PNF 2023 Budget and 2022 Accounts

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

One last thing on your post (feel free to post publicly or DM if I missed anything else you wanted me to answer directly on):

@Cryptocorn

I further appreciate that until the first review at end of q1 or so, PNF can’t defend against things that haven’t been done yet, and so this point is a ‘suggestion on focus’ and not an attack of questioning of the team.

I appreciate you pointing these things out. We are firmly aware of the need to prove ourselves.

Given your interest in PNF’s focus, please complete the survey (Pocket Network Community Survey: Mission, Values and Priorities) if you haven’t already, and put your hand up to be more closely involved in shaping the outcome of this workstream if interested. The objective of Project DNA is to “Align the community behind a mission that resonates and a set of priorities they want to support.” Which seems right up your alley.

[Bfishgambo (Brent)]

I think having discussions on how directors will be compensated would be helpful to this process. Not sure if it should be a separate discussion but it does seem like it would make sense to hammer that out first before moving forward. Otherwise we will be doing this every time new directors are onboarded. Maybe the budget proposal was the cart before the horse. But if we have an expectation for director comp then the process of getting that passed and then onboarded would be easier

[ethen]

Can we get some clarification here please.

$36k a month if spread out over 12 months. For what exactly?

[RawthiL (Ramiro | POKTscan)]

@shane

POKTScan (@michaelaorourke @RawthiL) Do you plan on submitting a proposal for funding of the geo-mesh client contributions? If so, do you have a time frame?

We are writing a proposal for funding our GeoMesh dev costs in the near future. Probably it will be posted next month.
We will also post some other requests for founding of new proposals that are currently being developed and services that we provide to the community (both technical advising and portal hosting).

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

Hi @ethen

This is a chunky contract, indeed. While this contract predates me joining PNF, I have reviewed it and the relationship with Copper since joining PNF. I can confirm that it was entered into on the 3rd of October last year on behalf of the ecosystem. The monthly fees of $36k are due to start this month and run for the whole calendar year. I understand these fees align with what other non-EVM blockchains pay for custodial support from platforms like Copper.

An institutional custodian is mandatory for almost all regulated investors, which is an important stepping stone for POKT’s legitimacy and long-term sustainability. Institutional investors can now buy and hold POKT directly via the Copper platform. Having Copper onboard also enables some larger staking providers, such as Figment, to join the ecosystem, enabling white-label staking programs via multi-blockchain wallets and exchanges in due course.

In terms of exactly what we are getting for our money, these fees were a prerequisite for Copper to complete a custom integration to support Pocket.

This was arguably the biggest ask from many of the biggest holders of POKT over the last couple of years.

Speaking directly from PNF’s perspective, we will use Copper to add an extra layer of safety and security for custodying all of PNF’s EVM assets - instead of Gnosis safe - and create a multi-sig over all of PNF’s POKT wallets, something which isn’t possible at the moment (as too many of you already know with respect to your own custody setups).

Regarding the DAO, we can use Copper to custody any assets that PNF is currently custodying on behalf of the DAO, such as tokens from token swaps, and to add a multi-sig to control DAO governance transactions too. @JackALaing can provide more detail on this last point, though, as he has thought about this more than anyone else in the ecosystem.

[poktblade (Blade)]

I’m finding this thread hard to follow already… a friendly reminder that this thread is about the P&L of last year accounting and this year’s budget. I think it’s perfectly fine to ask questions about the last year’s directors’ spending (and subsequently Nelson’s responsibility for example). However, it is not supposed to be a thread about geo mesh reimbursements, leanpokt reimbursements, inflation distribution reimbursements, the newly elected members of PNF, etc. If we need to have that conversation, let’s do that in a follow-up to PIP-26 and keep focused on PNF’s last year’s spending and upcoming spending for 2023.

If you want to vote to remove a director - let’s follow up on that in another thread. If you want reimbursement, follow up in another thread. This thread is about 2023 budget and 2022 accounting and of course accountability.

[ethen]

Point noted PB and everyone else. I’ll try and stay on the topic at hand.

Tnx Dermot, can you please point me to the community vote where the DAO approved that allocation or was that before DAO votes?

Is PNF going to renew the contract after 12 months with Copper?
Who is that contract between? PNI or PNF?
Can you share invoices from Copper?

In the future, is it possible for the directors to setup better OPSEC so we can save on these fees?

[JackALaing (Jack Laing)]

@ethen

can you please point me to the community vote where the DAO approved that allocation or was that before DAO votes?

The Copper agreement was entered into before PIP-26 was passed. PIP-26 introduced the controls that empowers the DAO to veto PNF budgets or special transactions.

@ethen

Is PNF going to renew the contract after 12 months with Copper?
Who is that contract between? PNI or PNF?

