As many other delegates have already attested, we believe that the @SEEDGov team is highly competent is composed of high context members who have an intricate understanding of various DAOs’ operations. Their stewardship during this recent revival that Velora DAO has seen evidences their capacity to institute results.
In our eyes, the fixed monthly fee is on par with what we would’ve expected, taking into account the rates paid for similar roles in other DAOs, while also factoring in the current size of the ParaSwap protocol & DAO. The more difficult aspect to properly iron out is the revenue-driven compensation. This is especially the case since attribution of revenue is seldom backed by increased governance activity—although is isn’t necessarily the case. This is more so a matter of what the justification behind the rev-based compensation is. Is it present as a “reward” for increasing revenue, even if that revenue’s genesis is perhaps arbitrary or subject to multiple different variables? Or is the “reward” generally representative of scaled compensation that occurs as a business grows?
To substantiate on the latter point, think of a startup that evolves into a more established company. As the business scales, employee compensation tends to rise accordingly—not necessarily because each individual is directly responsible for the growth but because they are contributing to and sustaining a more complex, higher-output organization. Under this view, the revenue-based bonus functions less as a reward for performance and more as a structural adjustment to reflect increased demands, complexity, and risk that come with scale.
In truth, both interpretations are valid, but clarity on the intent behind the rev-share model would help better align expectations between contributors and the DAO.
| Attribution Model | Description | Recommended Compensation Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Direct Attribution | Contributor actions can be clearly linked to measurable revenue impact. | Tiered Performance Bonus (e.g. step-ladder model or rev-share uncapped with higher ceilings). Caps on this could even be removed. |
| Partial Attribution | Contributor actions may influence revenue, but impact is diffused or indirect. | Performance Bonus with Cap + KPIs – include measurable non-revenue indicators like partnerships via VGC or more delegate engagement, etc. |
| Structural Contribution | Contributor supports long-term systems, coordination, or operational scale. | Revenue-Scaled Compensation – e.g. fixed fee with inflationary buffer or capped bonus that grows with protocol scale, regardless of attribution. This is where the current proposal seems to be. |
| Speculative/Uncertain Attribution | Impact on revenue is unclear or confounded by market conditions. | Deferred or Vesting Bonus – performance bonus is deferred, vests over time, and contingent on sustained protocol performance. |
Perhaps we can base the revenue on Structural Contribution for the first six months and then reevaluate its status during an interim review. The main reason we says this is to best align Seed’s incentives with that of the protocol as a whole. And in this scenario, we believe both entites fare better.