Additionally, I think now is a good time to discuss a gas reimbursement or gas allowance for the on-chain voting costs that delegates have.
2 Likes
This is why I havenāt voted for the current Tally votes.
1 Like
Itās always going to be a tricky discussion when we talk about paying ourselvesā¦ trying to be as objective as possible. I think itās fair to say that decrease in price probably has affected interest, so itās reasonable to raise it. Especially considering how drastic the price fall has been over the past year. When looking at $USD values, this expense is really pretty low for the treasury.
I also think itās fair to say that if the objective of paying delegates in HOP is to align action with token price, ābailing outā low token value by boosting payout is counter-intuitive to that. Of course, we can only control so much, but I do think in fairness to the process I wanted to point that out. I bring that up not to say the payout should see 0 increase, but in the sense of if the payout needs to increase 3.8x to be back to the starting point then maybe 1/2 that increase is fairer then just going 3.8x up.
A counter point I suppose is that the payout being in HOP is equally (if not more) and ease of administration issue, and this is an ancillary feature. As well as strictly adhering to a broader ethos in spite of reduction of delegates isnāt a great thing either.
All said, I am with @fourpoops that we donāt want to spin our wheels trying too much with thisā¦ 2x feels very reasonable, especially if we start to add in gas rebates. I also donāt think 3x is unreasonable if we are talking about going back to the original proposal period. Iād also imagine (I didnāt actually check) that when considering how many delegates remain active compared to back then versus now, the total cost may be lower even with a bump in payout.
Totally separate of that - is there appetite to make this an automatically recuring thing unless voted down? I know we have the periods for the multiplier, but another factor here is the payout has always been fairly sporadic and having to re-hash this every six months probably doesnāt help the whole situation.
2 Likes
@Bob-Rossi Totally get where youāre coming from, and I think itās super important to bring this up!
As someone who participated in different top DAOs in recent years (maybe my opinion will be unpopular), my first impression is pretty clear: thereās gotta be a way to make the time the delegate is putting in financially worthwhile. Itās not just for the sake of compensation but for the value of the work this person is doing here. Hop DAO has/had very high profile delegates the DAO values. In general, itās a hot topic across all DAOsā Governance. Arbitrum is leading the pack by focusing on attracting top talent with their approach, which is something we should definitely be inspired by.
For Hop, by revisiting and reinstating the DOLLAR value of incentives as originally proposed, Hop could significantly enhance both the attraction of new participants and the retention of current/old delegates, marking a significant shift in community dynamics.
Why not try this out as an experiment (returning to original payouts, not just increasing it by 2x) for the next term? We could see how it goes and then evaluate the results. Itās a chance to test the waters and see if this approach can really make a difference in how we grow and retain our community. We can treat this as a first step and push it forward with grant programs and other community incentives.
Hope this sparks some more thoughts and discussions. Looking forward to seeing where we can take this!
3 Likes
Although gas reimbursement will definitely stimulate delegates to participate, especially a small ones, I see this as a nice-to-have feature for all delegates vs a game-changer. In general, I would be in favour of this suggestion and I can see how other DAOs (1, 2, 3, etc) already benefit from this bonus 
2 Likes
I propose we amend and renew the delegate incentivization program for another 6 months and increase delegate pay by 2.5x while also adding a gas reimbursement fund (capped at $500/month) as an experiment to see if we can attract and retain talent for the DAO. This thread originally asked to renew the program for 12 months but since Iām proposing to increase incentives, I believe 6 months is more prudent. It would be great to see more participation and new faces!
2 Likes
Iām curious to know whether there has been any discussion in the past about migrating voting to an L2 to save on the mainnet gas costs. Seems like a reasonable move, no?
This has been lightly discussed in the past but there hasnāt been an extensive conversation regarding specifics. I believe we would need for all delegates to have each token holder redelegate their tokens to new L2 addresses which might be complicated since redelegating doesnāt happen very often.
Additionally, another concern would be which L2 to choose from and if this would affect Hopās standing with any other L2s. Any thoughts on the best way to implement governance on an L2? Any specific L2 you recommend for governance?
1 Like
The problem of having to redelegate could indeed hinder the ability of the DAO to operate for a bit and we could see a shift in voting power across delegates. We could however frame the whole thing as an opportunity to renew governance - especially if we tie it to the conversation around delegate incentives.
It would be a major change requiring multiple moving parts coming together, but I think itād be a worthwhile endeavor for the DAO. As for which L2 to choose, I donāt think it makes too much of a difference when it comes to voting.
FYI this proposal has been posted on Snapshot for a vote. Please participate in the vote and feel free to share any comments or questions in this thread or the governance discord channel.
I am going to vote no here.
I am completely opposed to this proposal as itās worded in the snapshot and really dissapointed in the lack of proper incentivization for delegates here.
I hoped things would improve by now but I see no improvement.
I am really bothered by
- Requirement to self-report and calculate rewards through a complicated formula manually. No other DAO I have participated in, requires this. OR requiring a link to a comment on the vote saying I voted yet or no. Just nonsense adding more bureaucracy for no reason.