The reason it is listed in the non-recurring expenses section is that the bulk of the amount is a one-time integration fee spread out over 12 months. Any fees in 2024 would only be the standard custody fees, since the integration will have already been paid for in 2023.

The contract is with PNF.

@ethen

In the future, is it possible for the directors to setup better OPSEC so we can save on these fees?

As Dermot detailed above, this is not about Foundation OpSec, the Foundation using Copper as a custodian is just a bonus.

The Foundation has paid for the Copper integration so that the whole ecosystem now benefits from access to an institutional-grade custodian. This unlocks adoption by larger institutions and staking providers like Figment, who power white-label staking programs seen in wallets and exchanges.

The Foundation may continue to pay Copper custody fees in future years, but these will be much smaller amounts in comparison to the custom integration fee we’re paying this year.

[poktblade (Blade)]

If I recall correctly, there was some coin swaps we did earlier on the year. Does PNF or the DAO own those?

As well, at one point, PNF staked pokt onto the PNI portal didn’t they? Was those funds after returned post gigastakes / are they accounted for in this breakdown

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

Hey @poktblade

@poktblade

If I recall correctly, there was some coin swaps we did earlier on the year. Does PNF or the DAO own those?

Yes, the DAO did a number of token swaps in the last 12 months or so, which PNF custodies on the DAO’s behalf as the DAO can’t do so itself. Yet at least. @JackALaing has been doing some good work to reconcile all of this and put it into an easily accessible resource for the community. While I don’t want to give you a specific date for this, we are keenly aware of it and will be done relatively soon!

@poktblade

As well, at one point, PNF staked pokt onto the PNI portal didn’t they? Was those funds after returned post gigastakes / are they accounted for in this breakdown

Yes, that’s correct; PNF lent a large portion of its POKT treasury to stake on apps’ behalf in the portal. All of this has been returned since and is accounted for in the POKT balance stated in the accounts.

[JackALaing (Jack Laing)]

I’ve just published two forum posts that may be of interest to anyone following this budget thread. They provide more context on:

• the roles that each member of our team will be playing
• what we plan to deliver in 2023

PNF's Roles & Responsibilities

In PIP-26 we outlined at a high-level the roles we expect to play in supporting Pocket’s ecosystem, which are included below for your reference: Nurture Pocket’s values: assist stakeholders with continued refinement and reinforcement of Pocket’s values Advocate for Pocket’s stakeholders: be available to listen to all Pocket stakeholders, track and amplify their issues, and provide them with a platform to be heard by others Empower Pocket’s contributors: support the personal development of Pock…

PNF's Goals & Roadmap

Our vision at PNF is to grow Pocket Network into a hyperstructure. And our role in helping to coordinate us all towards this vision is to serve Pocket Network’s DAO as a credibly neutral entity. How are we going to get there, you ask? And what should we focus on first? While there are an incredible diversity of goals and priorities to consider, we have worked hard to distil such an array of options into four distinct and immediate goals that we believe will deliver the maximum return for Pocket…

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

As a reminder to everyone on the budget approval process stated in the newly adopted articles, and as set out in PIP-26:

@JackALaing

4.43 Annual budgets should be published by way of DAO Notice at least 4 weeks prior to the start of the 12 month period to which they relate. The budget should include director remuneration reported on a per-director basis, total contractor remuneration, and any other material expenses categorized as the directors reasonably see fit. The budget shall be automatically approved in full unless there is a DAO Resolution contesting any line item, subject to the vote starting within 2 weeks immediately following the date of the DAO Notice, the vote lasting no fewer than 14 days and no more than 15 days, with a quorum of at least 25% of DAO participants who have cast a vote within the 12 months immediately prior to the date that voting commences on such DAO Resolution. DAO Resolutions may only contest existing line items (not propose new line items), may only contest 1 line item each, may only reduce (not increase) the value of a line item, and shall not call for the transfer of resources from one line item to another. In the event that any line item is contested, the remainder of the budget shall proceed. The directors must amend any successfully contested line item(s) by way of DAO Resolution (no quorum required), subject to any limitation imposed on them by existing contracts or obligations. If a line-item amendment is rejected by the DAO, votes on further amendments to the same line-item shall continue until DAO approval or until the directors abandon the line-item.

Consequently, all the line items in the budget will pass next Friday unless there is a challenge - that there is sufficient consensus around to push to a vote - before then. The validity of any line item in the budget that isn’t challenged will not be affected or delayed by any challenge to any other item in the budget.

[ethen]

Who does this go to?

I know we not paying $120k for a telegram moderator. You guys gotta cut this spending still.

$621,000 for 5 people is way too much when 2 of the people are community moderators.

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

This is for the salaries of @b3n and @Ming, which aren’t disclosed as we all agreed to the principle of not disclosing the salaries of any non-directors.

