Thanks for the feedback. As you’ll see the full time contributor roles vote already passed unanimously and has been implemented. The community methodologist post above is purely a re-hash of the bonus awards based on feedback saying it was too discrete, essentially the same point you are making which is that we should spread the rewards over a longer period to align incentives. It might be worth dropping a note on this post with your thoughts on moving certain amounts of money requiring an IIP. While I see your point, it could slow us down, especially if we see outcomes like the recent TTI vote where large holders don’t vote so we end up struggling to move forward.
On the suggestions:
There is already a scheme for point 1 called the Methodologist Bounty, which we chose to forego along with the fee split (which would’ve had the same effect in terms of incentive to grow product) so that we could maintain a role within the community but still allow the Coop to retain as much revenue as possible. Given your recent posts on DPI AUM and the threat of TTI/MVI for taking away liquidity, I’m sure you’re acutely aware of how the methodologist bounty works and that with a 6 month headstart DFP is doing pretty well at defending the full monthly allocation of those tokens. If we went with the method as you suggest we might get 5% of that bounty at $10m AUM which is 2000 tokens/month so pretty similar to what we receive as full time contributors. So you’ll see how this changes the relationship with the community and other methodologists, and is something we wanted to avoid with this solution.
On the second point, 4 years is absurd and longer than the vesting period for the founders of Index Coop. The methodologist bounty is also relevant here given the 40,000 tokens DFP receive every month with no vesting requirement, compared to the full time contributors who are getting roughly 600/month and have 6 month lock-up.
As I think the post explains, we tried to get a win-win where community members can maintain a good relationship within the Coop, without conflicts of interest. Meanwhile the Coop receives maximum revenue. If we linked as you suggest then during a bear market there would be no incentive whatsoever for methodologists to keep working on the product. There is a caveat in both posts that this is a trial framework and will be reviewed after launch (3 months after inception specifically for all FT contributors), at which point the community can review progress and hold contributors accountable.