Is oDAO Fatigue an Issue?

Governance
1

oDAO Issues

In the course of daily life, while minding my own business, I came across one of the people responsible for maintaining an oDAO node.

In their opinion, oDAO morale was quite low in the sense that several of those on the DAO no longer feel the work is worth the pay. There is still love for Rocket Pool, but it takes work to run an archive node and perform duties and, over time, it can get tedious.

There was concern that it might not be too far in the future where rewards are not calculated in a timely fashion as disinterest sets in.

I am not advocating for anything at this moment, but I do see that many oDAO were brought in with a scale of payment that has since been greatly reduced and now might feel stuck. Not wanting to bail on Rocket Pool, but not feeling it is worth the effort.

Before mobbing out on anyone (no offense), please reflect on this. And on the future, near and far, of the oDAO.

  1. Are there ways to lesson the burden?
  2. Is Infura archive data possible?
  3. Should oDAO pay be increased?
  4. Should oDAO be given bonuses for performance?

Please don’t flog the messenger (too much).

This is just the introduction of a discussion that will take a while to sort out and evaluate how true it is, but it is better to stay atop such potential issues.

8 Likes
2

Thanks for posting this—it completely reflects my point of view. Unfortunately, we’ve reached a point where people are afraid to even talk about the ODAO pay, as it usually leads to drama.

3 Likes
4

Do you have a solution in mind? The simplest version of this would be to just bump the oDAO inflation share back up, of course. Then the only question is by how much. An alternative would be to set up a different payment structure so we don’t have to denominate in RPL. Either way, some suggestions or ideas you’d be happy with would be nice.

1 Like
5

Personally, I wouldn’t mind a small increase to oDAO (reminder, I am not on the oDAO). I hope I’m not thrashed for that opinion, lol. It would end up coming out of the treasury, ultimately, so the absolute RPL value to IMC and GMC would be the same (can’t decrease NO rewards, imo).

One thing I want to avoid that I heard spoke of once in the past is having pDAO/GMC etc. provide any type of reward or compensation directly to the oDAO. I don’t think we want pDAO to have even any pretense of “directly employing” oDAO, even though pDAO does ultimately vote on the splits.

If my numbers are correct, the last rewards cycle of 2024 had 77888 RPL of inflation that went as follows:

77888 RPL → 
			54522 RPL	pDAO Node Operators 
			1168 RPL	oDAO Rewards 
			22198 RPL	pDAO Admin →
							11068 RPL	IMC 
							4563 RPL	GMC 
							6567 RPL	Treasury

Reminder, 70% goes to the pDAO NOs, 1.5% to the oDAO, 28.5% to pDAO administration. The pDAO admin percentage is further split into 50% for the IMC, 20.5% for the GMC and 29.5% for the treasury.

If you went:
70% NO
3% oDAO
27% pDAO
then

77888 RPL → 
			54522 RPL	pDAO Node Operators 
			2336   RPL	oDAO Rewards 
			21030 RPL	pDAO Admin →
							11068 RPL	IMC 
							4563 RPL	GMC 
							5399 RPL	Treasury

That would keep IMC/GMC the same with new splits:
IMC 52.6%
GMC 21.7%
Treasury 25.7%

This doesn’t take into account a potential shift from treasury to GMC that is also being discussed in another forum post: Revised GMC Split Proposal

The oDAO could further choose to not vote in new members, thus keeping a larger share each of the rewards (which I believe is already the case with Yorick and Blockchain Capital? recently leaving).

1 Like
6

I’m generically supportive of increasing oDAO pay a bit – it’s currently lower than makes sense for the role. That said, I think we might need to shift angles to get a long-term solution.

There have previously been suggestions around a USD-like component, or an ETH-like component. My favorite version was to have the proportion scale sublinearly and slowly. So something like “for every 2x change in price, rewards change 1.5x to compensate”, using a long average to get “price” (eg 90 day simple moving average).

Another possibility could be to split out the gas cost. Eg, change the split to 1%, plus a quarterly GMC retro that covers “gas for 13 seats” (that doesn’t sound too tough to track in Dune, eg) (would need to increase GMC cut to account for this ofc).

7

I wouldn’t be against scaling down with increasing RPL value. Mostly, to me, it’d be about how hard it is to implement and who would implement it.

Generally, I feel like all RP boats should rise and sink with RPL value equally and if we slow-cap oDAO gains, we might also need to consider a minimum eth-like value for if RPL goes even further down (i.e., if oDAO doesn’t get all the reward, they shouldn’t take all the risk). Of course, a minimum could get us in trouble if RPL really, really drops.