SuperUMAn KPI Options Proposal

UMA Protocol Funding Proposals
1

Name of Project:
SuperUMAn DAO
Proposer: `Risk Labs

Proposal Summary
60k $UMA would be sent to a Adminstrative Multisig to collateralise 60k KPI options for distribution to SuperUMAn DAO members and the SuperUMAn treasury.

Project Description

Introduction
The feedback received from UMA tokenholders in response to the SuperUMAn funding proposal put forward to the UMA DAO, prompted the proposal to be withdrawn and reconsidered. Reflections within Risk Labs have identified some flaws in the initial approach particularly with regard to the need for additional support for the DAO to structure incentivisation targets and distribution. In particular this responsibility has led to an element of decision paralysis which has absorbed time and attention from the mission of the DAO.

This proposal is designed to remove this burden from the SuperUMAn DAO by providing DAO members with guaranteed economic incentives through a KPI option with an expiry of 3 months, based on the total value locked in Outcome contracts, collateralised with 60k in UMA to mint 60k KPI options (SU1_KPI), expiring on 30th September 2022.

Option Parameterisation

  • The total number of KPI options minted would be 60,000
  • Each option is collateralised with 1 $UMA.
  • The options will expire on 30th September 2022.
  • The value of the option is determined by the total value locked in Outcome Contracts
  • The options will expire to full value at 10,000 ETH locked.

Distribution
Distribution of resources has also proved a challenge for the SuperUMAn DAO. This proposal recommends that the funds are sent to an administrative wallet held by Risk Labs, to mint the options.

The initial distribution of options would be conducted through SuperUMAn team-based co-ordinape rounds, with each of the 9 teams allocated 5,000 KPI options for distribution to team members. All members of the SuperUMAn DAO who hold SuperUMAn or UMAster NFTs (*) would be entitled to participate as givers in the 9 co-ordinape rounds, and all members who are part of the relevant team entitled to be recipients. The SuperUMAn DAO treasury would also be a recipient in each team round.

One these rounds are complete, the results will be collated and the KPI options will be dispersed from the Risk Labs Multisig in the relevant proportions to each DAO member and the DAO treasury.The remaining 15,000 options would be sent to the SuperUMAn DAO treasury.

This distribution would be completed by 30th June 2022.

At the time of expiry, the administrative wallet will redeem the short tokens and return any remaining collateral to the UMA DAO treasury.

Value Add
The SuperUMAns have proven to be a critical element of the UMA eco-system, both in building partner relationships and establishing their autonomy through setting up an independent DAO. The dual tasks of establishing a DAO as well as fulfilling their mission “to communicate the true power of universal access to markets and its benefits to the world” has proven challenging.

This proposal adds value to the UMA DAO by supporting the SuperUMAn DAO members as the DAO grows in function, form and membership, by taking on the responsibility of incentive design and allocation.

Deliverables
The key deliverable is total value locked in Outcome Contracts with a goal of 10k eth locked by 30th September 2022.

Total Budget Requested
The budget requested is 60,000 $UMA sent to an administrative multisig at the address below to be used as collateral when minting the KPI options.

0x049355e4380f8DB88Cb8a6ec0426B1a1A3560c67

Team
An advisory committee will be established to support the SuperUMAn DAO maximise the value of these options for its members.

Additional Information
The SuperUMAn programme was built on the back of UMA’s KPI options which provides a powerful incentive for community co-ordination toward a collective goal.

This proposal is in the spirit of “RiskLabs Vision for the UMA DAO”, which Risk Labs will continue to promote, including bringing forward future funding proposals to support the SuperUMAn DAO as they mature into a fully decentralised autonomous organisation.

*edited on 18/5/22 to add “who hold SuperUMAn or UMAster NFTs” in response to feedback from SuperUMAn DAO members.

  • For
  • Against

0 voters

3 Likes
2

Hey Mhairi, thank you for putting this proposal together and everyone else involved. As a SuperUMAn, I’m excited about this!

I have a couple of questions that I’d like to get clarity on.

  1. What is the linear scale for the KPI Options value? 1 ETH = 0.0001 UMA or an higher value like (100 ETH = 0.01 UMA) so it’s easier to calculate the expiry value.

  2. Is this the TVL at the time of expiry?

  3. There are currently expired contracts on UMAverse, would those count?

  4. Some of these were funded by $UMA DAO, so would they not count?

  5. I believe the only API we have to get the TVL includes expired contract, so if they aren’t going to count, how would we calculate the TVL?

