security, as I think before any changes or whatever they want to fund, they should invest in more audits to the protocol and improve the protocol design, and synthetics to make it more attractive.
I swear Iām already afraid to even comment here in this community.
This is for you to think about and nothing else. But if I do not agree with giving them funds for 1 whole year, it is an exaggeration. and if I do not see changes the truth would make me angry. that is why every 3 months the release in the DAO. and if they do not like it I leave and they can approve that. There are already other PDCs just like Indigo in other chains and they are not asking for funds, with all due respect.
Youāre always welcome to voice your opinions bud. Itās important to hear all sides even if some may be unpopular opinions.
Quarterly expenditure approvals is not a bad idea. I doubt Labs would go for it but itās a fair ask.
I definitely think we should be funding more protocol audits, front end and back end.
Thanks again to everyone for your additional thoughtful comments. Here are more of our thoughts in reply:
But we believe that the services that Labs would provide under this Temp Check - drafting smart contracts, supporting Working Groups, and ideating on long term Protocol improvements - are key to defining and implementing any new revenue for the DAO. Bottom line is that the work proposed in the Temp Check is part of getting to new revenue and therefore not something that can wait until after new revenue is found.
On this issue, it seems helpful to reiterate that it will be ~6 months at best before the first Protocol upgrade and that will be when DAO will first be able to pay Labs for any services. So the DAO, the Working Groups, and the community will have at least that amount of time to ideate on Protocol changes (new fee revenue, staking revenue, diversification of the DAO Treasury INDY, sales to investors, etc.). We see supporting this Temp Check as supporting taking the most direct path towards determining what options are available and implementing those options sooner than any other alternative development path.
This is not a reimbursement request for Labsās pre-launch work or its own pre-launch expenses. The only reimbursement request is for expenses related to building the Foundation; we ask that those costs be reimbursed because the Foundation is independent from Labs and only owned and controlled by the DAO. Future annual fees to maintain the Foundation will also need to be paid by the DAO.
But the reality is that we simply do not have enough definition of what work needs to be done on a go-forward basis, or the time needed for any such work, to even make an educated guess at what flat rate fees would be appropriate. Even Labsā past work is not a basis to project flat rates for future work because the future work will be mostly unique, one-off projects and tasks. In our experience, development shops seldom agree to solely flat rates for unique work for the same reason - they have no data on which to make a reasonable assessment of actual time and costs required to achieve a goal. Some of the Foundation support - web app and social media - is common web2 work so there is more data available on that, but what the overall support needs are would be guess work because we do not know how the DAO may vote to build the Foundation.
Many hours of work and community/PWG meetings will be needed to ideate on and propose what Protocol upgrades should be made. This Temp Check is needed now for Labs to be able to support that work. Down the road when the Protocol is more mature and when we have been through an upgrade or two, we will all hopefully be in a position to have Labs and other development shops make flat rate proposals for specific defined work; but we are just not there yet.
It is not fair in our view to say that the inability of anyone to currently know the 12 month development road map for the Protocol means that the Labs team is not competent. This Temp Check needs everyoneās support so that the very talented Labs team can be authorized to do the work to come up with the specific proposals, upgrades, etc., needed to keep Indigo a leading Cardano DeFi dApp.
Labs would like to see the Foundation build out as soon as possible since a robust Foundation is a core part of our vision of what a decentralized Indigo Protocol should look like. Itās important for the Foundation and Labs to evolve into completely independent entities that work together collaboratively as vendor and customer. We also believe that the Foundation should eventually have some paid staff this year or early next year. But what is the most efficient structure and how to pay for it is to be determined by the DAO/community and will be enabled by the needed protocol upgrade to access DAO Treasury funds.
That said, Labs is happy to agree to quarterly reviews. That could be by the PWG or others, or could be part of a townhall, or both. We are happy to revise the temp check to provide for any oversight that the community would like.
To the extent some comments suggest that Labs perform work and then the DAO vote quarterly to decide whether to pay Labs (or if to pay Labs), our view is that any vendor contract has to include a firm commitment to pay agreed amounts for the services; no vendor - including Labs - would reasonably agree to provide services and then later ask or have the customer decide what it will pay - if anything.
