Non-Constitutional
As per the GCP EOY Update and Transparency Report post, this proposal seeks to get the DAO’s approval on 3 changes -
Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,
Allow the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation, and
Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually to provide a more meaningful signal to the Arbitrum DAO while also reducing operational costs and manpower.
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels. This discrepancy undermines the council's time and commitment in managing the responsibilities associated with the GCP Foundation. Proper compensation is critical to ensuring the council can effectively aid the GCP team in executing its mandate, maintain accountability to the DAO, and help drive meaningful outcomes aligned with Arbitrum’s long-term vision on gaming.
Aligning GCP Council remuneration with the compensation for similar governance roles in the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem (e.g., the ARDC Supervisory Council and the proposed OpCo’s Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT)) reflects the community’s guiding values of fairness, accountability, and excellence. For reference, the ARDC Supervisory council will be paid 60,000 ARB annually, and OAT council members for OpCo are proposed to be remunerated $90,000 annually + 200K ARB bonus over 24 months.
Adequate compensation underscores the DAO’s commitment to valuing the efforts and expertise of those entrusted with critical governance roles, ensuring the council’s sustained ability to meet the GCP’s ambitious objective of progressing Arbitrum as the home of Web3 gaming.
As part of the treasury management strategy outlined in collaboration with the AF, it has been jointly recommended that the GCP Foundation receive ARB tokens instead of USDC or USD, as initially proposed in the original Tally proposal.
This approach not only alleviates operational demands on the AF, but also grants the GCP Foundation greater flexibility in managing token conversions while utilizing a process similar to that currently employed by the AF.
Additionally, the GCP team will continue to engage with DAO delegates and stakeholders to explore innovative solutions and platforms that support treasury management activities.
After discussions with key delegates at Devcon, the GCP team proposes aligning the timing of transparency reports with the AF's bi-annual reporting schedule. This adjustment aims to provide more impactful insights to the Arbitrum DAO while minimizing operational costs and resource demands. A 6-month cadence allows for more substantive updates compared to a quarterly schedule, which may be too incremental given the longer timelines for investment and grant cycles.
In addition, as per feedback from delegates and key stakeholders, the GCP team is exploring more communication methods to keep the DAO informed. These could include monthly newsletters, forum updates, quarterly “State of Gaming” events, and live presentations at major conferences like EthCC and Devcon. As the GCP team grows, we plan to expand communication channels to provide the DAO with comprehensive updates on both the GCP's progress and developments in the broader web3 gaming industry.
This proposal can be ratified via a snapshot vote, and approval voting will be used. The benefit of using approval voting is that a single proposal can be used to solicit approval on several decisions.
Each selected choice will receive equal voting power. If a delegate selects 2 options, each option will receive the total voting power of the delegate.
Voting options:
Each option would need to receive enough votes achieving the non-constitutional AIP quorum for it to be considered approved by the DAO.
Increasing annual remuneration for GCP Council members by $50,000 from $30,000 to $80,000.
Increasing annual remuneration for Tim Chang and the future IC seat by $40,000, who in addition to his council duties, sits on the investment committee (IC), to $120,000. As per the approved onchain GCP AIP on Tally, the IC provides extra perspective on deals brought forth by the Investment Lead and other team members, and makes a final decision on investments.
If approved by the DAO on Snapshot, the new proposed salary will be effective as of Jan 1, 2025, which is the official program kickoff date for the GCP.
Allow the GCP to update council salaries per year (in keeping schedule with elections etc)
Total additional annual costs: $240,000
There will be no new costs to the DAO for this proposal. If the DAO achieves a ‘FOR’ consensus on the temperature check, the increased costs will be coming out from the ‘Program Administration & Operations’ budget under the GCP proposal.
Non-Constitutional
As per the GCP EOY Update and Transparency Report post, this proposal seeks to get the DAO’s approval on 3 changes -
Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,
Allow the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation, and
Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually to provide a more meaningful signal to the Arbitrum DAO while also reducing operational costs and manpower.
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels. This discrepancy undermines the council's time and commitment in managing the responsibilities associated with the GCP Foundation. Proper compensation is critical to ensuring the council can effectively aid the GCP team in executing its mandate, maintain accountability to the DAO, and help drive meaningful outcomes aligned with Arbitrum’s long-term vision on gaming.
Aligning GCP Council remuneration with the compensation for similar governance roles in the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem (e.g., the ARDC Supervisory Council and the proposed OpCo’s Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT)) reflects the community’s guiding values of fairness, accountability, and excellence. For reference, the ARDC Supervisory council will be paid 60,000 ARB annually, and OAT council members for OpCo are proposed to be remunerated $90,000 annually + 200K ARB bonus over 24 months.
Adequate compensation underscores the DAO’s commitment to valuing the efforts and expertise of those entrusted with critical governance roles, ensuring the council’s sustained ability to meet the GCP’s ambitious objective of progressing Arbitrum as the home of Web3 gaming.
As part of the treasury management strategy outlined in collaboration with the AF, it has been jointly recommended that the GCP Foundation receive ARB tokens instead of USDC or USD, as initially proposed in the original Tally proposal.
This approach not only alleviates operational demands on the AF, but also grants the GCP Foundation greater flexibility in managing token conversions while utilizing a process similar to that currently employed by the AF.
Additionally, the GCP team will continue to engage with DAO delegates and stakeholders to explore innovative solutions and platforms that support treasury management activities.
After discussions with key delegates at Devcon, the GCP team proposes aligning the timing of transparency reports with the AF's bi-annual reporting schedule. This adjustment aims to provide more impactful insights to the Arbitrum DAO while minimizing operational costs and resource demands. A 6-month cadence allows for more substantive updates compared to a quarterly schedule, which may be too incremental given the longer timelines for investment and grant cycles.
In addition, as per feedback from delegates and key stakeholders, the GCP team is exploring more communication methods to keep the DAO informed. These could include monthly newsletters, forum updates, quarterly “State of Gaming” events, and live presentations at major conferences like EthCC and Devcon. As the GCP team grows, we plan to expand communication channels to provide the DAO with comprehensive updates on both the GCP's progress and developments in the broader web3 gaming industry.
This proposal can be ratified via a snapshot vote, and approval voting will be used. The benefit of using approval voting is that a single proposal can be used to solicit approval on several decisions.
Each selected choice will receive equal voting power. If a delegate selects 2 options, each option will receive the total voting power of the delegate.
Voting options:
Each option would need to receive enough votes achieving the non-constitutional AIP quorum for it to be considered approved by the DAO.
Increasing annual remuneration for GCP Council members by $50,000 from $30,000 to $80,000.
Increasing annual remuneration for Tim Chang and the future IC seat by $40,000, who in addition to his council duties, sits on the investment committee (IC), to $120,000. As per the approved onchain GCP AIP on Tally, the IC provides extra perspective on deals brought forth by the Investment Lead and other team members, and makes a final decision on investments.
If approved by the DAO on Snapshot, the new proposed salary will be effective as of Jan 1, 2025, which is the official program kickoff date for the GCP.
