P-14: Increase the May & June Short-Term Allocations for Retaining Core Staff Due to Market Changes

Increase the May & June Short-Term Allocations for Retaining Core Staff Due to Market Changes

Authors: tonyolendo, willblackurn.eth
Read the draft discussion.


This proposal seeks to amend the terms of the proposal P-9: Short-term Treasury Allocation to Retain Core Staff to adjust and immediately release their allocations to insulate against further market volatility.


Gitcoin was an early partner to Developer DAO and gave the DAO a grant whose purpose was to retain full-time core staff. Proposal P-9 sought to effect the Gitcoin grant by rewarding the full-time contributions of with-heart, Kempsterrrr, and RyanCoordinator in the form of 1,000 GTC per month, starting February 1, 2022, through the end of June, 2022. When the proposal was being contemplated, the price of GTC was $10, at the time of the passing of the P9 proposal, the price of GTC had dropped to $6, almost half the value. The spirit of P9 was that GTC would trade at around $10 and thus the Retained Core Staff would receive a compensation of roughly $10,000 per month ($10 x 1000GTC). The current price of GTC is now $2.33 meaning that the projected monthly income for Retained Core Staff has fallen from $10000 to $2330. That’s a 76.7% drop in income, that would make anyone uncomfortable. As Ryan stated in his comments on P-9, “Using GTC in this way is a short term measure to get us on stable footing and keep the lights on.”


This proposal seeks to adjust June payments to 3500 GTC per full-time contributor and to retroactively adjust the payment for May by an additional 2500 GTC per full-time contributor on top of the already distributed 1000 GTC per full-time contributor. We further propose that these payments for June and May be released immediately upon governance approval in one transaction to mitigate the risk of any further drops in prices due to market conditions.

To complete this, it would require a total of 18,000 GTC = (2500 GTC * 3) + (3500 GTC * 3) . In our partnership with Gitcoin (P-4: Partnership & Mutual Grant with Gitcoin), we committed to holding no less than 50% of the initial token grant through 2023. This means that we can only use 13,000 GTC for this proposal.

We plan to use ETH held by the treasury to cover the value of the remaining 5,000 GTC (18,000 GTC - 13,000 GTC) . As of this proposal, this would require 6.0565 ETH from the treasury which has a balance of 11.603 ETH. The final calculation of ETH to distribute will be completed at time of the transaction once this proposal has passed Governance, but it should not exceed a total of 6.5 ETH regardless of the ETH to GTC price.

This proposal does not seek to expand the period of time set in P-9: Short-term Treasury Allocation to Retain Core Staff. Rewards beyond this time period will require a new proposal with updated context for contributions.


The continued full-time commitment of with-heart, Kempsterrrr, and RyanCoordinator to the DAO.


This utilizes all of our liquid GTC from the treasury and dips into ETH received from NFT sale royalties. We believe it is worth it at this time to ensure our full-time contributors are taken care of and are able to focus on Developer DAO.


Please vote Yes to move the proposal to Snapshot or No to not move the proposal to Snapshot.

  • Yes - Move proposal to Snapshot
  • No - I support the proposal, but with amendments.
  • No - I do not support the proposal

0 voters

1 Like

Link to treasury: https://etherscan.io/address/0x7128f5ff32ed07ce12e6a9debe32bb40f9884b3c

1 Like

Perhaps this should be phrased diffently, instead of us giving them GTC or ETH we should set a USDC amount to be given out. The reason is that we are giving them more GTC due to market conditions, but we do not know if they will be selling these coins right away. If they do, then the propossal will work as intended. However, if they do not then they could sell at a later date at a lager profit.


You make a lot of sense! I think going forward we will want to set everything in terms of a stable. For this one, we felt like we should not complicate the proposal further given that the initial “reward” amounts were set in GTC terms.


NOTE: We have continued with the regularly scheduled payouts of the already ratified 1,000 GTC per month per contributor. If this is ratified, that will be accounted for and noted on the Snapshot proposal.

Voted yes for simplicity but I agree that stables would be a good future choice. Another option might be allowing the receivers to select a mix of coins from what is available/what they prefer.


In support of this :slight_smile:


This is well said, and something I was thinking about as well. I’m agreeing with what’s been said around preferring stable coins long term. I do think something needs to be done short-term to counter market forces for all the work with-heart, Kempsterrrr, and RyanCoordinator have put it.

I’m voting yes for this as a short-term fix.

1 Like

I do agree with maintaining the core staff and making sure they are well taken care off, so I voted yes!

Like @MrStevenStiffler and @0xcharchar I agree that its better to pay staff in USDC for the foreseeing period; or a split of USDC and some governance tokens like GTC that are sponsored through partnerships for potential upside and limited downside.

One thing that has me a bit worried is the current size of the treasury (keeping vesting schedules in mind) and I would like to ask what the plan is to sustain the current core team and expand beyond that in the future; besides using the $code tokens that are planned to launch in the future. Some links to meeting notes or proposals I might have missed would be sufficient.

Something I would like to see get more attention in a proposal like this is perspective with regards to sustainability for the future. In my opinion the DAO has too much potential to generate different revenue streams to create sustainable opportunities for people in the DAO. Without context it sounds like payroll only depends on the GTC grant, royalties from the NFT collection and the creation of a governance token.


Either the compensation is in GTC or in USDC/T. Can’t be both? If the original GTC was agreeable (with known volatility on both sides) then that is that. Else DID should convert grant to USDC and make the payment in USDC. I totally disagree.

  • Setting and Accepting compensation in GTC was a human mistake
  • The Treasury needs active management… to optimally service scheduled outflows
  • Lessons learned?

I agree, It was a mistake in hindsight, and it will also be a mistake to increase the amount in GTC. If they dont sell the tokens now but rather in a year or two then they will make more money. We cannot control if they sell now or later, as such we should use a stable as part of this additional amount.