We hope these continued conversations will highlight our collaborative spirit with the Indigo DAO and welcome any further feedback from here!
v/r
EC
It was previously mentioned that you would provide further information on a revenue generating plan, but thus far no concrete details have been presented. May I kindly request that you review the Revenue Generating Proposal and provide input on the feasibility of the options, including estimated implementation timelines and potential impact on the protocol. Additionally, I would suggest that the DAO collect revenue generated in the Treasury to support ongoing platform maintenance and development rather than implement some fee directly to Labs.
Many members of the community are seeking a comprehensive plan and are hesitant to commit funds without a clear understanding of the proposed initiatives. While it may be challenging to predict all of the work that Labs will undertake in the next year, it would be helpful to have a starting point. Could you provide details on efforts to collaborate with more oracles to expand iAssets, as well as steps to enhance the protocolās decentralization and ability to integrate with other platforms?
Regarding the foundationās expenses, could you please outline past and future accomplishments, as well as estimated costs for ongoing operation? Finally, if future work is likely to consist primarily of one-off projects, would it be prudent to establish contracts for each project rather than committing to a blanket agreement?
First i love all the engagement in this topic so far most comments are clear, intelligent, and pertinent thoughts and ideas. However, despite all the discussion so far on this topic i have yet to see any factual accounting statements or balance sheets needed for a dao to make an informed decision regarding its budget. Can we get a full accounting report showing all ongoing expenses/continuing costs of keeping the protocol running, not just the hourly rates of the human capital. Im trying to get a handle on whether there are additional costs the dao would be responsible for paying for hardware/cloud/domain/partnerships/etc. or is the only annual cost to the dao for this service contract include all those ongoing fixed costs as well?
Spoke to our Dev team at Summon. The ājunior dev rateā seemed very high to them. I couldnāt extract any concrete evidence as we are a startup and are doing the same thing as @EC_ATX and his team are doing, bootstrapping it ourselves.
On a broader note, within this convo it was brought up that in Cardano, we have generally seen bounties that get paid out based on completed work. Has the team given any thought to taking some of the premier tasks and protocol upgrades, and putting a bounty on them?
Maybe another option to get the team paid, is agree to pay back the 55k start up fees, and then start at the bounty list. If the V2 upgrade is worth letās say $140,000(making up a number) then based on completion time and quality, it could be attained.
Although this hasnāt been done on Cardano, the convo is important but maybe not doing it all at once. Letās pick the biggest āupgradesā that the labs sees fit, and compile them(know you guys already have this:)) and make a case for the work. Versus a monthly/hourly/ rate projection.
This discussion holds significant importance, and itās crucial to establish a formal agreement for ensuring the protocolās decentralization. However, the current proposal appears to be inadequately thought out, with substantial requests and insufficient justification.
Itās essential to recall that the Labs received 25% of INDY as compensation, with the majority allocated directly to EC. This compensation didnāt undergo DAO approval ā if it had, ECās current allocation might have been different, considering his actual role and contributions within the company.
The proposed ~$52k reimbursement to the Labs should be dismissed, as it is already accounted for with a 5.125M INDY allocation.
Further justification is necessary before the DAO can approve this proposal, as the rates seem unreasonably high. Comparing Indigo DAO to more mature DAOs, such as AAVE, is inappropriate. Once the Labs has demonstrated its value, the community can contemplate larger compensation requests. While the Labs has done an exceptional job launching the protocol, post-launch development has been underwhelming. The Labs possesses 875k of unlocked INDY that can be utilized to raise capital from the market or VCs for ongoing operations.
It would be prudent to await a more transparent and detailed plan from the Labs before authorizing additional INDY withdrawals from the community treasury.
EC has mentioned the difficulty in estimating future expenses due to a lack of clarity. In light of this, itās advisable to wait for further clarity before authorizing more INDY for the Labs. The DAO Treasury currently has limited funds, and to ensure Indigoās longevity, itās vital to preserve these resources during the DAOās early stages.
The Labs team appreciates the thoughtful engagement that we have had on this critical Temp Check so far. We have updated the text of the Temp Check to add more detail (to allow for audits and regular Townhalls on the work) and to include elements that we have agreed to in the conversation so far (reduced Rates, a 10% cap, and payment in ADA). These updated areas of text are in bold. As to the new, lower rates in the updated Temp Check, we frankly have not seen new information which supports changing from the originally proposed rates, but weāve made the changes to be responsive to community concerns.