Allow the GCP to update council salaries per year (in keeping schedule with elections etc)
Total additional annual costs: $240,000
There will be no new costs to the DAO for this proposal. If the DAO achieves a ‘FOR’ consensus on the temperature check, the increased costs will be coming out from the ‘Program Administration & Operations’ budget under the GCP proposal.
In our opinion, the current approach to evaluating a potential salary increase for the GCP Council is not entirely appropriate. The roles of the Supervisory Council and the OAT differ significantly from that of the GCP Council and are not directly comparable. From our understanding, the GCP Council primarily serves as an advisory body, supporting the team responsible for executing investments and grants. In contrast, the Supervisory Council and OAT are operational roles with a broader range of responsibilities.
We would be open to salary adjustments mid-program, provided sufficient evidence is presented demonstrating an increased workload beyond what was initially outlined in the original proposal.
In our opinion, the current approach to evaluating a potential salary increase for the GCP Council is not entirely appropriate. The roles of the Supervisory Council and the OAT differ significantly from that of the GCP Council and are not directly comparable. From our understanding, the GCP Council primarily serves as an advisory body, supporting the team responsible for executing investments and grants. In contrast, the Supervisory Council and OAT are operational roles with a broader range of responsibilities.
We would be open to salary adjustments mid-program, provided sufficient evidence is presented demonstrating an increased workload beyond what was initially outlined in the original proposal.
To strengthen this proposal, it would be beneficial to provide evidence of the work required for the role, particularly considering that three months have passed. Djinn notes that the original vision for the Council involved a more hands-off approach, primarily focused on reviewing proposals and aligning with the DAO's interests. However, this objective may have become less clear as the need for more due diligence, detailed team reviews, and more measurable assessments has emerged.
GMX Team
In our opinion, the current approach to evaluating a potential salary increase for the GCP Council is not entirely appropriate. The roles of the Supervisory Council and the OAT differ significantly from that of the GCP Council and are not directly comparable. From our understanding, the GCP Council primarily serves as an advisory body, supporting the team responsible for executing investments and grants. In contrast, the Supervisory Council and OAT are operational roles with a broader range of responsibilities.
We would be open to salary adjustments mid-program, provided sufficient evidence is presented demonstrating an increased workload beyond what was initially outlined in the original proposal.
In our opinion, the current approach to evaluating a potential salary increase for the GCP Council is not entirely appropriate. The roles of the Supervisory Council and the OAT differ significantly from that of the GCP Council and are not directly comparable. From our understanding, the GCP Council primarily serves as an advisory body, supporting the team responsible for executing investments and grants. In contrast, the Supervisory Council and OAT are operational roles with a broader range of responsibilities.
We would be open to salary adjustments mid-program, provided sufficient evidence is presented demonstrating an increased workload beyond what was initially outlined in the original proposal.
To strengthen this proposal, it would be beneficial to provide evidence of the work required for the role, particularly considering that three months have passed. Djinn notes that the original vision for the Council involved a more hands-off approach, primarily focused on reviewing proposals and aligning with the DAO's interests. However, this objective may have become less clear as the need for more due diligence, detailed team reviews, and more measurable assessments has emerged.
GMX Team
It would not be ideal but we can add "gaming-catalyst-program" tag to easily check GCP related proposals (that are in the Proposals category) and updates (that would be in the GCP category)?
Unrelated to the merits of this proposal, could @admins @moderators please add this to the GCP category so it's easily located?
Thanks in advance. Feel free to delete this comment after categorizing this thread.
We would like to see any evidence of a full-time or even half-time workload for GCP Council members that justifies this salary increase.
The reality is that it is likely that this is not a full-time role, and therefore doesn't need a full-time compensation package. We also suspect that GCP members are likely paid through other programs in the DAO or through related parties, and therefore have good "total compensation" from the DAO.
We would like to see any evidence of a full-time or even half-time workload for GCP Council members that justifies this salary increase.
The reality is that it is likely that this is not a full-time role, and therefore doesn't need a full-time compensation package. We also suspect that GCP members are likely paid through other programs in the DAO or through related parties, and therefore have good "total compensation" from the DAO.
We think proposals that ask for budget increases (or budgets in general) need to include clear benefits to the DAO to justify the increase in spend. This one doesn't seem to in our opinion.
We would be open to revising this opinion if there was clear data that the GCP Council represents a full-time role, which we think it doesn't based on the current responsibilities.
The proposed compensation increase is lacking benchmarking and responsibilities. I could try to dig these myself but really they should be part of the proposal
Cross posting here since it’s relevant to the request to loosen transparency requirements. At least let people independently verify that the legal entity exists, which it surely does.
a Discourse forum topic can only be in one category at once, so this topic would either be in the GCP category, or in the Proposals category. since this proposal intends to go up for a vote, it should be in this Proposals category, as it is.
Hi @Djinn,
Regarding the proposed changes, here’s our perspective:
Item 1: Increasing GCP member compensation Comparing the GCP Council’s compensation to ARDC or OAT is fundamentally flawed because the responsibilities aren’t the same. While both are referred to as “councils,” their scopes differ significantly.
Hi @Djinn,
Regarding the proposed changes, here’s our perspective:
Item 1: Increasing GCP member compensation Comparing the GCP Council’s compensation to ARDC or OAT is fundamentally flawed because the responsibilities aren’t the same. While both are referred to as “councils,” their scopes differ significantly.
OAT Responsibilities
Key Responsibilities • Operational Support • Advice on OpCo’s operational development. • Review proposals for the DAO, by the OpCo team, related to the continuation of the OpCo & its operations. • Strategic Coordination • Actively engage with DAO-approved entities such as the Arbitrum Foundation, the Gaming Catalyst Fund, and other initiatives that may emerge in the future. • Actively engage with key stakeholders and facilitators in the Arbitrum ecosystem including Offchain Labs, Entropy Advisors, and others that have a significant stake in the success of Arbitrum. • Actively liaise with contributors and proposers; ensure the DAO stays informed regarding operations. • Accountability • Hold OpCo accountable to its stated mandate and ensure all activities it undertakes are in the best interest of the DAO. • Assist in the preparation, review, and approval of reports and updates to stakeholders. • Design relevant key performance indicators to set OpCo’s north star in terms of what it means to be successful. • Hiring, Termination, & Authorization • Collaborate with the Arbitrum Foundation to recruit essential staff to the entity. • Review deals proposed by OpCo with third parties (such as service providers) and indicate approval or disapproval. • Greenlight salaries, larger spends, budgets, and other other operational finances. • Recommend the hiring and termination of personnel and service providers during the course of normal business for OpCo.
GCP Responsibilities
Primary responsibilities of the GCP Council: • As a Council Member, you’ll leverage your deep industry knowledge and financial expertise to guide the program’s strategic direction and ensure the utmost transparency to the Arbitrum DAO. • Collaborate with the GCP team to evaluate game projects, partnerships, and proposals, identifying their potential and risks. • Offer insightful recommendations, valuable introductions, and work with the team to develop risk mitigation strategies, strengthening the overall success of the program. • Participate in shaping the long-term vision of GCP, keeping it aligned with emerging trends and the overall goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem. • Help craft an investment thesis and portfolio strategy for future proposals, shaping investment and grant decisions for a thriving Arbitrum games ecosystem. • Provide oversight and recommendations on GCP team member nominations and performance, fostering a strong and dynamic team environment. • Serve as one of the main liaisons between the DAO and the GCP initiative.
