Thanks Ben for revising DIP-32 to clarify the definition of Core Contributors and the selection process. That part of the proposal is now clearer and no longer raises the same governance concerns.
However, the committee member compensation remains untouched - despite repeated feedback highlighting that it is completely out of line with the workload and expectations, especially for the Grants Committee. The level of compensation offered is not sustainable for anyone operating in a professional capacity, nor does it reflect the value that contributors bring to the DAO.
For that reason, I will be stepping down from both of my roles - as a Verified Operator Committee member and as a Grants Committee member - effective immediately once DIP-32 passes.
Just read the amendment, really clears up a lot around the Core Contributor role and how DAO governance fits in. Good to see more structure and clarity.
The atmosphere and enthusiasm of the DAO community are excellent. It’s a positive, healthy space where everyone shares their opinions despite differing viewpoints. Ben, thank you for your crucial role in bridging gaps. Your clear and structured responses to our comments are invaluable.
The working group wants to announce one more update on the intense discussions regarding committee compensation and note the following:
An all-hands call among the current core contributors, the SSV Foundation, and SSV Labs took place on Monday, 26th, to hear some more opinions on the matter. It was imminent that there would be little support for changes in compensation due to the following reasons:
The DAO is in a transition period, and working on future mandates is an intense task and, if successful, will shortly lead to increased workloads.
Reinforced commitments for dedicated initiatives led and started by current committee members, mostly around the future mandates of the VOC, more support for public operators (verified and non-verified), and improved operator markets (fees, …).
It was agreed that under this outlook, the DAO should carefully observe the performance of the committees and revisit compensation once future mandates materialize in the next few weeks.
Last but not least, the attending people agreed to put emphasis on the following throughout the process of the above:
Clearly define the DAO’s identity, purpose, mission, and ensure alignment with Ethereum’s core values, actively supporting smaller stakeholders.
Empower community members to confidently transition from idea to proposal, ensuring all voices are heard through an accessible governance model.
Revitalize the public operators marketplace, fostering sustainable business models that are supported by the protocol.
Therefore, the change in compensation for existing committee members was removed from DIP-32. Removing compensation for the SSV Labs seat is still in effect so that the overall budget will be slightly reduced.
DIP-32 will finally go for a snapshot vote on the 28th of May, EOB (UTC).
Thanks, Ben, for taking the time to listen to the community and incorporate feedback into the revised DIP-32. I appreciate the decision to retain the current compensation model and the constructive outcome of the all-hands discussion.
Under these conditions, I’m willing to stay on and would like to formally withdraw my intention to step down once DIP-32 passes.
Looking forward to continuing the work, especially around improving the operator marketplace and helping shape a sustainable path forward for public operators.
The following policy addition to the core contributor selection process has been added in agreement with the affected parties, and is as follows:
Persons associated with development teams who work for the ssv.network DAO, such as SigmaPrime and SSV Labs, cannot be awarded the DAO Core Contributors role.
Therefore, the list of suggested core contributors has also been updated, and affected individuals have been removed from the list.
There have been some suggestions for improvements to the SSV Foundation’s transparency report and the governance process surrounding it.
The working group believes it is worth exploring these ideas and keeping DIP-32 on the forum for a bit longer. We’ll update the timeline as soon as new information is available.
The working group has elaborated on the plans for an extended transparency policy for the SSV Foundation, and work is in progress.
However, the working group proposed to remove this part from DIP-32 and bundle it with another future proposal or present it as a dedicated proposal, as modeling the details will take some more time, and DIP-32 shouldn’t be blocked.
Therefore, DIP-32 will go to snapshot vote without the Foundation transparency policy, and the proposal has been adjusted accordingly; the work on the transparency policy will continue independently with high priority.
The working group has evaluated the budget requirements for the SSV Grants program once more and requires additional data to propose an adequate budget cut, if any. Furthermore, the grants committee has started working on the next wave of grants.
Once that data is available, the budget will be revised in a separate proposal if applicable. For now, the section below has been removed from DIP-32 and shall be revised later.
Budget
[DIP-26] outlined Projected Annual Expenses and Projected Monthly Expenses. These projections were based on projected expenses for the DAO in [DIP-26]. In light of difficult market conditions, the DAO proposes that some of these expenses be removed:
The total grants budget is hereby reduced to $500,000 (from $1,000,000) for 2025.
