PNF 2023 Budget and 2022 Accounts

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

Hi @Cryptocorn

thanks for your helpful input, as always

Picking up on some direct points so that I can clarify any confusion:

@Cryptocorn

Dermot + Nelson have a Conflict of Interest that as benefitting from their previous/current VC investment into PNI, they will want to route contracts from PNF to PNI and not be credibly neutral when we have GaaS.’

Eden Block only ever invested in POKT and owns no equity. Furthermore, I last worked at Eden Block in early June last year, and I have had zero active involvement with Eden Block since. My remaining ties are a passive LP interest and a share in the carry.

I’ve been involved as a contributor in the Pocket community since before network genesis, and anyone who knows me will know me for being one of the fiercest advocates for upholding Pocket’s values and staying true to the mission.

@Cryptocorn

Procedural issue: reading the commentary tab, it suggests that Nelson is to work " up to 2 days a week" (line 19). However in the budget, it’s suggested that he is given a half salary, indicating 2.5 days per week. Can we get clarification on which this is to be? Or is he to get a premium?

I appreciate the argument that these are ‘top band figures’ but they tend to have a way of being cemented, so let’s get the docs right.

The directors believe this is reasonable based on the value we see Nelson adding. Nelson is more than a stereotypical passive NED who just rocks up to a board meeting once a month and adds no value. He worked for free for the foundation for the last two years as he cares deeply about Pocket’s mission.

We will share more detail on the individual and shared roles and responsibilities at PNF very soon.

@Cryptocorn

PNF document uses both $0.06 + $0.07 figures for POKT, it would be good to use a single figure.

You’ll see that only $0.07 was used in the budget tab, as that was the price when the budget was published. However, this point is subject to the point in the commentary, which states:

We have agreed that the minimum price to be used for any grant will be $0.06. It will be more if the market price at the time is greater than $0.06 per POKT, which will result in less POKT granted.

Even if the price drops below $0.06, $0.06 would be the minimum price used for this calculation. If it goes up, so will the base price.

@Cryptocorn

How does PNF calculate hours? I believe there is some definition of this available, so please do correct me here. Jack and @Zataar have had some back and forth for how GRIP accounts for their hours, down to almost an individual hour level. I am certainly not arguing for each and every paperclip to be accounted for, but esp given we have an ex lawyer used to billing in 10min increments as a director, I’d like to better understand how hours will be accounted for, and think the system should be used universally across Pocket.

I am generally in favour of a relatively hands off overview of billable hours (‘just don’t take the piss’), but our policies should be universal and well documented (again, apologies to PNF if I have missed previous answers to this question).

There are a couple of things to unpack here. Firstly, as Jack kindly mentioned above:

@JackALaing

it’s a mark of his honesty that Dermot would acknowledge his side projects and not just claim that he’s dedicating 100% of his time to Pocket

It would have been cleaner for me to say that I’m full-time, which I am (as the rest of the PNF team will gladly attest), but I also am an angel investor and contribute to some other DAOs in my spare time. So even though in a typical job, outside interests are completely normal - and generally seen as beneficial - I said 80% to make it clear to the community that I would only be paid for my direct Pocket contributions, even if my working time is skewed 95% towards PNF v 5% to other interests. In hindsight, saying 80% was confusing. I hope the situation is clearer now.

Secondly, while I worked as a corporate (VC and PE) lawyer at two global law firms for five years, I last worked as a lawyer over 4.5 years ago. And all of my time since has been in tech and web3 as an operator, board member (of the ICE List, one of Europe’s most important founder communities) and investor. So, believe me; I don’t bill my hours in 6-minute segments any more! Thank fuck. And none of us on the foundation will be billing anyone overzealously like that, either. All directors and full-time staff have a fixed rate, as set out in the budget. Additionally, there are no additional benefits for healthcare, pension or otherwise. And we will each be held accountable for our output. If someone isn’t performing, I guarantee we will move quicker than the DAO to move them on.

@Cryptocorn

I too am uneasy that 2/3 directors are old friends, colleagues in two different companies and seem to have hired each other to the stage.

Nelson and I had very different roles at Eden Block- with me leading on investments and portfolio support and Nelson leading on research - in a team of 8 people. Nelson and I also have different viewpoints and professional backgrounds and live in very different parts of the world (London and Australia), which adds to our global perspective. The idea that we are old-school friends or neighbours is very far from the mark.

@Cryptocorn

Can we have (debate if needed, but hopefully just confirmation) that PNF Directors and salaried staff on the books will recuse themselves from any vote around PNF funding from the DAO?

Two things here:

1. Just to be really clear, and apologies for stating what you understand already, but I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere before, so I’ll mention it again; the PNF budget has no relationship to the DAO’s treasury. PNF has its own independent treasury. This is not a request for funding from the DAO. Any request to receive any of the DAO’s funds will require a standalone new PEP.

2. Jack and Nelson do not have DAO votes yet. However, every DAO voter represents themselves and not any other institution. Still, as you will see from the following comment in the PIP-26 debates, we are aligned in terms of wanting to avoid any conflicts:

@Dermot

such a provision should be expanded to require the recusal of any voter where they stand to benefit from a vote passing.

We will share more detail on our approach to transparency and conflicts of interest soon to clear up any potential ambiguity.

Lastly, let’s keep talking about any other points or concerns you may have. I believe it’s constructive to be collaborative and open about this kind of stuff and work together to get to an outcome we all agree is based on sound principles. However, I would recommend moving all non-budget-related discussions to a separate forum post or another venue on discord or telegram so we can keep the budget discussion on track.