From the above, it’s clear these roles don’t match up one-to-one. We do agree with @pedrob that compensation should reflect the actual scope of work. If GCP Council members are investing more hours than anticipated, we’d like more detail on just how many hours each member is contributing weekly.
However, on launching the program, we have received feedback from both delegates and Council members that more involvement would benefit the DAO. An example of this has been hiring. While it would have been nice to have the team manage all hiring, the Council wanted to make sure that senior hires were aligned with DAO interests - which means more time investment from the Council across a few workflows. For the investment committee seat, we underestimated the amount of projects that would apply, and the current deal flow requires more meetings / reviews of due diligence materials. Each grant / investment requires a detailed memo, term review, and meetings to decide on the outcome - and we simply need more of our investment committee Council members time.
We appreciate @tamara’s call for a clearer breakdown and would recommend using the structure she has proposed. A visual representation (e.g., in Excel) of those responsibilities, initial, actual, and additional would provide much-needed clarity for all delegates.:
Item 2: AF to send ARB instead of USDC to GCP We have no concerns about this change.
Item 3: Change to the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually We’re fine with this, provided the DAO still receives regular updates in the forum.
It might make sense to separate the compensation request into its own proposal for a proper discussion and not hold back the other requested changes. If there’s an actual increase in workload, asking for more compensation is fair—so long as it’s proportional to the additional responsibilities.
Thank you!
I appreciate the intentions behind this proposal, but I have some concerns that need to be clarified. When you state that the council compensation is increased "to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem," you need to provide more insight into how you determined that moving from $30,000 to $80,000 annually is appropriate. I would also like to know if there is a long-term sustainability model in place, especially as market conditions evolve.
The change to "let the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation" might make things easier, but I'm not sure how it will deal with changes in ARB's value. For example, what will happen if ARB's value goes up or down a lot? If you could explain how the DAO's treasury will be affected by these changes, that would be great.
I appreciate the intentions behind this proposal, but I have some concerns that need to be clarified. When you state that the council compensation is increased "to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem," you need to provide more insight into how you determined that moving from $30,000 to $80,000 annually is appropriate. I would also like to know if there is a long-term sustainability model in place, especially as market conditions evolve.
The change to "let the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation" might make things easier, but I'm not sure how it will deal with changes in ARB's value. For example, what will happen if ARB's value goes up or down a lot? If you could explain how the DAO's treasury will be affected by these changes, that would be great.
The proposal also says that transparency reports should be quarterly instead of every six months, because this gives more up-to-date information. But I'm worried that this might leave stakeholders without important information quickly enough. Have you thought about using more regular updates or dashboards to fill any gaps between the formal reports?
It would not be ideal but we can add "gaming-catalyst-program" tag to easily check GCP related proposals (that are in the Proposals category) and updates (that would be in the GCP category)?
Unrelated to the merits of this proposal, could @admins @moderators please add this to the GCP category so it's easily located?
Thanks in advance. Feel free to delete this comment after categorizing this thread.
We would like to see any evidence of a full-time or even half-time workload for GCP Council members that justifies this salary increase.
The reality is that it is likely that this is not a full-time role, and therefore doesn't need a full-time compensation package. We also suspect that GCP members are likely paid through other programs in the DAO or through related parties, and therefore have good "total compensation" from the DAO.
We would like to see any evidence of a full-time or even half-time workload for GCP Council members that justifies this salary increase.
The reality is that it is likely that this is not a full-time role, and therefore doesn't need a full-time compensation package. We also suspect that GCP members are likely paid through other programs in the DAO or through related parties, and therefore have good "total compensation" from the DAO.
We think proposals that ask for budget increases (or budgets in general) need to include clear benefits to the DAO to justify the increase in spend. This one doesn't seem to in our opinion.
We would be open to revising this opinion if there was clear data that the GCP Council represents a full-time role, which we think it doesn't based on the current responsibilities.
The proposed compensation increase is lacking benchmarking and responsibilities. I could try to dig these myself but really they should be part of the proposal
Cross posting here since it’s relevant to the request to loosen transparency requirements. At least let people independently verify that the legal entity exists, which it surely does.
a Discourse forum topic can only be in one category at once, so this topic would either be in the GCP category, or in the Proposals category. since this proposal intends to go up for a vote, it should be in this Proposals category, as it is.
Hi @Djinn,
Regarding the proposed changes, here’s our perspective:
Item 1: Increasing GCP member compensation Comparing the GCP Council’s compensation to ARDC or OAT is fundamentally flawed because the responsibilities aren’t the same. While both are referred to as “councils,” their scopes differ significantly.
Hi @Djinn,
Regarding the proposed changes, here’s our perspective:
Item 1: Increasing GCP member compensation Comparing the GCP Council’s compensation to ARDC or OAT is fundamentally flawed because the responsibilities aren’t the same. While both are referred to as “councils,” their scopes differ significantly.
OAT Responsibilities
Key Responsibilities • Operational Support • Advice on OpCo’s operational development. • Review proposals for the DAO, by the OpCo team, related to the continuation of the OpCo & its operations. • Strategic Coordination • Actively engage with DAO-approved entities such as the Arbitrum Foundation, the Gaming Catalyst Fund, and other initiatives that may emerge in the future. • Actively engage with key stakeholders and facilitators in the Arbitrum ecosystem including Offchain Labs, Entropy Advisors, and others that have a significant stake in the success of Arbitrum. • Actively liaise with contributors and proposers; ensure the DAO stays informed regarding operations. • Accountability • Hold OpCo accountable to its stated mandate and ensure all activities it undertakes are in the best interest of the DAO. • Assist in the preparation, review, and approval of reports and updates to stakeholders. • Design relevant key performance indicators to set OpCo’s north star in terms of what it means to be successful. • Hiring, Termination, & Authorization • Collaborate with the Arbitrum Foundation to recruit essential staff to the entity. • Review deals proposed by OpCo with third parties (such as service providers) and indicate approval or disapproval. • Greenlight salaries, larger spends, budgets, and other other operational finances. • Recommend the hiring and termination of personnel and service providers during the course of normal business for OpCo.
GCP Responsibilities
Primary responsibilities of the GCP Council: • As a Council Member, you’ll leverage your deep industry knowledge and financial expertise to guide the program’s strategic direction and ensure the utmost transparency to the Arbitrum DAO. • Collaborate with the GCP team to evaluate game projects, partnerships, and proposals, identifying their potential and risks. • Offer insightful recommendations, valuable introductions, and work with the team to develop risk mitigation strategies, strengthening the overall success of the program. • Participate in shaping the long-term vision of GCP, keeping it aligned with emerging trends and the overall goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem. • Help craft an investment thesis and portfolio strategy for future proposals, shaping investment and grant decisions for a thriving Arbitrum games ecosystem. • Provide oversight and recommendations on GCP team member nominations and performance, fostering a strong and dynamic team environment. • Serve as one of the main liaisons between the DAO and the GCP initiative.