  6. If expired contract do not count, what of new contracts that expire before 30th September 2022, why shouldn’t they count since they were originally TVL?

  7. Are recruits included in the DAO members (they hold NFTs) allowed to participate as givers in the co-ordinape rounds?

Posting as a SU DAO member

1 Like
3

Hey Henry,

Thanks for these questions, Here are my initial responses,

  1. The scale is fully linear from 0 to 10K, so if 1,234 Eth is locked, each option will expire to 0.1234 UMA.

  2. Yes. The TVL locked in live outcome identified contracts at the time of expiry.

  3. Expired contracts would not count, only live contracts.

  4. No, as they are expired. The SU1_KPI option itself would also not count.

  5. It can be calculated on a contract by contract basis, however we’d hope to impliment something that would make this metric more visible.

  6. No, these would not count, only live contracts would count.

  7. Yes, recruits are included as givers in all rounds.

4

Thanks Mhairi.

  1. Thanks for clarifying.

  2. Thanks, will refer to this in #5

  3. If the SuperUMAns were to get a big integration, let’s say with 10M$ worth of collateral, and it expired 1hr before the time of expiry. I do not see this approach as positive because it would mean the 10M$ wouldn’t count at expiry.

  4. Thanks!

  5. I’d suggest that we take this approach and exclude $UMA DAO funded contracts (but include expired contracts).

  6. #5

  7. Alrighty!

5

The use of coordinape could make distributions easier and more transparent. Currently the proposal suggests circles formed around each team, and that is perfectly fine. Given the currently limited size of SDAO membership - I am aware there are plans to create a new tier of recruits and that may change things and needs to be addressed once it takes off - one could also imagine only one circle for the current SDAO tier, given that many members work across different groups anyway. This would be simpler to set up and administer for now. One can delineate further later if it gets too crowded or it proves impractical.

6

Note that the proposal has been slightly ammended in response to feedback from members of the SuperUMAn DAO to restrict the distribution of options through coordinape to members who hold superUMAn or UMAster NFTs.

2 Likes
7

Hey @Mhairi. Thank you for putting up this proposal.

As per the proposal, the KPI options are planned to be disbursed through the coordinape voting. Considering the no of members for each team, this would entail a greater payout for teams with lesser members which is not a healthy outcome IMO. Additionally, I feel the ambassador team should be additionally compensated given that the outcome of the options would be directly dependent on the efforts of the ambassador team. This in no way undermines the efforts put in by other teams or DAO members but is primarily directed to encourage and motivate members towards achieving the desired goal.

I feel the mechanics of distribution of the KPI options could be managed by the SU DAO rather than RL as SUs would have a better understanding of the work put in by the DAO members. These options at expiry can be sent to SU DAO treasury from RL multi-sig and from there to the DAO members.

It could go as per the DAOs formal governance process.

8

I would second the various SU DAO membership comments here and strongly suggest that:

  1. SU DAO to decide the distribution to all of its members rather than forming coordinape circles and deciding a currently equal allocation per team. There are members who are in multiple teams - does this mean that this demographic gets multiple tranches of KPI options?

  2. Ambassadors should get a larger proportion of KPI tokens as they are more critical to the outcomes of the KPIs set by Risk Labs, at this juncture.

1 Like
9

I would ask that the 9 team distribution be written as TBD.

We cannot be certain that 9 teams will exist at the end of the 3 month period.
With sub-par numbers showing up for calls, it has been difficult to determine a plan of attack that enables the SU DAO to focus directly on maximizing the outcome of 10,000 ETH, which is over $20,000,000 USD, right now to be locked in the predetermined contracts.

As a strong believer and being heavily invested in Cryptocurrency markets, ETH isn’t going to sit at $2,000. With that number where it sits now and rising, it would only make sense to do away with unnecessary teams that have little or no impact on achieving such a high number of TVL.

Our community call was postponed due to supporting the Across V2 announcement and we have had discussions with the members who have shown up to calls and are making great efforts to have a better member turn out May 25th for the SU community call where hopefully members who received the announcement, including said topic, have had ample time to make an informed decision regarding the most logical way to strategically move forward with maximum potential to hit 10,000 ETH in TVL.

Deadcoin#0901

1 Like
10

The final results on the snapshot vote for this proposal were

  • For - 5.8M UMA (100%)
  • Against - 0 UMA (0%)
  • Quorum - 5.8M / 3.3M

This proposal will now go forward for an onchain vote

11

Hey Mhairi, I believe you’ve accidentally interchanged the votes here in the text.

12

Thanks @PennyPanda good catch - have edited to fix,