GCP Council Salary Updates, Ops Improvements, and Transparency Cadence

Proposals
1

Non-Constitutional

Abstract

As per the GCP EOY Update and Transparency Report post, this proposal seeks to get the DAO’s approval on 3 changes -

  1. Increase the annual compensation for members of the GCP Council to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,

  2. Allow the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation, and

  3. 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.

Motivation and Rationale

Increasing GCP Council member’s compensation

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.

Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation

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.

Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually

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.

Specifications

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:

  1. Increasing GCP Council Compensation
  2. Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
  3. Allow change of cadence for Transparency Report from quarterly to bi-annually
  4. AGAINST
  5. ABSTAIN

Each option would need to receive enough votes achieving the non-constitutional AIP quorum for it to be considered approved by the DAO.

Change 1: Increasing GCP Council Compensation

  1. Increasing annual remuneration for GCP Council members by $50,000 from $30,000 to $80,000.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Allow the GCP to update council salaries per year (in keeping schedule with elections etc)

Total additional annual costs: $240,000

  • $50,000 increase annually for 4 council members (David Bolger, John Kennedy, coinflipcanada, Greg Canessa)
  • $40,000 increase for Tim Chang (current IC chair and any future IC member)
  • The Arbitrum Foundation will not be eligible for this additional compensation.

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.

Change 2: Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation

Change 3: Allow change of cadence for Transparency Report from quarterly to bi-annually

Steps to Implement & Timeline

  • Proposal Submission on the forum: DONE on this post
  • Community Discussion: 2 weeks
  • Temperature Check on Snapshot: 1 week after
1 Like
2

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:

  1. Why was the initial compensation not set higher in the beginning, when the proposal passed? ($30,000)
  2. Did anything change (like the amount of hours and effort) since the initial proposal that could justify this increase?
  3. Is the motivation to increase just to align remuneration with ARDC council or OAT committee?

Thanks!

2 Likes
3

Hi!

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.

I’m not against this as long as mechanisms are put in place to keep the DAO informed about what’s happening, such as participating in the GRC Calls (which is scheduled for tomorrow and you are there, so great!) and/or any update mechanism you decide on.

3 Likes
4

I am willing to support increases in compensation for the GCP Council, but only if they are:

  1. Within the allocated salary budget.
  2. If they only take effect for the next council (i.e. after the next election)
    Usually such changes take effect after that, so that council members do not increase their own salaries.
    This would be fair, since they were elected for this compensation, and the main activity of the program so far has been limited to preparation.

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.

5

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?

1 Like
6

Hello!

Thanks for your proposal! A few items for consideration:

Voting method

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).

If we are going with this setup, a better option would be:

  1. FOR Increasing GCP Council Compensation
  2. FOR Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
  3. FOR Allow change of cadence for Transparency Report from quarterly to bi-annually
  4. AGAINST Increasing GCP Council Compensation
  5. AGAINST Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
  6. AGAINST Allow change of cadence for Transparency Report from quarterly to bi-annually
  7. ABSTAIN

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?

Regarding compensation:

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?

About receiving ARB instead of USDC

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.

  • What is the plan here?
  • What do you mean by “utilizing a processe similar to hat currently employed by the AF”?

Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work!

7

no is once every 6 months, aligned with the reports that the foundation does for example, which to me makes sense.

2 Likes
8

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.

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.

9

Perhaps, however I’m not sure that the Foundation will write about the GCP, since the money was allocated from ArbitrumDAO

10

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

1 Like
11

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.

1 Like
12

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.

2 Likes
13

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.

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?

14

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).

1 Like
15

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.

1 Like
16

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!

1 Like
17

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.

  1. Council Compensation Increase. We understand that the initial compensation was set with the expectation of a limited time commitment. And we appreciate that, as the program has evolved, the Council’s involvement has deepened.

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?

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

18

If I understood correctly, bi-annually is once every two years, not twice a year.

19

Just clarifying, it means twice a year in the context. It’s one of those confusing words in english with dual meanings.

1 Like
20

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:

  1. The employee is taking on extra responsibilities not originally agreed upon.

  2. 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 :slightly_smiling_face: . For Tim Chang, I think 30% is reasonable raise.

Would love to hear more other thoughts :slight_smile:

1 Like