From the above, it’s clear these roles don’t match up one-to-one. We do agree with @pedrob that compensation should reflect the actual scope of work. If GCP Council members are investing more hours than anticipated, we’d like more detail on just how many hours each member is contributing weekly.
However, on launching the program, we have received feedback from both delegates and Council members that more involvement would benefit the DAO. An example of this has been hiring. While it would have been nice to have the team manage all hiring, the Council wanted to make sure that senior hires were aligned with DAO interests - which means more time investment from the Council across a few workflows. For the investment committee seat, we underestimated the amount of projects that would apply, and the current deal flow requires more meetings / reviews of due diligence materials. Each grant / investment requires a detailed memo, term review, and meetings to decide on the outcome - and we simply need more of our investment committee Council members time.
We appreciate @tamara’s call for a clearer breakdown and would recommend using the structure she has proposed. A visual representation (e.g., in Excel) of those responsibilities, initial, actual, and additional would provide much-needed clarity for all delegates.:
Item 2: AF to send ARB instead of USDC to GCP We have no concerns about this change.
Item 3: Change to the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually We’re fine with this, provided the DAO still receives regular updates in the forum.
It might make sense to separate the compensation request into its own proposal for a proper discussion and not hold back the other requested changes. If there’s an actual increase in workload, asking for more compensation is fair—so long as it’s proportional to the additional responsibilities.
Thank you!
I appreciate the intentions behind this proposal, but I have some concerns that need to be clarified. When you state that the council compensation is increased "to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem," you need to provide more insight into how you determined that moving from $30,000 to $80,000 annually is appropriate. I would also like to know if there is a long-term sustainability model in place, especially as market conditions evolve.
The change to "let the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation" might make things easier, but I'm not sure how it will deal with changes in ARB's value. For example, what will happen if ARB's value goes up or down a lot? If you could explain how the DAO's treasury will be affected by these changes, that would be great.
I appreciate the intentions behind this proposal, but I have some concerns that need to be clarified. When you state that the council compensation is increased "to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem," you need to provide more insight into how you determined that moving from $30,000 to $80,000 annually is appropriate. I would also like to know if there is a long-term sustainability model in place, especially as market conditions evolve.
The change to "let the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation" might make things easier, but I'm not sure how it will deal with changes in ARB's value. For example, what will happen if ARB's value goes up or down a lot? If you could explain how the DAO's treasury will be affected by these changes, that would be great.
The proposal also says that transparency reports should be quarterly instead of every six months, because this gives more up-to-date information. But I'm worried that this might leave stakeholders without important information quickly enough. Have you thought about using more regular updates or dashboards to fill any gaps between the formal reports?
Appreciate the feedback everyone.
The Council's envisioned commitment was in the range of 4-6 hours per month of meetings and light reviews of decisions made throughout the month. This was based on the optimistic model created that emphasized the Council's role as an advisory and oversight body that did not have to explicitly approve most decisions and would instead just have full transparency into the operations through set processes and tooling.
Appreciate the feedback everyone.
The Council's envisioned commitment was in the range of 4-6 hours per month of meetings and light reviews of decisions made throughout the month. This was based on the optimistic model created that emphasized the Council's role as an advisory and oversight body that did not have to explicitly approve most decisions and would instead just have full transparency into the operations through set processes and tooling.
However, what we realized are a few things:
While there is more work than originally expected, we fully expect that operations and infrastructure after year 1 will be less manual and more robust - which may result in a reduction of time commitments needed from Council members. Remember, the commitment of Council members directly benefits the DAO through oversight and engagement, and we don't expect any additional opex needs to cover the comp increases.
First of all, I think these changes should be separated into different votes to keep things clear and avoid confusing delegates.
About the salary increase, in most companies (Web2 or even Web3), salary reviews are typically done every 6 months (with a max increase of 10-20%) or annually (30-50%) based on their performance. If there's an out of cycle raise, I think it's usually because:
First of all, I think these changes should be separated into different votes to keep things clear and avoid confusing delegates.
About the salary increase, in most companies (Web2 or even Web3), salary reviews are typically done every 6 months (with a max increase of 10-20%) or annually (30-50%) based on their performance. If there's an out of cycle raise, I think it's usually because:
The employee is taking on extra responsibilities not originally agreed upon.
The employee is exceptional, and the company wants to reward them early without waiting for the review period.
I'm not sure if this is the regular review cycle for Arbitrum, but the proposed 160% increase for the GCP Council seems quite surprising to me tbh 🙂 . For Tim Chang, I think 30% is reasonable raise.
Would love to hear more other thoughts :)
If I understood correctly, bi-annually is once every two years, not twice a year.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone.
@JoJo and @BlockworksResearch have both replied with some context that drives our rationale, but we want to expand on some of the common questions/concerns here.
Answering a few questions directly here:
1. Why is the council compensation going up from 30k to 80k?
Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone.
@JoJo and @BlockworksResearch have both replied with some context that drives our rationale, but we want to expand on some of the common questions/concerns here.
Answering a few questions directly here:
1. Why is the council compensation going up from 30k to 80k?
When we first wrote the proposal, we imagined that the Council would be more hands off - with regular check-ins / oversight restricted to several hours a month.
However, on launching the program, we have received feedback from both delegates and Council members that more involvement would benefit the DAO. An example of this has been hiring. While it would have been nice to have the team manage all hiring, the Council wanted to make sure that senior hires were aligned with DAO interests - which means more time investment from the Council across a few workflows.
For the investment committee seat, we underestimated the amount of projects that would apply, and the current deal flow requires more meetings / reviews of due diligence materials. Each grant / investment requires a detailed memo, term review, and meetings to decide on the outcome - and we simply need more of our investment committee Council members time.
The data we reviewed about compensation wasn't just from DAO programs - we also looked at comparable board member data (like here). The average board member in the US is paid ~$110k a year, and is typically much less invested than our Council members.
Remember - our Council members serve an incredibly important role, and we want them motivated heavily to provide strategic advisory and oversight. We are not requiring any additional budget as well, the increases will be taken out of the existing opex budget that has been ratified through Tally.
2. Will bi-annual reporting (twice a year) impact transparency?
We believe it will make the reports more robust and meaningful. 3 months is not enough time to show significant progress, and each report requires a disproportionate amount of man hours that we frankly do not have in our competitive market.
Our commitment to transparency also means we participate in the monthly GRC calls and give open updates to all DAO members that attend. We are also reviewing avenues in the future to share progress and industry news in formats like newsletters or other content.
Appreciate all the dialogue, the constructive feedback has been great!
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this proposal.
The GCP has been a valuable initiative in driving gaming on Arbitrum, and we appreciate the work being done to support its growth. We generally support the proposal but would like some clarification before fully backing it.
First, regarding the increase in compensation, it is understandable that the Council's role has evolved over time. However, it would be helpful to see a clear breakdown of the additional responsibilities or time commitments that have been taken on since the program started. This would provide a clearer picture of how the workload has increased and why the proposed compensation adjustment is necessary.
