Most of the ideas you’ve outlined here are ideas we’ve already adopted. I encourage you to review PIP-26 again.
Regarding b, c, and i, see PNF’s Operating Philosophy.
Regarding g (large expenses), see “Add consent-based approval for special transactions”, which includes large transactions.
Regarding h (quarterly reviews), see “Require the directors to publish quarterly remuneration figures”.
Regarding the “part-timer with salary” point, putting aside the fact that it’s not unusual for part-time workers to be paid a pro-rated salary based on their expected hours worked, let’s not get fixated on the language of “salary”.
The fact of the matter is that this is an annualized budget. The processes as outlined in PIP-26 require that we publish an annualized “do-not-exceed” budget. If certain directors are not working full-time (and, by the way, 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), this does not mean we should pay them nothing. We should pay them for the work they are performing. That is what we have outlined here on an annualized basis. Whether we call it a “salary” is irrelevant.
If a community member still takes issue with this, or questions the need for directors at all (ergo questioning the need for PNF itself), I would question whether they actually understand how this structure has been set up from day one and I would encourage them to read PIP-26.
I understand this. But that just happened. And Dermont and Nelson have back pay.
Something like
Jack $120k
Dermont $90k
Nelson? - $40k
b3n - $40k. - Is b3n a PNI employee or a PNF cotractor? How is b3n not a director? $70-$80k if he is a director.
I’d replace Nelson with b3n or Cryptocorn.
Follow the stats guys.
•github commits
•proposals passed
•hours read
•posts created
•many more
Last year was a disaster for PNF. You guys are capable but you’re gonna have to prove yourself.
The new PNF team will not be evaluated based on 2022. The whole point of PIP-26 is we are overhauling PNF. I think that speaks for itself.
Ben is a PNF contractor. He is not a director. You keep throwing out suggestions for directors without understanding the director’s role. Ben’s unique talents would be wasted if he has to spend a portion of his time on director’s duties. Speaking of which, take a look at his resume; $40k is a frankly insulting suggestion and discredits your whole message. You may as well tell him the DAO doesn’t need his services.
Which is it? You’re contradicting yourself.
yea, so make him a director and pay him $90k or $100k.
please oh please tell me why nelson should get $75k?
I don’t think you have any idea on the state of the market.
Why would you guys even think about getting salaries when LeanPOKT, Geo-Mesh, and Inflation Reduction have only been paid out 300k $Pokt total?
Maybe y’all should be writing and passing proposals for the community.
You make your decisions, I’ll be around.
PNF shouldn’t be managing development work. They should be following the githubs commits of the most valuable members of our community…and getting them paid! On time!
Kick out Nelson and b3n. Put @Cryptocorn instead. I hope Cryptocorn wants it. POKT needs you man, more than ever. We can trust you, not these guys.
Let’s all go back to Gambos post here too. This is actually the best point.
Then just have 2 directors.
Get the documentation situated and the google sheets.
b3n can help with process and order of operations + writing
ming can be the voice of the pocket network community.
and I can help with design + front-end work.
the 4 of you should help with writing and getting proposals passed.
and everyone of us in the community can help with marketing.
It’s been a long road to get to the place where PNF is well established as a separate and neutral entity capable of being the custodians of the DAO. I think this budget, and the explanations laid out for it, are a good starting point for measuring the effectiveness of both the DAO and Foundation in the coming year.
I agree that last year should not be the measure by which this year is strategized. Nelson and Dermot showed up on many proposals and provided strong insight and reasoning, but Stephane was a no show. There was little understanding of the role of the Foundation, or its contributions to the system.
That being said, this year, we have a need for strong accountability with complete transparency, and a clear vision of how PNF can support the DAO in community building initiatives, and driving the protocol forward.
I have a lot of confidence in this Foundation team to serve that mission.
Lots of back and forth on this topic, which is a good thing. Lots to digest and great points being made.
While many are still stewing on this convo, I feel that right when I’m tracking an argument, I get hit with a curve ball. It throws me off because it’s genuinely confusing.
