DRC - DOT Enforcer {Compensation Increase}

Proposals
1

Summary

Immutablelawyer is proposing the following:

  • Increase the DOT Enforcer’s (Immutablelawyer) compensation to USDC 6,000 per month.

Description

I hope this post finds you all in good health and high spirits. Today, I want to share some thoughts and seek your input on a matter that I believe is crucial not only for me but for the broader discussion about compensation fairness. I am writing to make a case for a compensation adjustment in my role as an Enforcer on the dYdX Operations Trust.

I encourage you to read “The dydx Enforcer: A Primer” at (The dYdX Enforcer - a primer) to gain a better understanding of the Enforcer role within a Guernsey non-charitable special purpose trust but, more specifically, the dYdX Operations Trust. As some of you may know, throughout the past weeks since the inception of DOT, I have performed my functions with utmost diligence and have served as a point of contact for the community at large whilst also handling certain day-to-day matters that are involved in the ongoing operation of the Trust, and, in the launch of dYdX V4.

I am kindly requesting USDC 6,000 per month for the fulfillment of my Enforcer duties in the dYdX Operations Trust. Given that this is the first proposal of this nature, I would like to hear the community’s thoughts and feedback in relation to this compensation amount, following which, I will proceed with a Snapshot Vote that will be voting in favour or against this compensation.

The aforementioned amount was decided upon following careful consideration in relation to industry-rates, comparable roles, tasks carried out, positions with other SubDAOs and, naturally, the knowledge and subject-matter expertise provided. Furthermore, careful consideration was given to not hinder DOT’s budget or negatively impact any facet of such budget.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I look forward to engaging in a constructive discussion with all of you. I know compensation/payments can be a strange topic of discussion, yet I look forward to hearing your opinion and setting a standard for how these discussions are to be had.

Thanking you in advance!

Next Steps

I am targeting a snapshot vote creation on 8th of September 2023 (subject to change).

The Snapshot vote will be a binary vote, with voting options:

  • Yes - Implement the compensation increase (USDC 6,000 per month);
  • No - Do nothing.
6 Likes
2

As someone who applied for the same position that IL currently holds, I want to express my own opinion on this matter.

I am really glad that @Immutablelawyer was chosen for this position. IL has set a great example for how subDAO participants should work. I know we don’t see everything that goes on internally, but IL publishes excellent reports that show the community what Ops subDAO is working on.

I also got the impression that Ops subDAO benefits from IL’s knowledge and experience in the legal field. Such advice and expertise should definitely not be compensated at just $1500 per month, it’s simply laughable.
We’re not a shawarma stand here, but a serious organization that sets the tone for the entire dydx restructuring.

Although I believe that salary matters like these should be resolved within subDAO and IL’s compensation increase should have been included in the trust agreement amendment proposal, but it is what it is.

I fully support IL’s request for a higher compensation.

3 Likes
3

what about the trustees and the enforcer with grants

1 Like
4

@RealVovochka , I appreciate your comment on the matter sir!

5

Hey @jirabom !

This relates to the Enforcer of the dYdX Operations Trust and not the dYdX Grants Program.

Please do reach out should you have any questions or queries!

6

Hi @ImmutableLawyer,

After closely following dYdX governance for the past few months, I’m excited to join the forum discussion on your topic and plan to be more active in the future.

I have a few questions regarding the Enforcer role within dYdX Operations Trust and the rationale behind the proposed compensation increase. If I understand correctly, the current base compensation is $1500, and your request entails a 300% increase, as outlined here: dYdX Operations subDAO V2

Aside from considering your work, have there been significant changes between the initial draft and your current actions as an Enforcer?

Regarding the Enforcer role, I came across this note, which appears to document your surveillance work as an Enforcer over the past month: Enforcer’s Notes .
From my understanding, the Enforcer role isn’t intended to be a full-time commitment, and compensation should reflect that.
However, it seems that your requested increase may be related to other contributions you’re making outside the scope of the DAO. Is this correct?

Additionally, what is your stance on the compensation for trustees? Just as a reminder, it’s currently set at $2000. Considering industry standards, this also appears to be on the lower side. Typically, the Enforcer role is less time-intensive compared to that of a trustee. Should trustee compensation be reconsidered as well?

Please note that I am genuinely neutral on this proposal, and I believe I do not have a comprehensive enough understanding of your contributions to either support or oppose this proposal.
Looking forward to your insights on these matters.

2 Likes
7

I’m really glad that one of the trustees liked this post and that we saw him probably for the first time since the nomination on the forum.

Maybe the trustees are also underpaid, I don’t know.
I would like to hear their opinion on this matter.
We’ve seen @Immutablelawyer reports, community is well informed about his activity.

I’d like to know how many hours the trustees devote to their work and if they need a salary increase.

8

Hi @Huzmond ,

Pleasure to make your acquaintance sir!

Some points from my end in relation to the above:

  1. Compensation should be based on merit. I am not in favour of having strict compensations for Trustees and Enforcers (have never been as also can be seen in my comments on the DOT 2.0 post when I had not even considered applying for the role). Compensation should thus be based on merit and sweat equity put in.