Second, receiving ARB instead of USDC seems like a practical adjustment, as it simplifies treasury operations and gives the GCP more flexibility in managing funds. We have no concerns on this point.
Our commitment to transparency also means we participate in the monthly GRC calls and give open updates to all DAO members that attend. We are also reviewing avenues in the future to share progress and industry news in formats like newsletters or other content.
Third, shifting transparency reports to a bi-annual schedule seems reasonable, allowing for more meaningful updates while reducing unnecessary workload. Since regular updates will still be provided through GRC calls, forum posts, and newsletters, we agree that bi-annual reports should be sufficient.
Didn't say that the foundation will talk about gcp. GCP wants to move to a 6 months reporting, that as cadence is similar to the maxi report from the Foundation (h1-h2).
It makes sense if it's paired with more informal updates on a more frequent basis. T
Given the initial delays and role changes during the GCP initiative's kickoff, despite significant resource allocation, we believe clear and consistent communication with the DAO is essential.
Given the initial delays and role changes during the GCP initiative's kickoff, despite significant resource allocation, we believe clear and consistent communication with the DAO is essential.
For the investment committee seat, we underestimated the amount of projects that would apply, and the current deal flow requires more meetings / reviews of due diligence materials. Each grant / investment requires a detailed memo, term review, and meetings to decide on the outcome - and we simply need more of our investment committee Council members time.
Aligning compensation with comparable roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem and industry standards is reasonable. Could you provide specific examples of additional duties or time commitments that have evolved since the program's inception and will be reflected in the Committee's future role?
Receiving ARB. Receiving ARB instead of USDC is acceptable. Nonetheless, we emphasize the importance of responsible asset management. We recommend diversifying assets according to a gradual, predefined plan to mitigate potential negative market impacts. This approach aligns with the treasury management strategies previously discussed within the DAO.
Transparency Reporting Cadence. Transitioning to bi-annual reports seems reasonable, as it allows for more substantive updates. However, to maintain engagement and keep the community informed, we strongly suggest committing to lean monthly updates on the forum. These updates can cover key metrics, milestones, and any notable developments, ensuring ongoing transparency.
The ARB payment switch and moving to bi-annual reporting make sense - aligns incentives better and reduces operational overhead.
BUT - can't support the compensation increase just coz other DAOs are paying more. That's the kind of thinking that leads to bloated governance. Each role should be compensated based on its actual value/impact.
The ARB payment switch and moving to bi-annual reporting make sense - aligns incentives better and reduces operational overhead.
BUT - can't support the compensation increase just coz other DAOs are paying more. That's the kind of thinking that leads to bloated governance. Each role should be compensated based on its actual value/impact.
We need clear performance metrics that tie compensation to ecosystem growth results. What actual outcomes justify this 2.66x increase?
I'd support the ARB payment and bi-annual reporting changes.
I'd love to support the increase in salary as well coz truly feels down compared to other roles but my commitment is to support proposals that will lead $ARB to go up.
Aligned with many comments here.
1. Increasing comp What would help for decision making in my opinion is a clear breakdown as follows: - Initial responsibilities (aka what we thought the Council has to work on) - Actual responsibilities (aka what they are actually doing on a monthly basis) - Additional responsibilities (aka what they will be doing on top if this proposal passes)
Blockworks Advisory supports this proposal as it stands. Most of the asks are very minimal and only serve to decrease bloat, and thus the reasons for this back-approval makes sense. Allowing the AF to send the GCP ARB and grant it responsibility over that ARB instead of conversion eliminates a step for the GCP foundation, however, if this is to happen and USDC conversion is no longer in the jurisdiction of the Arbitrum Foundation, we would like to know what the strategy for conversion will be.
As for the other requests, we support the increase in annual compensation, it grants competitive rates to these contributors and allows us to expect quality work from them. Furthermore, we're guessing that bi-annually in this situation means twice a year (not every two years) and support this. Overreporting minimizes the view of the impact in this case, and in general makes for bad practice and bloating (depending on the situation of course).
Appreciate the feedback everyone.
The Council's envisioned commitment was in the range of 4-6 hours per month of meetings and light reviews of decisions made throughout the month. This was based on the optimistic model created that emphasized the Council's role as an advisory and oversight body that did not have to explicitly approve most decisions and would instead just have full transparency into the operations through set processes and tooling.
Appreciate the feedback everyone.
The Council's envisioned commitment was in the range of 4-6 hours per month of meetings and light reviews of decisions made throughout the month. This was based on the optimistic model created that emphasized the Council's role as an advisory and oversight body that did not have to explicitly approve most decisions and would instead just have full transparency into the operations through set processes and tooling.
However, what we realized are a few things:
While there is more work than originally expected, we fully expect that operations and infrastructure after year 1 will be less manual and more robust - which may result in a reduction of time commitments needed from Council members. Remember, the commitment of Council members directly benefits the DAO through oversight and engagement, and we don't expect any additional opex needs to cover the comp increases.
First of all, I think these changes should be separated into different votes to keep things clear and avoid confusing delegates.
About the salary increase, in most companies (Web2 or even Web3), salary reviews are typically done every 6 months (with a max increase of 10-20%) or annually (30-50%) based on their performance. If there's an out of cycle raise, I think it's usually because:
First of all, I think these changes should be separated into different votes to keep things clear and avoid confusing delegates.
About the salary increase, in most companies (Web2 or even Web3), salary reviews are typically done every 6 months (with a max increase of 10-20%) or annually (30-50%) based on their performance. If there's an out of cycle raise, I think it's usually because:
The employee is taking on extra responsibilities not originally agreed upon.
The employee is exceptional, and the company wants to reward them early without waiting for the review period.
I'm not sure if this is the regular review cycle for Arbitrum, but the proposed 160% increase for the GCP Council seems quite surprising to me tbh 🙂 . For Tim Chang, I think 30% is reasonable raise.
Would love to hear more other thoughts :)
If I understood correctly, bi-annually is once every two years, not twice a year.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone.
@JoJo and @BlockworksResearch have both replied with some context that drives our rationale, but we want to expand on some of the common questions/concerns here.
Answering a few questions directly here:
1. Why is the council compensation going up from 30k to 80k?
Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone.
@JoJo and @BlockworksResearch have both replied with some context that drives our rationale, but we want to expand on some of the common questions/concerns here.
Answering a few questions directly here:
1. Why is the council compensation going up from 30k to 80k?
When we first wrote the proposal, we imagined that the Council would be more hands off - with regular check-ins / oversight restricted to several hours a month.
However, on launching the program, we have received feedback from both delegates and Council members that more involvement would benefit the DAO. An example of this has been hiring. While it would have been nice to have the team manage all hiring, the Council wanted to make sure that senior hires were aligned with DAO interests - which means more time investment from the Council across a few workflows.
For the investment committee seat, we underestimated the amount of projects that would apply, and the current deal flow requires more meetings / reviews of due diligence materials. Each grant / investment requires a detailed memo, term review, and meetings to decide on the outcome - and we simply need more of our investment committee Council members time.
The data we reviewed about compensation wasn't just from DAO programs - we also looked at comparable board member data (like here). The average board member in the US is paid ~$110k a year, and is typically much less invested than our Council members.
