Council compensation ceiling

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Anton Ilzheev BlockVenture Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed HashQuark

Do you agree to an 800 FCT monthly compensation ceiling for council members?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes BlockVenture DBGrow DBGrow Federate This Federate This

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Following ratification of Doc 008, Section 3.3.4 states that:
Compensation per Council seat has a ceiling. This ceiling will be determined and regularly reviewed by Standing Parties as a minor discussion Motion. Each candidate may then submit their desired compensation at or below that ceiling.
This is a minor discussion topic to do just that.

Please use the discussion period to state your preferences on the following:

1. What is the ceiling for council member compensation per month?
2. How often should Standing Parties review this council compensation ceiling?

A poll will open after 3 days with options that seem to have consensus.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
This thread is a Minor Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Only ANOs may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 3 days after which a vote may take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 24 hours.
 
We need to get this established before anyone can really make any announcements and start the elections.

If we present multiple options (500, 1000, 1500) this will be a plurality vote where the most votes wins. If we have consensus around one option, we can make this a majority vote (60%).

To be clear, this only establishes a ceiling. It's up to any candidate to propose whatever they want below that ceiling. Kicking this off, I propose setting a ceiling at 800 FCT monthly. As for review period, I'm fine with annual.
 
I think it's necessary to define the expected workload before we can realistically set a ceiling.
Vote on / monitor incoming Director requests for fund releases. Proper accounting so Standing Parties know where funds have gone. Write policy on how the council should conduct itself internally / towards stakeholders or how to attract future council members / directors.

I can't really attach an FTE to this. A lot of it depends on Director activity. It's essentially a part-time assignment where oversight of funds / representing long-term Factom interests moves from ANOs over all other ANOs to a small council over a Director. Some will be more active than others. That's not to say ANOs don't do that anymore, just that it's a similar relationship to what ANOs are already supposed to do.

I don't mind raising the ceiling to be 'safe' and not exclude potentially very interesting candidates.
 
We're basically trying to balance:
1. "Making compensation enough so we get capable applicants"
2. "Making it low enough so as to not have a significant impact on resources"

I would say start with 800 (approx. $1000/month), but then review pay every 5 months because the industry is in a bull cycle.

Note: Five months is selected because the Council term is 15 months.
 
Corporate boards are often not compensated directly - we may not have the option but wondering if there's a way we can incentivize future growth of the protocol?
I recommended a council sharing in the Director bonus. As in being eligible for another 15-20% on top. It would align incentives pretty strongly. The problem is that we leave the height of any bonus (and objectives) up to a Director candidate. This would then need to be moved to ANOs.

For now, this is the easy option, and the base compensation needs to be low.
 
I agree. The role of the council will become more involved over time probably. You need to be able to attract the right talent for the job taking into consideration current status and future direction/ambition.
Any ceiling just limits us.

I heard Jeff Bezos got some spare time recently. Unfortunately he doesn't want to consider 200 FCT :p.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Minor Discussion by an additional 24 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 
It is tempting not to have a ceiling. Then of course every case would be evaluated on its merits.

Should there be a ceiling it may be appropriate for it to be in Fiat (say USD) so that there can be some equivalence to "real world" positions.

As for low base plus high(er) bonus that makes sense because we really do want to incentivize performance. Of course the counter argument to this and my point above is that payment in FCT effectively has an inbuilt bonus/penalty. We should also consider that a bonus would need some criteria (it may be market cap as Azn1nvas1on suggested above or some other combination of factors).

This community is likely to keep whoever applies for these roles "on their toes" so having a high ceiling is OK with me. Individual applicants will need to justify their own proposed rewards and importantly justify them should they be appointed.
 
Just a quick question. If we do not put a ceiling on this what checks & balances will there be to ensure nobody unscrupulous collaborates to authorize a ridiculously high amount? An amount we simply could not afford and which would damage the reputation of the protocol.

The answer to this may well determine whether we should have no ceiling or just a very high one.
 
That would mean the majority of the standing parties would agree. Either they think it is warranted. It doesn't make sense that the protocol would hurt itself by paying 3 people/entities. The risks of current efficiency system where FCT goes to things parties can choose for themselves and wit little to no monitoring is way higher.

And well if the majority of ANOs would be okay with paying insane amounts to people without return and hurting the protocol then we would already be completely doomed. Might as well decide to mint more tokens without a plan then.
 
That would mean the majority of the standing parties would agree. Either they think it is warranted. It doesn't make sense that the protocol would hurt itself by paying 3 people/entities. The risks of current efficiency system where FCT goes to things parties can choose for themselves and wit little to no monitoring is way higher.

And well if the majority of ANOs would be okay with paying insane amounts to people without return and hurting the protocol then we would already be completely doomed. Might as well decide to mint more tokens without a plan then.
Hi Niels thank you for this. I just wanted us to consider the risk of having no pay ceiling for the council seats. You acknowledge that there is a risk, albeit a small one.
 
Well the risk is so small I wouldn't call it a risk. There is not something to mitigate, simply accept it. It basically hinges on the decentralization of our ANOs, but the whole protocol already depends on that.

Any restrictions we come up with needs to be maintained over time as circumstances change. In the mean time it can form a barrier for instance for some talent not applying as candidates.
 
Well the risk is so small I wouldn't call it a risk. There is not something to mitigate, simply accept it. It basically hinges on the decentralization of our ANOs, but the whole protocol already depends on that.

Any restrictions we come up with needs to be maintained over time as circumstances change. In the mean time it can form a barrier for instance for some talent not applying as candidates.
I agree that the risk is one we could probably live with and that the Council reward parameters will need to be maintained. A ceiling will only form a barrier if it is too low.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top