[WIP #27] - Community Rewards Proposal

[WIP #27] - Community Rewards Proposal


Establish the foundation for a community rewards system.

Link to previous discussions

[RFC] - Community Rewards Proposal
[DAO Discussion] - Community Rewards Proposal


[WIP #27] - Community Rewards Proposal


This proposal aims at introducing a community reward system that would reward anyone who brings valuable opportunities to the DAO. This is not a bounty system, and rewards are not paid immediately, but when profits have been locked in.

High Level Overview

This proposal will provide guidelines on the following:

  • Procedures
  • Eligibility
  • Reward distribution

Provide Low Level Details


Community members will be able to present an opportunity via a ticket bot system.

Each ticket should include, at minimum, the following details:

  • Project/Protocol name & official links
  • A summary of the due diligence done (e.g. founders/management details, history, etc)
  • Risk assessment and profitability estimation, including a realistic range of returns
  • Timeline for profit taking estimations

For seed investments, a full project plan with all standard forecasts should be included.

Tickets will be reviewed, answered and recorded, to be released for transparency when needed, or to settle disputes.

Any seemingly valid strategy has to be properly vetted by the Risk Officer, voted by the treasury council and go through the proper governance process when applicable. Any community strategy implemented is to be managed and overseen by the applicable elected member(s).

Any tickets that do not meet the minimum requirements will be discarded with the reason why it was not considered. To be reconsidered, a new ticket with the missing information should be submitted.

Eligibility requirements and reward distribution:

The submitted opportunity must meet a profitability threshold of a minimum of 10% annualized ROI for the protocol - this threshold may be reviewed and changed depending on market conditions via the established DAO treasury guideline votes.

Tickets will be eligible on a first come first serve basis.

Reward Distribution

Rewards for strategies must be gained within the estimated and negotiated timeline for profit taking. A reward of 3% based on applicable profits per opportunity is proposed. This main may be reviewed and changed via the established DAO treasury guideline votes.

If a strategy fails to achieve the minimum threshold within the agreed timeline, no rewards occur. If a strategy meets the goal within a delay of 25% the original agreed timeline, a reward of 1,5% shall be given.

If a strategy reaches 20% annualized ROI an additional 2% will be awarded (5% total).

These rewards will be distributed when profit is claimed and calculated on the total profit amount, before final distribution to the farm/treasury. Rewards are given in the claimed profit asset.

Business and technical requirements of the implementation of the proposal:

A bot to record submissions will have to be created as well as proper documentation for the distribution of rewards.

These community strategies are to be disclosed on a quarterly basis once a strategy has been completed and the criteria to pay the proposer were met or after a strategy was declined and releasing it shall have minimal consequences.


Incentive is always a point of interest for everyone, and with this implementation there sure be a lot of good ideas for the protocol, let’s get this to snapshot!


In this proposal are all elected positions also considered community members? It might make sense to define who is excluded from proposing if some positions are excluded. This part seems to vague. “Tickets will be reviewed, answered and recorded, to be released for transparency when needed, or to settle disputes.”
What’s the criteria for when needed? Who decides that? I think transparency as a whole is important maybe there should be a fixed interval like the previous quarters tickets & responses for example are available for verified holders review.


Dont believe anyone is excluded. At least, we didn’t believe there would be a need to.

As for the transparency part, I believe the last paragraph takes care of that. If the proposed structure passes, that would fall under the Financial Officer.

1 Like

Ok so "Tickets will be reviewed, answered and recorded, to be released for transparency as reflected in the Business and Technical Requirements section below or to settle disputes.”
This flows better and makes it clearer.

1 Like

Sure. However, I’d like to avoid making changes to WIPs as much as possible. Given that the outcome here is the same, I won’t change it.

The current wording also allows for more flexibility while keeping the section in the requirements clear.


The outcome isn’t predetermined. But it is evident the lack of clarity was already agreed to internally which is disappointing to say the least.
It’s evident we will need to agree to disagree.


No agreement was made internally. It is disappointing that you would assume otherwise.

This was also in the DAO Discussion and the RFC. It seems like it slipped by you, luckily, the last paragraph was added to fix this “evident lack of clarity”.

WIPs are meant to be final and not modified. In the future, I encourage you to be more thorough in the previous stages of governance so the feedback can discussed and taken into consideration.


My point on USD was made before WIP. We both know that and you can go read my comments about it so i was thorough at the proper stages. What started this conversation at Wip stage was me noticing that nothing changed on compensation based on my feedback during previous governance stages. I think it’s logical to assume community feedback would be discussed internally especially since this proposal impacts internal peoples future compensation which I’d think they would care. Maybe my points weren’t given any consideration beyond your responses to me in Forum I don’t know because I have zero visibility to that. It is what it is.

1 Like

Wrong proposal ? I didn’t mean for my comment here to reflect on the discussion in another proposal.

1 Like

:dizzy_face: I thought the reply was on the other one we were discussing :slight_smile:

1 Like

So what more flexibility does current wording provide? I’d be interested in you giving a specific example of that increased flexibility.

Gives the flexibility to include situtations we did not account for.

Can you give one example rather than the ambiguous general reference?

You want me to give you an example of a situation I didn’t account for ? How would I know if I didn’t account for it ?

well intentionally leaving what you view as loopholes of flexibility seems like flawed logic and potential for abuse? In two recent governance items I have asked you to give an example for clarity on items and both times has been met with excuses. What should someone take from that?
transparency is the litmus test to ethical decision making.
think about it.

So you want me to close a “loophole” that allows for more transparency by accusing me of coming up with excuses and not being transparent ?

If answering your concerns/comments is coming up with excuses than how would you like me to proceed ?

1 Like

Like when it’s needed to disclose it before the strategy is done or denied, as defined. In cases we haven’t thought about. But when that happens it would be transparent, so not sure why or how that is unclear. Leads to the same result tbh - transparency.


you are misinterpreting my comments and I must be with yours. Gotta love text conversations… I merely wanted to understand how you view something as more flexible and how you came to that viewpoint. I mean if I thought something was more flexible I could likely state why I believe it is more flexible or give a potential example. But let’s drop that point now. I’m providing feedback to try to help produce solid governance that works regardless of whose interpreting things in the future. Just wanting to avoid having to amend things for better clarification if possible. I guess I should point out that none of my comments are intended as personal attacks against anyone. I think we have the same goals just some things appear lost in translation. :beers:


Vote to Snapshot:
[WIP #27] - Community Rewards Proposal