Remember - our Council members serve an incredibly important role, and we want them motivated heavily to provide strategic advisory and oversight. We are not requiring any additional budget as well, the increases will be taken out of the existing opex budget that has been ratified through Tally.
2. Will bi-annual reporting (twice a year) impact transparency?
We believe it will make the reports more robust and meaningful. 3 months is not enough time to show significant progress, and each report requires a disproportionate amount of man hours that we frankly do not have in our competitive market.
Our commitment to transparency also means we participate in the monthly GRC calls and give open updates to all DAO members that attend. We are also reviewing avenues in the future to share progress and industry news in formats like newsletters or other content.
Appreciate all the dialogue, the constructive feedback has been great!
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this proposal.
The GCP has been a valuable initiative in driving gaming on Arbitrum, and we appreciate the work being done to support its growth. We generally support the proposal but would like some clarification before fully backing it.
First, regarding the increase in compensation, it is understandable that the Council's role has evolved over time. However, it would be helpful to see a clear breakdown of the additional responsibilities or time commitments that have been taken on since the program started. This would provide a clearer picture of how the workload has increased and why the proposed compensation adjustment is necessary.
Second, receiving ARB instead of USDC seems like a practical adjustment, as it simplifies treasury operations and gives the GCP more flexibility in managing funds. We have no concerns on this point.
Our commitment to transparency also means we participate in the monthly GRC calls and give open updates to all DAO members that attend. We are also reviewing avenues in the future to share progress and industry news in formats like newsletters or other content.
Third, shifting transparency reports to a bi-annual schedule seems reasonable, allowing for more meaningful updates while reducing unnecessary workload. Since regular updates will still be provided through GRC calls, forum posts, and newsletters, we agree that bi-annual reports should be sufficient.
Didn't say that the foundation will talk about gcp. GCP wants to move to a 6 months reporting, that as cadence is similar to the maxi report from the Foundation (h1-h2).
It makes sense if it's paired with more informal updates on a more frequent basis. T
Given the initial delays and role changes during the GCP initiative's kickoff, despite significant resource allocation, we believe clear and consistent communication with the DAO is essential.
Given the initial delays and role changes during the GCP initiative's kickoff, despite significant resource allocation, we believe clear and consistent communication with the DAO is essential.
For the investment committee seat, we underestimated the amount of projects that would apply, and the current deal flow requires more meetings / reviews of due diligence materials. Each grant / investment requires a detailed memo, term review, and meetings to decide on the outcome - and we simply need more of our investment committee Council members time.
Aligning compensation with comparable roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem and industry standards is reasonable. Could you provide specific examples of additional duties or time commitments that have evolved since the program's inception and will be reflected in the Committee's future role?
Receiving ARB. Receiving ARB instead of USDC is acceptable. Nonetheless, we emphasize the importance of responsible asset management. We recommend diversifying assets according to a gradual, predefined plan to mitigate potential negative market impacts. This approach aligns with the treasury management strategies previously discussed within the DAO.
Transparency Reporting Cadence. Transitioning to bi-annual reports seems reasonable, as it allows for more substantive updates. However, to maintain engagement and keep the community informed, we strongly suggest committing to lean monthly updates on the forum. These updates can cover key metrics, milestones, and any notable developments, ensuring ongoing transparency.
The ARB payment switch and moving to bi-annual reporting make sense - aligns incentives better and reduces operational overhead.
BUT - can't support the compensation increase just coz other DAOs are paying more. That's the kind of thinking that leads to bloated governance. Each role should be compensated based on its actual value/impact.
The ARB payment switch and moving to bi-annual reporting make sense - aligns incentives better and reduces operational overhead.
BUT - can't support the compensation increase just coz other DAOs are paying more. That's the kind of thinking that leads to bloated governance. Each role should be compensated based on its actual value/impact.
We need clear performance metrics that tie compensation to ecosystem growth results. What actual outcomes justify this 2.66x increase?
I'd support the ARB payment and bi-annual reporting changes.
I'd love to support the increase in salary as well coz truly feels down compared to other roles but my commitment is to support proposals that will lead $ARB to go up.
Aligned with many comments here.
1. Increasing comp What would help for decision making in my opinion is a clear breakdown as follows: - Initial responsibilities (aka what we thought the Council has to work on) - Actual responsibilities (aka what they are actually doing on a monthly basis) - Additional responsibilities (aka what they will be doing on top if this proposal passes)
Blockworks Advisory supports this proposal as it stands. Most of the asks are very minimal and only serve to decrease bloat, and thus the reasons for this back-approval makes sense. Allowing the AF to send the GCP ARB and grant it responsibility over that ARB instead of conversion eliminates a step for the GCP foundation, however, if this is to happen and USDC conversion is no longer in the jurisdiction of the Arbitrum Foundation, we would like to know what the strategy for conversion will be.
As for the other requests, we support the increase in annual compensation, it grants competitive rates to these contributors and allows us to expect quality work from them. Furthermore, we're guessing that bi-annually in this situation means twice a year (not every two years) and support this. Overreporting minimizes the view of the impact in this case, and in general makes for bad practice and bloating (depending on the situation of course).
The GCP team has received feedback from various delegates and stakeholders on the current council compensation structure, and will be standing up a proposal to increase council pay. This proposal will also ensure that oversight and advisory members are compensated appropriately against industry standards and for their deep expertise and commitment.
We are continuing to review compensation data from similar DAO programs and from industry standards, and any changes will be put forth to the DAO for approval.
The proposal to review the compensation of GCP council members is not a surprise move. Since December, per the GCP EOY Report, the DAO was made aware of the intention to do so. We understand the need for adequate compensation, especially given the nature of the project which is large in scope (200M ARB mandate) and therefore critical.
In the report, you mentioned the need to align compensation with similar DAO programs and industry standards. However, not much is said in this proposal about the latter. Did you also look at comparable programs in other DAOs besides Arbitrum?
From our perspective, a review of this kind (over 160% increase for council members) must have a strong factual basis. While we want to properly incentivize Council members, we also need to bear in mind that they were aware of the scope of their responsibilities and compensation prior to taking on the role.
Regarding changing the cadence of transparency reports, we support changing the cadence of the reports provided that the GCP team maintains frequent communication with the DAO through other channels as you’ve suggested. Given the size of this mandate, we think it’s important for the DAO to keep a close eye on developments to measure progress and ensure accountability.
Aligned with many comments here.
1. Increasing comp What would help for decision making in my opinion is a clear breakdown as follows: - Initial responsibilities (aka what we thought the Council has to work on) - Actual responsibilities (aka what they are actually doing on a monthly basis) - Additional responsibilities (aka what they will be doing on top if this proposal passes)
The above neatly formatted i an Excel would be a nice visual
2. Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation Makes sense
3. Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually Yes if other communication streams are kept up to date (aka if I want to get more frequent updates there is a website/notion/etc where I can look them up)
Just clarifying, it means twice a year in the context. It's one of those confusing words in english with dual meanings.
At first glance, the proposed compensation increase from $30,000 to $80,000 appears quite substantial.
