Hi @Huzmond ,
Pleasure to make your acquaintance sir!
Some points from my end in relation to the above:
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 
Thankyou for your comment!