What I’m referring to is the argument that has been made now in multiple threads that the LeanPOKT and Geo-mesh contributors are “not beening paid” (though the Inflation Reduction contributors are now in the mix as well). This is confusing because being paid does requires a proposal to the DAO, and proposals are the responsibility of the contributors. I keep seeing comments about how since LeanPOKT, geo-mesh and now Inflation Reduction teams haven’t submitted proposals, then that should effect a PNI proposal or this PNF proposal. I’m honestly not sure how many more future proposals this comment is going to pop up, but it makes these threads very confusing.
Funding from the DAO needs a proposal, and there is no way around that in our current system. I don’t believe we want a two tier system where some folks get paid without a proposal /vote, and others are required to submit a proposal. If we do want a two tier system, than that needs to be worked out and submitted to the DAO for a vote.
–
Thunderhead and POKTFund (@addison @pierre @poktblade @Poktdachi) Do you plan on submitting a proposal for funding of the LeanPOKT client contributions? If so, do you have a time frame?
–
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?
–
Inflation Reduction Team (@msa6867 @Cryptocorn ) Do you plan on submitting a proposal for funding of the R&D contributions? Currently their project is still on going (from my understanding) so I wouldn’t want them to have to settle on a timeline… unless they want to.
–
I think if we can get answers from these teams, that will put everyone’s questioning to rest. We don’t want to get to a place where we blame other entities for contributors not having proposals yet. I know for myself, and from literally everyone I’ve seen, we want proposals to fund these contributions.
P.S. It’s been mentioned in the case of LeanPOKT’s first proposal, since it was voted down, Pocket won’t pay them. This is a misunderstanding. There were valid concerns that community members (including myself) brought up (which I gave a TLDR in another thread). Having a first draft of a proposal rejected is just part of the process. I personally have withdrawn a funding proposal that had criticism, went to the drawing board, created the Proposal Value Model, and resubmitted. The Proposal Value Model has been used now with several proposals (including your’s @ethen 
), so a proposal that had critics can turn out to be a net positive if feedback is embraced and teams don’t give up. For those on the edge of their seats, I did create a new proposal that did not receive the same criticism and it passed! I am not alone, as POKTFund has also experienced that same thing in the past and succeeded as well. Needing to iterate on proposals is just a part of DAO governance.
Also, love the work! Great design!
Always love your comments Shane. They bring much clarity.
My point of continuing to bring that up is I personally don’t feel comfortable moving on as a project if we aren’t paying our most valuable contributors.
PNI has put up a proposal to get 45m from the DAO, on top of a lotta other monies/tokens. And now PNF is putting up a budget for 2023, again…asking for monies/tokens.
Inflation Reduction is kinda the same but not really as LP and GM as that team is very active in the forum. They are always working on it, as they should be. Whereas LP and GM did the work, and things went relatively quiet. We need to payout faster.
Geo-Mesh hasn’t submitted yet. And likely PoktBlade and crew and Thunderhead now have a sour taste in their mouth.
I understand the point of people and projects submitting their own proposals. But when proposals come up from teams that PNF is supposed to represent and go to bat for, then they should step up and make it happen. That’s what we pay them for…to be a neutral party representing the best interests of the community.
Thank you for the compliment. Will pass it along to Ritesh.
Thanks @JackALaing
PNF shared the budget and asked for inputs from the community.
There will be difficult questions raised, sensible/nonsensical, there will be allegations made, many could be baseless, and more.
The community will not stick to the easy and the legit ones alone.
PNF/yourself will always be raised to higher standards being the DAO custodian (lack of a better term)
Fortunately or unfortunately, that’s how it will always work in our open system. You know this better than I do.
If I were you, I wouldn’t be assuming that those engaging here haven’t read PIP 26 and/or are somehow ignorant. I personally didn’t in the past (which I said openly) but now I do.
Treat my list above as a humble reminder, maybe there are screws to be tightened on a few as far as compliance goes. A rule book is just a rule book unless compliant. And there will always be some opportunity somewhere, and that’s fine.
I leave that to your capable hands to judge and act (if needed).
This is going to be my last post on this thread, and as usual I am not anywhere to witch hunt and/or conspire. I am just being Caesar.
