Thanks everyone, thoughts in response to the recent comments…
@iammeeoh running with your example for a moment, do you think it would instead make sense to remove the monthly/quarterly quality control, and replace it with a yearly review instead? I see this being a bureaucratically-governance-intensive task across the community when we should focus on getting things built. Hypothetically, this would give the team a 1 year bonus, reviewed every year based on the previous year’s performance. However! …
With that said, I would hesitate to see the longer term vesting model disappear because it provides a clear incentive to remain with the program at a point when one’s skills will be the most sort after - and naturally the incentive to stay is comparable. I can’t stress how much knowledge and system complexity is in the minds of employees who have been with us for longer periods of time.
It’s worth reiterating that if the team (or team facilitator) is underperforming they can be removed by Governance at any time.
It’s difficult to draw any significance from a historical point of view because the nature of demand for certain skills has changed so rapidly in recent years. Currently, it is the real-world competition and demand that has driven up the value of individuals which gets us to where we are now - competing protocols and top tier companies are our competitors. Levels.xyz , Glassdoor and competing forum blogs provide some insight into this.
I will say that this proposal has kick-started a number of discussions with senior engineers in the industry (external to Maker) who are expressing interest in what we are doing. I’m not going to jump the gun yet, but this is a promising sign to see us being able to get the attention of individuals to support future team growth.
@TheoRochaix and @Tosh9.0 thank you for your support. In similar threads calling out value propositions of different teams, namely from @Guy and @SebVentures , I agree that this proposal is different to other teams - I built it up to be independently competitive with market rates and competing industry offers for smart contract developers. I’m not opposed to a broader framework if it takes this proposal into account.
@iammeeoh thank you for sourcing the academic data and raising the notion of tenure as food for thought in the context of culture.
I think everyone realises the competitive market we are in and that the free market has shown that we will struggle to retain employees if the economic incentive is greater elsewhere. I do however think you raise a great point about culture and work hygiene. It’s a much much bigger topic than this thread can cover but in due course I would like to delve into this with the community - the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that shape us as Maker are important and define why employees (not just engineers) want to work for Maker.
Thanks Nadia, indeed, we plan to illustrate clear OKRs, and if they change throughout the quarter, we need to communicate why. This is a challenge in crypto because things move so fast, however I’m certain that with our community and governance discussion channels we will be able to continue being transparent.
Yes! But there is a lot of work to safely get us there and beyond.
Regarding team growth. In the first year we have accounted for growing the team by 5 individuals. (currently we have a team of 9). It is expected that these new team members will receive the same MKR, vesting from their start date, as the rest of the existing team members.
This budget and growth within the first year is based on meeting current demand. For growth in following years we will submit a new proposal for Governance approval. My initial thoughts were that this would be less MKR due to lower risk but would be structured as the same 4 year vesting plan to incentivise long term commitment.
Just a note here on the 4 year vesting …I want to emphasise that It is very unlikely for people to stay in a role for 4 years in this industry. We want our team members to remain because their knowledge at years 2, 3, 4 is incredibly valuable - to know where the skeletons are in the closet and why certain technical approaches work or not saves weeks and weeks of work. I am trying to match the incentive with this skillset. Initially to attract, and then to retain.
^ this eternity in crypto is indeed a long time, which is why the MKR is unlikely to be paid out in full - but if it is, we really deserve those people. Also, during this time we remain accountable to Governance.
Alternatively, if we were pursue a 1 year timeframe we may get things out the door quicker to reach a goal but we lose the vested interest in making the protocol secure over the longer term.
Regarding MKR volatility - we proposed a % of supply, which I don’t see changing in the coming weeks regarding the existing surplus. If there is some dramatic change, I think it’s reasonable to raise it here for reevaluation.
@Aes, you raise good ideas in both your posts thank you. I am still giving thought to the performance based suggestions you had in your first post and will respond when I have a formulated my thoughts.
It’s challenging to convey emotion in forum posts, but I want everyone to know I am grateful for the effort and thought you have put in replying here. Much of this is still being considered and discussed with various stakeholders as we work towards the end of the RFC period.