We have understood from the start that Labs is making some significant requests with this Temp Check, both in terms of the cost to the DAO Treasury and - just as importantly - the need to proceed on an agile development basis with no firmly defined roadmap. We are confident that the work that Labs will be able to do under this Temp Check, if passed, will go a long way to taking the Protocol to the next level by building a detailed roadmap. That roadmap will in turn allow the DAO in the future to proceed not with agile development proposals, but with very specific work proposals which allow for flat rate bidding. However, at this early stage in the life of the Protocol, we see retaining Labs under this Temp Check is the most time-efficient and cost-efficient way to get to that next level while best furthering the decentralization efforts of the Indigo Protocol and ecosystem.
We continue to believe that this Temp Check is constitutionally and legally essential and hope that that point has come through clearly. It is in fact the key driver of this initiative, and our belief has only been reinforced in recent weeks with the large number of regulatory enforcement actions which have been launched in the US and outside the US.
We hope that the conversation to date has sufficiently supported our strong belief that the best structure for the long-term growth of the Protocol is maximum decentralization with the DAO in control at all times - and that a key part of that is hiring vendors like Labs when needed.
We will continue to engage with the community here and reply to new posts, but will also move the Temp Check to the Poll stage later this week. We are grateful for everyoneās continued trust and belief in the Labs team, and ask that you support the Poll when published.
Thereās been a lot of healthy pushback here even though most of us are new to DAO Governance. The Labs of course is within its rights according to The Constitution and I donāt think anyone has reason to doubt their abilities. The adjusted rates do seem more reasonable and Townhalls and regular audits should help with some of the ambiguity of The Labs work.
I think the disconnect was mainly not being privy to the terms and conditions of the team token allocation. Just that it was 25% to Labs. Some things are starting make sense though considering decentralization requires different entities to operate autonomously. Labs, Foundation and DAO. The 55K was legal expenses to create The Foundation in the Cayman Islands. This being a Foundation expense that The Labs would not normally have take on seems fair that Labs should be able to recoup this amount and in the future The Foundation will handle its own expenses.
It would seem the Labs token allocation of 25% was internally contracted as a 2 year incentive and compensation package for founders and pioneering recruits. This contract and the work it paid for is expiring at the end of this year which is why we are discussing the retention of Labs with a new annual contract.
The Labs has created something truly amazing and even one of a kind amongst similar synthetics protocols. I really want to see what else they can build and how they can improve on what they have already built. This is only a one year agreement and next time around there should be a lot less uncertainty and ambiguity around pricing and scope of work.
Lastly with PWGs starting up we can finally start discussing revenue streams for The Foundation. The sticker price to retain Labs may have caught a lot of us by surprise but by the time that bill comes due we could already have a plan for the foundation to fully recoup those funds through a new protocol fee structure, investment of Foundation funds, farming, staking or other means.
Regulatory enforcement has been brought up a few times as to why this temp check has been raised. I appreciate the Lab spending significant effort to get the DAO up and running but the fact of the matter is as long as the team controls most of the tokens and vote, does this really shield the protocol from regulatory enforcement? I applaud the team members that choose to not vote on this proposal, but from any reasonable person looking in, do they really see a fully decentralized organization at this moment? I know we are early in the tokens emission schedule and hopefully we can reach a level of decentralization like AAVE in the future. I know this is a pretty common challenge for most DAO so I am not trying to single out Indigo here.
Hi @k-stack : There are cloud costs to run the Protocol - for off-chain actions and costs for some third party service providers for example. No costs associated with Labsā business will be passed on, just those necessary for the Protocol. Expenses for the Protocol are addressed in the Temp Check as costs that will be passed on to the DAO for reimbursement (with no mark-up).
The details of any expenses to be reimbursed by the DAO will be shared in the monthly summary of expenses, and any questions can be raised at the quarterly Townhall. Labsā projection of those costs are included within the general estimate of monthly costs. Eventually, the goal is for the DAO to vote to have the Foundation directly contract for services where possible but that will have to wait until the DAO Treasury is available. And of course the DAO can vote to change vendors or how the Protocol is supported at any time.
Thanks for the additional information @gcarrharris . As noted below, Labs has agreed to a general reduction in the proposed rates based on the conversations. As for bounties, that seems more for developed projects where independent teams will code features with no assurance of any compensation (or at least that is what I understand the norm is). That is not applicable to the core-work the Labs is proposing in the Temp Check, which we see as essential to the Protocol and which we believe that the DAO needs to ensure will be done. Hopefully the Protocol will grow to a point where bounties are one of the ways that the Protocol is developed (perhaps along with hackathons, RFPs for specific work, collaborations with other projects, etc.).