Several people have reached out to me for my thoughts and overview on PNF + their budget, so i’ll try to add my thoughts, questions, criticisms and suggested paths forward:
Getting my personal stuff out the way first:
A few mentions that I should be part of PNF: I am very flattered that anyone would think that I should be apart of such an important organisation in our Ecosystem. I do have a full time job at poktpool where I am rather happy, but I wouldn’t be against some kind of minor part time role, for another discussion and I’m conscious of any potential Conflict of Interest between my job and any work for PNF.
looking at these salaries, Jeebus, I should have asked for more from the last year’s work for Pocket in PEP-51. 
OK, getting into the actual meat of this:
Things I do not have concerns with:
Salaries + compensation seem to be about $135k - $180k or so for FT. Maybe a tad high given current market, but overall in the bounds of reason, and I would be the first to agree that Ming, Jack and B3N do great work. (I haven’t had the chance to interact with the others over the last year). I don’t have any issue here.
Paying pro-rata. If a reasonably accurate measuring of time can be transparently demonstrated. I’ll expand later on.
Having enough budget that community proposals do not have to wind through PEPs seems sensible.
“The new PNF team will not be evaluated based on 2022.” The new team should not be held to account for past mistakes. The old team should be.
‘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.’ - this was a early concern of mine, but I now understand that Eden only own $POKT tokens, and no equity in PNI, and so there is no incentive for PNF members to route work to PNI over any other service. Please correct me If I am wrong, otherwise I hope this concern from the wider community is put to bed.
What I have varying degrees of concern with:
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.
PNF document uses both $0.06 + $0.07 figures for POKT, it would be good to use a single figure.
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).
What is a billable hour? While I have nothing but praise for those in the PNF I have interacted with, and don’t want to start with far flung ‘what-about-isms’ and mendacious attacks on personal character, I’d like to see focus on exchange integration, community building and any help to Demand.
I don’t think it is ‘unreasonable’ to voice concern that PNF has potential to be the modern day equivalent of DAO Bros sitting in winged-back red leather chairs smoking cigars, sipping aged whisky while charging the PNF/DAO (2024,) to pontificate on the nature of 'The DAO. ’
There seemed to be no oversight of 2022, and while the 2023 team is clearly very cognizant of that and I don’t believe mistakes will be remade, credible oversight is important. 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.
Leading on from 8, 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. Of only 5 employees and 3 directors, this does seem rather ‘cozy’.
Further leading on from 8- It feels with the Pocket DNA project that we are in a case of ‘fund us first, then we’ll work out what we are going to do’. I appreciate that there are some guidelines, and i’m somewhat exaggerating the point, but this seems a little ephemeral and I generally agree with Zataar’s point made in other posts that i’d like to see more structure first before funds are offered.
Who the heck was/is Stephane? I’ve been in this community for over a year and never even heard that name before - and looking @ethen 's screenshots of time committed, their laconic approach to Pocket is yet another addition to the worryingly long list of poor hires with no accountability. I don’t want to go off topic and Jinx is correct that we shouldn’t use proposals (although this is technically an update?) to push old grievances, attack the team for passed mistakes or use 20/20 hindsight to demonish the team while attempting to look as perspicacious as possible.
I make point 12 because it adds gravitas to the question of what responsibility do those in charge in 2022 hold? I am against a witch hunt and trying to find people to blame for the sake of it (see my vocal support of PEP-49), but I’m not sure the pendulum should swing too far the other to completely zero responsibility. Respectfully as possible: If Nelson was working at the PNF (and is claiming a 5 figure salary for doing so during that time), at what point did he realise that Stephane was unfit to be a director? Why was this issue not acted on? With a salary comes a responsibility.
I see that at least Dermot is a DAO voter if not others PNF members (Ming also). 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?
PNF does important work for our community and I support them being adequately funded and staffed. I meant no ad hominem attacks against any members, and apologise in advance if any questions or criticisms came across as aggressive or attacking - the PNF members i’ve worked with in the past are the apotheosis of our community. 
Haven’t had time to dig into this Budget and Accounts thread yet but did want to answer @shane 's question. @Cryptocorn has a modest funding request he recently posted (PEP-51) and I will likely follow suite sometime next month once the dust settles on SER. I have no insight re the other teams you call out but certain hope they will post PEPs as well. I agree with your overall point that arguments along the lines of “X not getting paid” don’t help move the dialogue forward in a meaningful manner.