- Gas rebates being in HOP and not ETH.
- Lockup of 6 months of all incentivization payments.
All 3 above are nonsensical and make me personally no longer want to participate in the governance of this DAO.
I was pinged to vote here: [RFC] Treasury Diversification for Ongoing Expenses - #6 by francom in the latest onchain proposal.
It was not gonna pass the quorum and wold have been a wasted onchain proposal. Yet I pushed it over the quorum at the last minute on a Sunday. I paid more gas for doing so than the lunch bill for my entire family on a nice full Sunday meal.
1 Like
Hi Lefteris, I appreciate your comments! The last thing this proposal is trying to achieve is to disincentivize participation from high quality delegates such as yourself. I take responsibility for the wording and am happy to implement any changes if the vote fails.
-
Since you are familiar with other DAOās can you please share how other DAOās verify delegate incentive qualification and compensation? I agree that the process is cumbersome and inefficient but I have not been creative enough to think of an improvement on this front.
-
Regarding gas rebates being in ETH i believe that this can be accommodated if the DAO agrees. While the DAO treasury currently lacks ETH I believe the treasury can benefit from being further diversified with ETH.
-
The lockup of six months was discussed in previous community calls and was intended to help further align the delegates with the DAO. The goal is to have delegates stick around longer and it would be great to hear ideas as to how to create more āstickinessā with the delegate program.
Finally, I really appreciate you voting on the most recent on-chain proposal because it wouldnāt have passed without your participation. You have been a great delegate since the inception of the DAO and I hope that your participation in Hop DAO is always accretive.
I agree with above posted sentiments, however anyways I have voted positively.
- Check Arbitrumās trial: FAQ and Best Practices Guide for the Delegate Incentive Program - Governance - Arbitrum
- I think ETH is better. Letās change this on the next iteration? Or perhaps an amendment afterward?
- Not sure if this could be done differently
For (1), I agree it would help to have a system in place to manage and control automatically delegatesā participation. Snapshot/Tally participation can surely be automated since itās on-chain and also Snapshot has an API, but participation in forums I donāt 'think so unless everyone uses the same structure (like for example a delegate participation thread with a specific text structure that a bot can read).
For this, I propose that we create a new role to manually track this and report it publicly in a thread here in the forums. This role could be elected through voting and someone from the DAO interested in doing it could apply. I think this is a lot easier and more straightforward than trying to find someone to code a tracker or use a tool like Karma that does it automatically.
Thoughts?
Hey francom thanks for the response.
- Doing it even more simply, such as by just checking number of onchain votes or amount of tokens delegated should be enough. And completely automatable.
- ETH should be easy enough and if itās for gas rebates it should not end up being to too big amounts I guess.
- Itās quite simple why this is seen as bad by me. I donāt pay gas in 6 months. I paid it now. I incurred expenses for the DAO now, not in 6 months. Itās unfair to move the payment quoting arbitrary incentive alignment. Same for anytime I spend looking in the forum or doing any kind of work/activity for any DAO. It happens now, not in the future.
1 Like
The point on the gas reimbursement is fair IMO. Regardless of where the vesting discussion lies, I think that gas should be reimbursed monthly instead of a 6 month wait. I think that becomes more obvious when comparing to traditional jobs, where you wouldnāt be expected to wait 6 months to get reimbursed for gas / toll / parking expenses if you had a company vehicle, for example.
I echo this view. This incentive mechanism seems to focus more on the tracking than the participation itself. Voting For hoping to see this improved for the next round.
I voted āForā this but like most, would like to see delegate gas refunding on a more regular occurrence in a follow up proposal.
Would also like to see the voting participation automated. Perhaps a small grant could be made available for this.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāll be voting in favor of the proposal during the temp check to signal our support for renewing the delegate incentives. However, we echo the concerns raised above and we want to see them addressed before an on-chain vote.
We should implement a simplified system to track delegatesā participation both during votes on Snapshot or Tally and also in the forums and calls. Other DAOs have also worked on this (e.g. Arbitrum) and we can borrow from their setup, especially given the smaller size of Hopās DAO. And with @Francom acting as the Head of DAO Ops, we should be able to handle a bit of manual tracking where needed without needing to introduce a whole new role.
We also agree that gas reimbursements should be denominated in ETH and not in HOP. @0xLev1 is working on an initiative for treasury diversification and perhaps the need for ETH for gas reimbursements should be taken into consideration.
I voted in favor of this proposal because I believe delegates are a huge component of DAO governance that should be adequately compensated for their efforts
I also agree with the criticism and skepticism, but for now have voted positively. Itās nice that these have to renew regularly because it means we can be quite flexible and change things for the next iteration based on this very very valid feedback from @lefterisjp. In trying to solve the very problem we face (retaining high quality delegates) we are clearly doing the opposite.
We also need to simplify the formula. The whole thing should not be multiplied by some scalar. The current formula already has a scalar in it that should be increased to, in effect, multiply the incentives. @francom we can talk through this and see if we can simplify everything for the next renewal RFC.
1 Like