  2. It’s all well and good translating compensation increase to % (makes it seem like a big bump), however, lest I remind you that 1.5k is minimum wage in most jurisdictions. I think endowing a Trust with over 6.5Million USD and then paying 1.5k to the contributors is not a good approach to have as it also fails to attract top talent (this is also feedback I received from multiple protocols). The 6k compensation is based on certain changes which will be communicated in the future, the uptick in participation pre and post V4 launch, and a multitude of other factors which will undoubtedly increase the workload I am currently involved in. Not to mention, also performing certain tasks such as ensuring that we have adequate internal policies and procedures in place (something I am currently working on as other matters to be communicated took priority the last couple of weeks - naturally, having legal knowledge on Trust legislation and a background in Trust administration greatly helps).

  3. The notes are not surveillance work but rather documentation published to the community in relation to expenditure of funds so as to make sure that the community is aware of what we’re spending funds on. Please refer to the Enforcer Primer I wrote on the full extent of my current workload (The dYdX Enforcer - a primer), it should give you better insight into what the role entails.

  4. As previously stated, compensation should be based on merit. There are Trustees which, based on their work, would highly merit a compensation increase. In the DOT 2.0 proposal, I did comment on this point.

  5. There are quite a few misconceptions in relation to the Enforcer role and re. whether it is time intensive or otherwise. There are always two way to carry out a role, doing it right, with utmost diligence and professionality, or doing the bare minimum which would then lead to consequences due to the Enforcer being unaware of certain changes/developments which, would actually have an impact on the Trust deed, the Trust’s legal standing, or the Trust’s funds / any Enforcer obligations.

I would highly suggest reading through the Enforcer Primer - it will give you great context :slight_smile:

Thankyou for your comment!

2 Likes
9

Hi @Immutablelawyer,

First of all, thank you for your continuous and diligent contributions to the dYdX protocol and community providing transparent and comprehensive explanations, reports and feedback as the Enforcer and a contributor to dYdX.

Your request for a higher compensation sounds reasonable and should be justified with additional changes to be announced and we are in support of the proposal in general.

However, it would be even better to clarify a couple of points below:

What exactly does it mean? The overall budget was decided based on all needed expenses and now the increases to the compensation should affect the overall budget, or the amount will be compensated for the other planned expenses?

This means that the compensation for an Enforcer is 3x more than the one for a Trustee. Both were requested with the reasonings We believe this is an adequate compensation in the original post. We would want to avoid additional similar requests coming on other roles. Has this matter been discussed in the DOT team?

Can you clarify what they are or the request are to be reviewed after they are communicated in the future so that we can properly review your workload going forward?

2 Likes
10

Thanks for your reply @tane !

re. 1 - Amount would emanate from the buffer allocated to DOT (we have a circa 400k buffer);
re. 2 - Matter is currently being discussed. As also stated in a reply to another member, I am an avid believer that compensations should be based on merit and not the actual post itself. Hence, where one merits a compensation increase, it is my opinion that one should get it (if justified). In my comments on the DOT Proposal, I did mention that even as a baseline, those compensation amount were very low.
re. 3 - These changes will be communicated in the coming days. Given even current discussions with Trustees, I may decrease the amount requested (lower than 6k). This depends on the workload agreed upon. At the end of the day, all I seek is fair compensation for work carried out.

2 Likes
11

Thanks for your clarifications. All make sense. Once the actual amount is agreed upon, we believe it’s ready for a Snapshot vote!

12

will you quit if no increase

1 Like
13

Hi @jirabom ,

No I will not - the idea was always to seek community feedback on the matter as a temperature check before deciding and/or proceeding further. That means one has to be receptive and accepting to comments in favour and in opposition to a proposal.

This is the culture that I have been advocating for for a while now and I do hope I see more of this in the future!

14

Thank you for your response, @Immutablelawyer !

I should have introduced myself; in fact, I have a substantial understanding of how trusts operate. I have served as legal counsel for several family trusts. I can confidently say that I am accustomed to interacting with and working alongside trust operators while being fully aware of the legal liabilities involved.

To address your points and raise a few additional ones, I am still somewhat surprised by the timing; it appears to be quite short, it’s just few month after your nomination, and I feel that DOT is still too young to make a definitive judgment on merit. However, I believe it is a consensus that we must preserve and enhance the best elements.

  1. In my opinion, the compensation remains appropriate for the time being, and it should not be viewed as a full-time commitment.

[quote=“Immutablelawyer, post:10, topic:1091”]
his depends on the workload agreed upon. At the end of the day, all I seek is fair compensation for work carried out.
[/quote] I believe it would have been preferable to specify this in the initial proposal. It is needed to delve into the details and perhaps consider requesting a separate package if these tasks are unrelated to the enforcer role.

I will await the revised proposal to further clarify my points

15

Hi Everyone,

After internal discussions the trustees and the enforcer agreed on increasing the enforcer compensation by 500 USDC per month to 2000 USDC monthly. This increase will be effective with September.
Additionally due to the intense first couple of months and the work provided, the trustees decided to pay out a one time retroactive payment of 3000 USDC to the enforcer for that extraordinary work delivered in the aforementioned period.

4 Likes