So, for me… this proposal comes down to the facts I know to be true.
For me, Nelson and Dermot are the real deal. For me, this is a fact because I have seen them, all over the world, shilling POKT. I’ve only known them while inside of POKT, and I’ve only know them to be all about POKT. I went to a number of crypto events, around the world, as a Biz Dev rep for PNI, and everywhere I went, they were there, repping POKT. They have traveled the world, on their own, without any forced obligation to rep POKT because that’s what they were about. Even though PNF was structured as a mere tool to do the legal wishes of the DAO (like rep POKT for exchanges, which was voted on by the DAO), Nelson and Dermot were POKT heads on their own time and dime, which I’m ok with them getting reimbursed for. Many of you may not have met them in person before, but I can’t un-see their POKT passion and good looks.
While I do understand that on paper someone can imagine a nefarious scenario, to me that is not the case. Having two directors with different professional backgrounds that have a history of working together and shilling POKT together isn’t a weakness. I’ve been in convos in person regarding topics like the DAO and they each had their own individual thoughts. We want PNF directors that have their thoughts, but are able to work together, so I don’t see this as a weakness. Again, this is just what I’ve personally experienced. I hold what I’ve witnessed in person to a very high regard, and you all should too 
I’ve been with POKT since 2018 and have seen it try something, fail, and pivot to find it’s footing. Did most of you know that POKT has had multiple white papers? The team first tried to make POKT as a smart-contract, when they realize that the smart contract would be too large and require too much computation fees to handle millions and billions of relays, they switched to their own chain. They created their first white-paper, which is what I read first before joining their Slack (Yes, POKT was first born on Slack). Well, by the time the MVP rolled out in mid 2019 (any Monster Chase fans still out there) they realized their white-paper wasn’t going to cut it, so they wrote a whole new white paper. This time it was way better… mainly because they included my client-side verification suggestion 
Should we have fired the team, and replaced leadership when they realized their smart-contract efforts were in vain? Or after they spent all this time on the first white-paper that created an unusable MVP? Or when we realized v0 won’t do everything POKT has grown to need, so they stared on a v1? Or how about now with realizing they grew too fast and needed to downsize and reorganize PNF in a transparent manner?
For most POKT contributors that have been around, there is a past that folks can point to where there had to be pivots because of mistakes, a lack of knowledge, or sometime just bad luck. I personally have seen the humility, honesty, integrity, and now… very open transparency, which is why I’m for the PNI pivot and the PNF pivot, without casting stones. The DAO should expect accountability in this new chapter and it would be prudent for the DAO to stay vigilant, which these conversations have shown, but I would rather work with folks who have wrestled with challenges and learned from their past, than someone with a blank slate.
TLDR: Nelson and Dermot are the real deal from what I’ve seen. Call me bias because I experienced them in the crypto wild… but I want to give them a chance with an org that now has teeth because from what I’ve seen, they are all in, and have a savvy professional record. I don’t however want folks to paint contributor’s character with heavy handed speculation. If folks where heavy handed on my character based on high levels of conjecture, I hope those I’ve worked with would speak up.
P.S. Michael is the real deal as well. I can’t un-see what I’ve experienced with him as well. You don’t see orgs publicly pivot with the kind of humility everyday. That is a characteristic we do not want POKT to lose.
Just a thought around directors compensation. Maybe we should look at doing a one year contract with a 90 trial period with a vote on continuing the one year contract after the 90 day period. This would allow the directors to prove their worth and allow the community to asses that appropriately.
Hi @Cryptocorn
thanks for your helpful input, as always
Picking up on some direct points so that I can clarify any confusion:
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.
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.
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.
There are a couple of things to unpack here. Firstly, as Jack kindly mentioned above:
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.
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.
Two things here:
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.
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:
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.
The DAO has the right to propose the removal of any director at any time, so there is no need to include an additional provision anywhere. If you’re unhappy with our performance, please feel free to propose our removal.
The DAO voted us in less than 3 weeks ago on the 11th of Jan, but none of us expects to be kept on if we aren’t delivering. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.
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):
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.
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
