Fee sharing distribution and Performance fee update

[Teo]

We need to start clearing out the difference between genuine and constructive critiques and shitposting.

Calling a proposal bullshit and Leagues members lazy or assessing that everything we say is a lie is not attacking? Saying “devs now run all decisions” (like, dev are just there for shipping and answering to “when is the next upgrade?”, “what is being built next?”, “give us an update!” no?), is not an attack/disrespect?

We have three options available, the three C’s: you can collaborate, you can compete, or you can complain. Only the first two of those options are meaningful in any way.

Less insults, and more concrete alternative proposals or specific input please. Toxicity isn’t going to get you the results you want.

Regarding the points that have been raised:

---

@Junglekai

I can only encourage you to at least try listen to someone else for a while and at least try something different to your previous train of thought

The governance forum has been open to anyone since the beginning of the DAO, although I haven’t seen a single proposal coming out regarding the “different things” that you mentioned. If you have other references, please share them, but I don’t see any post in this forum linking to these “effective plans”. Happy to be proved wrong.

---

@Coinballers

The primary issue here is that the token value has been in terminal decline the whole way through the bull market and as such there is inadequate treasury funds to provide a runway during the bear.

Have you thought that giving out 50% of DAO revenues to stakers at a very early stage of the DAO instead of investing in growing the Leagues (which is in part going to marketing budget) could be the issue? Probably the best way to build runway during bull market was to retain all the performance fees in the DAO treasury.

---

@Coinballers

Instead of engaging to build the community the team hide on Discord, dismissing a large proportion of the audience that could create healthy price action, bring liquidity and stimulate demand for Idle.

Discord is open, and everybody can join; I don’t see anyone hiding. And the last sentence is peculiar, “stimulate demand for Idle” – that’s the only thing that matters for you? more people buying, that’s it.

We are building structured DeFi products, and we want to create and stimulate demand for our products. The token has been launched for governance purposes, and whatever is and will be its trajectory, it will always have this feature. The active community should be who actually want to use our products, not those who only want to use the “narrative” of our products to make money.

---

@unicorn

Ambassadors have been vocal and actively proposing solutions for more than 1 year now.
It has been a long time that the biggest hands and the most active DAO members have been united in the criticism of BS pilling up in management decisions and structure.
Stop lying. It is not going to fly on my watch.

Can you point me to a proposal in this gov forum from Ambassadors that lays out these solutions? Calling out what you think is bullshit during community calls and checking on what every Leagues member is doing is different from actively proposing solutions.

---

Again, appreciate for the structured comment with assumptions+next steps @idlehusbandry; thanks!

@idlehusbandry

More transparency regarding the various Business Development Initiatives… Are there bizdev trackers that you can make public? Do you guys document your meetings? Are you guys using any B2B CRM? These are things that any tech company uses to track and document their bizdev initiatives… not because it’s fun to document things… but because it builds accountability, and makes business continuity easy.

Like any tech company, Leagues have a B2B CRM; but like any tech company, the CRM is always changing depending on conversations with partners, changes in priorities or release schedules. It would be misleading if public. If you need to have accountability for biz dev, why not looking at the actual partnerships that come out from Idle DAO like Lido, Olympus, pNetwork, APWine, Alchemix, VeToken, GnosisDAO to mention a few (just looking at our recent Twitter feed)?

@idlehusbandry

• More transparency regarding the Development/product work… Are there product roadmaps trackers? Perhaps a Jira/Notion??? Anything that tracks the individual stories/components that are being worked on that day?

We do have a public roadmap that is available to anyone and can be discussed with the community; however, I don’t think other DAOs share granular trackers for day-to-day tasks (since, again, priorities can quickly change in growing organizations). If you look at Yearn as example, only Doers/Trusted Contributors (same as Leagues members). can access the private contributors’ task board

Either way, our Github repos are public and auditable, you can see what the Dev League is doing by just looking at the latest commits.

@idlehusbandry

Instead of “Coordinators”… have proper full-time or contract people who you track against their KPIs and fire when they underperform.

There’s no need to take centralized ownership; that’s what Coordinators will already do for Leagues members while allowing decentralized governance of the structure: setting KPIs and tracking them against the Leagues to ensure accountability without giving this burden to all the DAO. The current mandate (M2) is not finished yet, and the next report will lay out what will change for M3 in regards to the achievements.

@idlehusbandry

implement transparent workstreams, goal setting, and proper work documentation

Thanks for this feedback. Although everything about Leagues is already documented in this forum, I always strive to improve this aspect. Creating clear and connected containers for the information circulating across and around the DAO/Leagues is vital when working with decentralised decision making. Leagues are designed to evolve, upgrade and update as we continue to discover more complexities and new behaviours. Standards and procedures aren’t static.

---

@AllinCrypto

My biggest concern still, the core team has the biggest bag of tokens, so a leading vote in every proposal.

I disagree with this as it’s been established a policy for the core team at the beginning of the DAO to avoid this situation. Please check it out before getting to wrong conclusions.

---

Further than all of these considerations, this thread is clearly going outside its initial scope (“fee sharing distribution and performance fee update”).

The team has not been defensive in any way, as we have always been here (like today) to discuss the proposals and bring our thoughts to the plate. It’s an open discussion, but if Leagues members don’t share some points brought here, it doesn’t mean it’s “defensive” but rather open to talking and exposing with the tokenholders.

The only way I see this conversation moving from an endless passive-aggressive back-and-forth to an actionable state is:

1. Get this proposal to Snapshot and vote. That’s the only way for the DAO to really express, and not only rely on a demagogic attitude of “the loudest is right”. So if anybody here has other concrete options/numbers for the “fee distribution policy” (aka weights for stakers/rebalancer/treasury), feel free to share it; otherwise, we will spin off a Snapshot poll with “new weights” or “leave it as is” options.

2. Bring the Leagues feedback (accountability & others) to the “Leagues M3 post”. We always discuss achievements, priorities, goal setting, and new structures in this post every mandate, and we will be doing that for this mandate as well.