I think we can all agree that they are both leaders and bring a lot more value than community moderation as per the Roles and Responsibilities post

[poktblade (Blade)]

The way I see it is that the tech industry is still pretty lucrative. PMs, community leaders, etc all have a place in this growing ecosystem - and they can be paid quite lucratively for it as well. The headcount budget isn’t actually too unreasonable, one of the pitfalls of last year’s foundation was that there was no one being actively paid to drive decisions, and look where that got us. I am more than happy to support a low-end six-figure salary so that way long term the PNF can grow, and ideally so will the treasury.

Given their current burn rate right now, they don’t actually have enough funds in the treasury for next year renewal unless they sell some of their POKT. @Ming for example has been in Web2 / corporate for a really long time. He left to join PNI and later joined PNF (who barely has any stable left for 2024). I’d argue there’s even more that these folks are giving up, i.e stability, health insurance, 401k matching, etc. So that itself is inherently a risk and motivation for him (and all others) to make this all work. Now let’s say, towards the start of next year, they will need to get the budget renewed and approved. If they didn’t grow their treasury (which all of them are incentivized to do at this point) - then it may be an issue. But not right now.

We can debate on how much PNF should manage its headcount spend, but so far it is actually pretty lean for an extremely complex subspace we’re in. These community leaders are gonna be able to weigh in and help grow PNF even further. There’s no way this is the final form of PNF, it is definitely missing some technical heads and technical oversight for example, but there is always room for the future. This is just the early beginnings of a legitimate PNF.

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

Agreed. And both Ben and MIng have a full plate with their work for the DAO. Having worked with Ming on hashing out structures for the Regional Hub and Ambassadors program, I know first hand how much work and dedication he brings to the table.

[JackALaing (Jack Laing)]

Thanks everyone for all your feedback in this thread and the others we have posted to the Foundation category.

Per Dermot’s message above, this budget has now been approved due to the absence of any challenges.

Moving forward, you will be able to monitor our spending through our quarterly financial transparency reports, the first one coming in April.

@JackALaing

4.42 Financial transparency reports should be published quarterly by way of DAO Notice within the first 4 weeks following the end of the previous quarter. These should include management accounts showing actual spending vs the budget, an updated balance sheet, and cash flow forecast.

[RayBorg (Ray)]

After watching the BanklessDAO episode, I tend to believe that PNF personnel costs has to go down much further. As an example, Jack just got out of the college and Pocket is his first DAO and probably his first job, and PNF is hiring him straight as a Director for $150k USD per year without any practical experience, purely the theoretical knowledge from the business school? Can we get more clarification on that matter? Something doesn’t add up here tbh.

[Caesar]

Breaking my pledge to @JackALaing to not poke my nose on this thread anymore, sorry!

Hi @RayBorg , nice to forum-meet

Feel like sharing my thoughts . “Of course here he goes again,” few would sigh!

Warning- could be verbose with a lot of trivia.

@RayBorg , you raise an important point and I would be honest that this crossed my mind too until very recently.

Then I told myself- Caesar, pay attention to the details and the nuances instead of finding answers through heuristics.

A) Oxford isn’t just any college and Masters in Econ/Management (Hons) at Oxford isn’t just any course. Been through the hoops of applying to top Unis (not Oxford), and therefore I personally have a lot of respect for such credentials. We need more Oxbridges and Ivy leagues in this space. Thankfully the blockchain associations of the top unis are already doing a lot of amazing work.

B) Writing a DAO thesis at Oxford and being dedicated to the DAO/blockchain space since 2017 qualifies someone as a DAO OG.

C) 4 years at Pocket, at leadership positions, leading the DAO initiative and spearheading PNF makes someone a Pocket OG. I fully support the creation of PNF!

Therefore academics and subject-matter expertise are unmatched I believe.

D) But what about age/years of experience ser? Tech has always been young, web3/crypto is even younger. The relative compensations elsewhere are available if we want to dig. DAOs are the next big thing and we have to value and fairly compensate DAO talent, including at leadership levels. Otherwise retention in the next bull run will be a challenge.

New skills are acquired fast by smart people. And there is a support system around. Key decision-making is not centred around any one individual.

I am still stunned by the level of transparency in this space, and that we even get to question people’s salaries. The access and the hospitality that Web3/crypto offers to anyone who wants to engage is still mind-boggling to me.

PNF has just started and ad hominem attacks probably won’t help any of us in anyway. Imagine getting attacked instead of being celebrated after being on Bankless DAO! I mean how would going on the next one feel to the individual? Maybe I am being over sensitive here.

There is a provision to remove PNF Directors in the PNF governance doc. If and when the community feels that they are inadequate, they can be voted out.

Until then I would give PNF and its leadership a fair chance and then hold them accountable.

So far I am impressed by the direction that they have taken.

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

Agreed completely. The characterization of “fresh out of college” is disconnected from the history.