Noting that I’m abstaining pending clarification because I don’t feel like I have the context to make an informed decision here. I also doubt that stakeholders going into snapshot will as well and with the high quorum and ‘for’ requirements giving some additional info would be really useful.
Effectively:
- How much have the methodologists been paid to date for their efforts related to MVI and how does that square with the fee-split they would have been paid? If pay to date has been less there’s not much to discuss, but if it has been more there may be a case to back it out of future fee revenue.
- If FT vesting contracts have been deployed will they be:
- deprecated with all funds returning to IC;
- stopped with only un-vested funds returning to IC; or,
- remain in full effect?
While I think there’s a need for greater clarity here I’m for this proposal in spirit as I think the fee-split is a more motivating reward structure and the methodologists have signaled that they would prefer that arrangement; keeping status quo is arguably less ideal than a bit of a double-dip but we should know if that’s what’s happening and to what extent. The crafting of the proposal is also flawed in that it indicates that an AGAINST vote would still result in the subject methodologists stepping back from FT responsibilities but retaining the compensation - ideally AGAINST would always result in no net change to IC, not a less-than-ideal outcome - I find myself wanting to vote FOR even though I’m unclear; AGAINST leaves us funding two FT packages and no incremental reward for increased performance of the product. So really have two different FOR options and no AGAINST option.
I would also note that there needs to be some definitive guidance here following the vote. While I have full confidence that @DarkForestCapital and @verto0912 are acting in the community’s best interest, allowing methodologists to renegotiate fee structures after launch may become onerous for The Coop as precedent.