To better understand the reasoning behind this change, I would like to know if any shifts in responsibilities or an expansion of the scope for GCP Council members are planned.
At first glance, the proposed compensation increase from $30,000 to $80,000 appears quite substantial.
To better understand the reasoning behind this change, I would like to know if any shifts in responsibilities or an expansion of the scope for GCP Council members are planned.
Is there a document that outlines the current responsibilities of GCP Council members? This would help me better understand the remuneration increase.
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels. This discrepancy undermines the council’s time and commitment in managing the responsibilities associated with the GCP Foundation.
I can understand that the $30,000 remuneration is below the typical compensation for DAOs, but how do we ensure that the pay for other governance roles (e.g. ARDC Supervisory Council and OAT) isn’t set too high? Has there been an analysis of compensation levels across the ecosystem to ensure fairness and sustainability, rather than just aligning with similar roles?
For two years we will not understand what is happening with the allocated 200 million dollars?
no is once every 6 months, aligned with the reports that the foundation does for example, which to me makes sense.
Hello!
Thanks for your proposal! A few items for consideration:
Hello!
Thanks for your proposal! A few items for consideration:
I have a suggestion/question about the options in the snapshot vote. In the current way it is proposed, I can't vote for "Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation" and be against the other 2 options. Or I am against everything, or I just don't choose an option (That does not signal that I'm against it).
This proposal can be ratified via a snapshot vote, and approval voting will be used. The benefit of using approval voting is that a single proposal can be used to solicit approval on several decisions.
Each selected choice will receive equal voting power. If a delegate selects 2 options, each option will receive the total voting power of the delegate.
Voting options:
Each option would need to receive enough votes achieving the non-constitutional AIP quorum for it to be considered approved by the DAO.
If we are going with this setup, a better option would be:
Then you will get the true sentiment of the voters on each item, unless you are considering that an option will only be considered "approved" if reaching quorum. Can you clarify this?
This item should have a better reasoning beyond "it is lower than what the other guys are getting". Can you provide a comparison table between the roles to justify this increase?
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels.
Can you expand a bit on this topic? Now you are changing from receiving USD equivalent to a setup that involves Treasury Management activities, but does not give more details.
Additionally, the GCP team will continue to engage with DAO delegates and stakeholders to explore innovative solutions and platforms that support treasury management activities.
Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work!
Hi!
Hi!
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels. This discrepancy undermines the council’s time and commitment in managing the responsibilities associated with the GCP Foundation. Proper compensation is critical to ensuring the council can effectively aid the GCP team in executing its mandate, maintain accountability to the DAO, and help drive meaningful outcomes aligned with Arbitrum’s long-term vision on gaming.
In my opinion, this is not the approach I would take to evaluate a potential salary increase for the GCP Council. There is no valid comparison between the roles of the Supervisory Council or the OAT. As I understand it, the GCP Council acts as an advisor to the team responsible for executing investments and grants, whereas the other two are operational roles with multiple tasks.
Additionally, the compensation for the Supervisory Council of the ARDC is, as you mentioned, 5,000 ARB per member per month, which, at today's ARB price, is lower than that of the GCP Council.
If you believe the compensation is low, the reasoning should be based on the workload exceeding the initially expected scope. To move forward, I would like to understand the projected workload versus the actual workload they are handling.
Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually
Perhaps, however I'm not sure that the Foundation will write about the GCP, since the money was allocated from ArbitrumDAO
A level of knowledge and experience needed to be one of the GCP council members is definitely highly specialized. I checked again and read profiles of all the members again, and I believe that we have an amazing team in the council.
But, increasing the members' compensation from $30,000 to $80,000 (167% increase!) sounds like a big stretch. Can you please help clarify:
A level of knowledge and experience needed to be one of the GCP council members is definitely highly specialized. I checked again and read profiles of all the members again, and I believe that we have an amazing team in the council.
But, increasing the members' compensation from $30,000 to $80,000 (167% increase!) sounds like a big stretch. Can you please help clarify:
Thanks!
We have concerns with this proposal.
Increasing compensation by 160% while cutting reportings (transparency) in half does not seem to go in the right direction.
While compensation adjustments can make sense within reasonable bounds, the proposal shows lack of alignment with stakeholders, in our opinion.
Hello,
We are not fully convinced by some of the changes proposed.
We understand that comparisons with other governance roles are inevitable, but we do not believe they should be used as the sole justification for increasing the proposed amounts. In our view, an increase of this magnitude should be accompanied by a proportional increase in workload.
Hello,
We are not fully convinced by some of the changes proposed.
We understand that comparisons with other governance roles are inevitable, but we do not believe they should be used as the sole justification for increasing the proposed amounts. In our view, an increase of this magnitude should be accompanied by a proportional increase in workload.
On the other hand, we agree that payments should be made in ARB. Just to confirm, will the ARB be sent in an amount equivalent to the USD-denominated figures?
Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,
This proposal includes important changes and some points need more explanation.
Increasing salaries for GCP Council members makes sense to match other DAO roles, but is there a plan to measure their performance to ensure fair compensation? Raising compensation by 20-50 % may still be reasonable, but by 260% it seems very high and prohibitive.
Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
The GCP team has received feedback from various delegates and stakeholders on the current council compensation structure, and will be standing up a proposal to increase council pay. This proposal will also ensure that oversight and advisory members are compensated appropriately against industry standards and for their deep expertise and commitment.
We are continuing to review compensation data from similar DAO programs and from industry standards, and any changes will be put forth to the DAO for approval.
The proposal to review the compensation of GCP council members is not a surprise move. Since December, per the GCP EOY Report, the DAO was made aware of the intention to do so. We understand the need for adequate compensation, especially given the nature of the project which is large in scope (200M ARB mandate) and therefore critical.
In the report, you mentioned the need to align compensation with similar DAO programs and industry standards. However, not much is said in this proposal about the latter. Did you also look at comparable programs in other DAOs besides Arbitrum?
From our perspective, a review of this kind (over 160% increase for council members) must have a strong factual basis. While we want to properly incentivize Council members, we also need to bear in mind that they were aware of the scope of their responsibilities and compensation prior to taking on the role.
Regarding changing the cadence of transparency reports, we support changing the cadence of the reports provided that the GCP team maintains frequent communication with the DAO through other channels as you’ve suggested. Given the size of this mandate, we think it’s important for the DAO to keep a close eye on developments to measure progress and ensure accountability.
Aligned with many comments here.
1. Increasing comp What would help for decision making in my opinion is a clear breakdown as follows: - Initial responsibilities (aka what we thought the Council has to work on) - Actual responsibilities (aka what they are actually doing on a monthly basis) - Additional responsibilities (aka what they will be doing on top if this proposal passes)
The above neatly formatted i an Excel would be a nice visual
2. Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation Makes sense
3. Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually Yes if other communication streams are kept up to date (aka if I want to get more frequent updates there is a website/notion/etc where I can look them up)
Just clarifying, it means twice a year in the context. It's one of those confusing words in english with dual meanings.
At first glance, the proposed compensation increase from $30,000 to $80,000 appears quite substantial.
