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.