Thank you for putting this up, Entropy.
Just to touch on a couple of things from the proposal.
Compensation and Vesting
The updated ask — $3M/year plus 15M ARB (1-year cliff, 3-year vest) — is a big jump from the first term, which came in at $2.47M plus up to 1.5M ARB in bonuses. We need to make sure this kind of scale-up is backed by clear, tangible results. That starts with full transparency: a breakdown of costs (team roles, salary ranges, travel, etc.) would go a long way in helping the community understand where the money is going and how it ties back to outcomes.
We also note Entropy’s ARB-based incentive is meant to align your interests with ours, which is positive, but a large bonus pool should be tied to concrete milestones.
The community agreed to this segment of the Y1 proposal. However, it is evident that the community cannot directly tie the percentages provided to the work actually done. This is exactly why we feel the 15M ARB allocation needs closer attention.
Time-based vesting assumes consistent value add just by being present, which is risky in DAOs. We totally understand skin in the game but in this space where one year can be considered a lot of time, we would feel more confident if there was accountability built in beyond just time.
On this
We suggest implementing a hybrid milestone model.
This will keep the time-vested structure but layer in high-level outcome gates (not granular counts). For instance:
-
Gate 1 (Year 1 unlock): Launch one new sustainable revenue stream. For example, onboard a non-native asset into yield-generating DeFi.
-
Gate 2 (Year 2 unlock): Show ≥ X% growth in a core financial metric (e.g. treasury income YOY or total TVL) by Q3 2026.
And if any gate fails, add a clawback clause that pauses future vesting until a corrective plan is brought forward and approved by the DAO.
This way, rewards are still time-based but clearly tied to meaningful progress, and we avoid a situation where tokens accumulate just by default.
Ecosystem Impact & Value Delivery
Y1 saw some strong contributions. Your dashboards became go-to resources, and the public Dune catalog has come in pretty handy. You’ve also played a key role in initiatives like OpCo and helped host events that improved delegate alignment and governance. These are wins.
That said, this proposal could do a better job of quantifying the value in certain areas.
Builder Support Scope
This feels like a tangent that could benefit from more clarity.
We suggest you introduce a sort of Builder Map where Entropy produces a one-pager each quarter. This will be a brief report aligning each of the four workstreams (treasury, incentives, data, special projects) to specific builder-support needs.
Then, if a gap appears (e.g. DevRel, accelerators), the DAO can fast-track a separate RFP rather than assume Entropy will cover it, protecting the “early-stage support funnel.”
Overall, it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into incentive design and keeping things running smoothly. To address concerns on both sides — yours about KPI bloat, and ours about accountability — we’d suggest a balance: use time-based vesting, but pair it with big-picture goals and a fallback clawback mechanism. Also, let’s define the builder support scope more clearly.
Thanks again for the thoughtful proposal and your openness to feedback.