The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
We view this proposal as more than a compensation update. It sets a clear direction for how the DAO values strategic oversight roles tied to large capital programs. AGV Council manages a 200M ARB program, which requires serious time, responsibility, and accountability. Aligning compensation with market benchmarks is a rational step if we want experienced contributors to commit meaningfully. Undercompensating governance roles of this scale would create long-term operational and accountability risks for the DAO.
We also agree with the one-time startup-phase bonus for the inaugural Council. The scope of work during AGV’s setup went far beyond the original plan. Acknowledging that extra effort is fair and also sets a useful precedent for other verticals that may go through similar early-stage build-out phases. This is not about rewarding past work casually, but about recognizing the foundational role these early contributions play in getting such programs operational.
At the same time, this proposal highlights the need for a more structured approach to compensation in the DAO. Instead of treating each vertical’s compensation individually, the DAO should work toward a standardized framework for council and oversight roles. Startup-phase responsibilities should ideally be scoped and approved upfront, and compensation calibration should be reviewed periodically based on both benchmarks and actual responsibilities.
Supporting this proposal reflects our belief that strong governance requires fair and transparent incentive structures. It sets a practical baseline for how we can structure future councils and verticals more predictably.