The following reflects the views of @vista ₊˚⊹
1. Too soon to compensate anyone
We said this with the proposal to introduce staking, and will say it again here.
With only 3 OIPs so far, designing and deploying such a heavy and expensive governance structure makes no sense, at all. This all seems like we’re moving towards a culture where things are done for the sake of doing them, instead of reacting to actual needs.
A version of this proposal will likely be implemented anyways given how things seem to have worked in the past, and there’s strong incentives for the delegates to vote in support of this. But we encourage everyone to think long term.
That said, let’s address some of the things in the proposal itself:
2. Incentives and structure
This represents a 90-10 distribution between stakers and delegates. Stakers being those who already are hold the token and are naturally incentivized to contribute (even without the staking component), and delegates being the ones who have to proactively work for the collective and on behalf of the delegators and token holders.
How does that make sense? It’s known that we’re not fans of hollow token staking, but at the very minimum the system should reflect the pressing needs and what’s valued, and saying we value parking a token in a contract vs folks committing resources to bring more value to the project is discouraging.
And then, 165,000 tokens at the current market price is ~36K. At 65,000 for this, we’re paying almost double for the development of the feature?
3. Development and costs
We were not expecting this proposal to come with associated costs, or at least not of this size. When reading this section below (and many other comments in the thread) from OIP#1 Building and Enabling Staking for the OBOL Token it doesn’t suggest that new features would have costs associated.
It’s hard to asses this given what the Association paid was not disclosed, but it’s not a good look that we were sold the staking contract as the unlocker for everything else, where in reality we have to keep paying to add things. I’m frankly disappointed.
On another hand, it’s not clear to me what’s the need to develop smart contracts for this. For the same price, and even less we could get ourselves, @Curia or any other to do a frontend that display metrics or even something as simple as a script that anyone can run and verify, then have a few folks on a committee execute a single transaction quarterly with the compensation.
If Tally wants this developed as part of their governance offerings, they should develop this themselves and at much offer Obol and other DAOs a more reasonable and productivized package, instead of asking us to cover for it as if it was a request and tailor-made solution.
4. Suggestions
If there’s demand from the collective to study and evaluate delegate compensation, we at Vista would be more than happy to come up with an extensive analysis and recommendations on governance updates based on historical data and needs, and welcome the participation from others.
For now we can’t see a way to justify the costs associated with this proposal, but happy to hear more from other delegates and the team at Tally.