To better understand the reasoning behind this change, I would like to know if any shifts in responsibilities or an expansion of the scope for GCP Council members are planned.
At first glance, the proposed compensation increase from $30,000 to $80,000 appears quite substantial.
To better understand the reasoning behind this change, I would like to know if any shifts in responsibilities or an expansion of the scope for GCP Council members are planned.
Is there a document that outlines the current responsibilities of GCP Council members? This would help me better understand the remuneration increase.
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels. This discrepancy undermines the council’s time and commitment in managing the responsibilities associated with the GCP Foundation.
I can understand that the $30,000 remuneration is below the typical compensation for DAOs, but how do we ensure that the pay for other governance roles (e.g. ARDC Supervisory Council and OAT) isn’t set too high? Has there been an analysis of compensation levels across the ecosystem to ensure fairness and sustainability, rather than just aligning with similar roles?
For two years we will not understand what is happening with the allocated 200 million dollars?
no is once every 6 months, aligned with the reports that the foundation does for example, which to me makes sense.
Hello!
Thanks for your proposal! A few items for consideration:
Hello!
Thanks for your proposal! A few items for consideration:
I have a suggestion/question about the options in the snapshot vote. In the current way it is proposed, I can't vote for "Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation" and be against the other 2 options. Or I am against everything, or I just don't choose an option (That does not signal that I'm against it).
This proposal can be ratified via a snapshot vote, and approval voting will be used. The benefit of using approval voting is that a single proposal can be used to solicit approval on several decisions.
Each selected choice will receive equal voting power. If a delegate selects 2 options, each option will receive the total voting power of the delegate.
Voting options:
Each option would need to receive enough votes achieving the non-constitutional AIP quorum for it to be considered approved by the DAO.
If we are going with this setup, a better option would be:
Then you will get the true sentiment of the voters on each item, unless you are considering that an option will only be considered "approved" if reaching quorum. Can you clarify this?
This item should have a better reasoning beyond "it is lower than what the other guys are getting". Can you provide a comparison table between the roles to justify this increase?
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels.
Can you expand a bit on this topic? Now you are changing from receiving USD equivalent to a setup that involves Treasury Management activities, but does not give more details.
Additionally, the GCP team will continue to engage with DAO delegates and stakeholders to explore innovative solutions and platforms that support treasury management activities.
Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work!
Hi!
Hi!
The current remuneration for GCP Council members, set at $30,000 annually, is significantly below the benchmarks of average DAO compensation levels. This discrepancy undermines the council’s time and commitment in managing the responsibilities associated with the GCP Foundation. Proper compensation is critical to ensuring the council can effectively aid the GCP team in executing its mandate, maintain accountability to the DAO, and help drive meaningful outcomes aligned with Arbitrum’s long-term vision on gaming.
In my opinion, this is not the approach I would take to evaluate a potential salary increase for the GCP Council. There is no valid comparison between the roles of the Supervisory Council or the OAT. As I understand it, the GCP Council acts as an advisor to the team responsible for executing investments and grants, whereas the other two are operational roles with multiple tasks.
Additionally, the compensation for the Supervisory Council of the ARDC is, as you mentioned, 5,000 ARB per member per month, which, at today's ARB price, is lower than that of the GCP Council.
If you believe the compensation is low, the reasoning should be based on the workload exceeding the initially expected scope. To move forward, I would like to understand the projected workload versus the actual workload they are handling.
Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually
Perhaps, however I'm not sure that the Foundation will write about the GCP, since the money was allocated from ArbitrumDAO
A level of knowledge and experience needed to be one of the GCP council members is definitely highly specialized. I checked again and read profiles of all the members again, and I believe that we have an amazing team in the council.
But, increasing the members' compensation from $30,000 to $80,000 (167% increase!) sounds like a big stretch. Can you please help clarify:
A level of knowledge and experience needed to be one of the GCP council members is definitely highly specialized. I checked again and read profiles of all the members again, and I believe that we have an amazing team in the council.
But, increasing the members' compensation from $30,000 to $80,000 (167% increase!) sounds like a big stretch. Can you please help clarify:
Thanks!
We have concerns with this proposal.
Increasing compensation by 160% while cutting reportings (transparency) in half does not seem to go in the right direction.
While compensation adjustments can make sense within reasonable bounds, the proposal shows lack of alignment with stakeholders, in our opinion.
Hello,
We are not fully convinced by some of the changes proposed.
We understand that comparisons with other governance roles are inevitable, but we do not believe they should be used as the sole justification for increasing the proposed amounts. In our view, an increase of this magnitude should be accompanied by a proportional increase in workload.
Hello,
We are not fully convinced by some of the changes proposed.
We understand that comparisons with other governance roles are inevitable, but we do not believe they should be used as the sole justification for increasing the proposed amounts. In our view, an increase of this magnitude should be accompanied by a proportional increase in workload.
On the other hand, we agree that payments should be made in ARB. Just to confirm, will the ARB be sent in an amount equivalent to the USD-denominated figures?
Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,
This proposal includes important changes and some points need more explanation.
Increasing salaries for GCP Council members makes sense to match other DAO roles, but is there a plan to measure their performance to ensure fair compensation? Raising compensation by 20-50 % may still be reasonable, but by 260% it seems very high and prohibitive.
Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,
I am willing to support increases in compensation for the GCP Council, but only if they are:
Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually to provide a more meaningful signal to the Arbitrum DAO while also reducing operational costs and manpower.
But here I am categorically against. For two years we will not understand what is happening with the allocated 200 million dollars? I believe that transparency is one of the main points of the program, so that everyone understands that the work is going on and that there are some successes. In this regard, I would like the goals to be built for a quarter, and not as now in the six-month report.
This proposal includes important changes and some points need more explanation.
Increasing salaries for GCP Council members makes sense to match other DAO roles, but is there a plan to measure their performance to ensure fair compensation? Raising compensation by 20-50 % may still be reasonable, but by 260% it seems very high and prohibitive.
Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
Switching from USDC to ARB could be useful, but how will GCP handle token price changes to avoid financial risks?
The change to bi-annual reports may save time and money, but fewer updates might reduce transparency—can you add more frequent smaller updates like monthly summaries?
So I think that more details on these points would help the community make a better decision.
Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,
I am willing to support increases in compensation for the GCP Council, but only if they are:
Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually to provide a more meaningful signal to the Arbitrum DAO while also reducing operational costs and manpower.
But here I am categorically against. For two years we will not understand what is happening with the allocated 200 million dollars? I believe that transparency is one of the main points of the program, so that everyone understands that the work is going on and that there are some successes. In this regard, I would like the goals to be built for a quarter, and not as now in the six-month report.
This proposal includes important changes and some points need more explanation.
Increasing salaries for GCP Council members makes sense to match other DAO roles, but is there a plan to measure their performance to ensure fair compensation? Raising compensation by 20-50 % may still be reasonable, but by 260% it seems very high and prohibitive.
Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
Switching from USDC to ARB could be useful, but how will GCP handle token price changes to avoid financial risks?
The change to bi-annual reports may save time and money, but fewer updates might reduce transparency—can you add more frequent smaller updates like monthly summaries?
So I think that more details on these points would help the community make a better decision.
