The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this proposal.
The GCP has been a valuable initiative in driving gaming on Arbitrum, and we appreciate the work being done to support its growth. We generally support the proposal but would like some clarification before fully backing it.
First, regarding the increase in compensation, it is understandable that the Council’s role has evolved over time. However, it would be helpful to see a clear breakdown of the additional responsibilities or time commitments that have been taken on since the program started. This would provide a clearer picture of how the workload has increased and why the proposed compensation adjustment is necessary.
Second, receiving ARB instead of USDC seems like a practical adjustment, as it simplifies treasury operations and gives the GCP more flexibility in managing funds. We have no concerns on this point.
Third, shifting transparency reports to a bi-annual schedule seems reasonable, allowing for more meaningful updates while reducing unnecessary workload. Since regular updates will still be provided through GRC calls, forum posts, and newsletters, we agree that bi-annual reports should be sufficient.
1. Increasing comp
What would help for decision making in my opinion is a clear breakdown as follows: - Initial responsibilities (aka what we thought the Council has to work on) - Actual responsibilities (aka what they are actually doing on a monthly basis) - Additional responsibilities (aka what they will be doing on top if this proposal passes)
The above neatly formatted i an Excel would be a nice visual
2. Allow the Arbitrum Foundation to send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation
Makes sense
3. Changing the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually
Yes if other communication streams are kept up to date (aka if I want to get more frequent updates there is a website/notion/etc where I can look them up)
The Council’s envisioned commitment was in the range of 4-6 hours per month of meetings and light reviews of decisions made throughout the month. This was based on the optimistic model created that emphasized the Council’s role as an advisory and oversight body that did not have to explicitly approve most decisions and would instead just have full transparency into the operations through set processes and tooling.
However, what we realized are a few things:
Initial demands for oversight are higher given that we have to calibrate on standards / processes, documentation, etc
Compensation / budget review and recruiting required more Council member time for interviews and strategy, especially for more senior roles
Given the throughput of deals and velocity we are trying to move at, the IC needs to spend more time than originally estimated, and Council members need more time to give feedback / review after IC decisions
While there is more work than originally expected, we fully expect that operations and infrastructure after year 1 will be less manual and more robust - which may result in a reduction of time commitments needed from Council members. Remember, the commitment of Council members directly benefits the DAO through oversight and engagement, and we don’t expect any additional opex needs to cover the comp increases.
I appreciate the intentions behind this proposal, but I have some concerns that need to be clarified. When you state that the council compensation is increased “to align with comparable compensation standards for similar roles within the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem,” you need to provide more insight into how you determined that moving from $30,000 to $80,000 annually is appropriate. I would also like to know if there is a long-term sustainability model in place, especially as market conditions evolve.
The change to “let the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) send ARB instead of USDC to the GCP Foundation” might make things easier, but I’m not sure how it will deal with changes in ARB’s value. For example, what will happen if ARB’s value goes up or down a lot? If you could explain how the DAO’s treasury will be affected by these changes, that would be great.
The proposal also says that transparency reports should be quarterly instead of every six months, because this gives more up-to-date information. But I’m worried that this might leave stakeholders without important information quickly enough. Have you thought about using more regular updates or dashboards to fill any gaps between the formal reports?
The proposed compensation increase is lacking benchmarking and responsibilities. I could try to dig these myself but really they should be part of the proposal
Cross posting here since it’s relevant to the request to loosen transparency requirements. At least let people independently verify that the legal entity exists, which it surely does.
In our opinion, the current approach to evaluating a potential salary increase for the GCP Council is not entirely appropriate. The roles of the Supervisory Council and the OAT differ significantly from that of the GCP Council and are not directly comparable. From our understanding, the GCP Council primarily serves as an advisory body, supporting the team responsible for executing investments and grants. In contrast, the Supervisory Council and OAT are operational roles with a broader range of responsibilities.
We would be open to salary adjustments mid-program, provided sufficient evidence is presented demonstrating an increased workload beyond what was initially outlined in the original proposal.
To strengthen this proposal, it would be beneficial to provide evidence of the work required for the role, particularly considering that three months have passed. Djinn notes that the original vision for the Council involved a more hands-off approach, primarily focused on reviewing proposals and aligning with the DAO’s interests. However, this objective may have become less clear as the need for more due diligence, detailed team reviews, and more measurable assessments has emerged.
Regarding the proposed changes, here’s our perspective:
Item 1: Increasing GCP member compensation
Comparing the GCP Council’s compensation to ARDC or OAT is fundamentally flawed because the responsibilities aren’t the same. While both are referred to as “councils,” their scopes differ significantly.
OAT Responsibilities
GCP Responsibilities
From the above, it’s clear these roles don’t match up one-to-one. We do agree with @pedrob that compensation should reflect the actual scope of work. If GCP Council members are investing more hours than anticipated, we’d like more detail on just how many hours each member is contributing weekly.
We appreciate @tamara’s call for a clearer breakdown and would recommend using the structure she has proposed. A visual representation (e.g., in Excel) of those responsibilities, initial, actual, and additional would provide much-needed clarity for all delegates.:
Item 2: AF to send ARB instead of USDC to GCP
We have no concerns about this change.
Item 3: Change to the cadence of transparency reports from quarterly to bi-annually
We’re fine with this, provided the DAO still receives regular updates in the forum.
It might make sense to separate the compensation request into its own proposal for a proper discussion and not hold back the other requested changes. If there’s an actual increase in workload, asking for more compensation is fair—so long as it’s proportional to the additional responsibilities.
We would like to see any evidence of a full-time or even half-time workload for GCP Council members that justifies this salary increase.
The reality is that it is likely that this is not a full-time role, and therefore doesn’t need a full-time compensation package. We also suspect that GCP members are likely paid through other programs in the DAO or through related parties, and therefore have good “total compensation” from the DAO.
We think proposals that ask for budget increases (or budgets in general) need to include clear benefits to the DAO to justify the increase in spend. This one doesn’t seem to in our opinion.
We would be open to revising this opinion if there was clear data that the GCP Council represents a full-time role, which we think it doesn’t based on the current responsibilities.
a Discourse forum topic can only be in one category at once, so this topic would either be in the GCP category, or in the Proposals category. since this proposal intends to go up for a vote, it should be in this Proposals category, as it is.
It would not be ideal but we can add “gaming-catalyst-program” tag to easily check GCP related proposals (that are in the Proposals category) and updates (that would be in the GCP category)?
