(New Proposal): Addendums to Push DAO Council [fast-track]

Authors: @SixtyKeys @EC3

Summary of need

We need to specify what the DAO Council are compensated, how they are compensated, and how they earn that compensation. We also need to further specify what rules the council are beholden to and what happens, for example, if a member resigns.

Specification: The Details

  1. Council positions are reviewed every six months, explained further below.

  2. The Governance Lead will decide the fixed conversion rate of PUSH each quarter ($0.27), which means, for example, each rate will be effective for three months of full operations and three months of down-time(six months total). At the start right now, that means May until the end of November, 2024. The reason for the governance lead deciding is simple. He is the only one not being paid via this vote and his responsibility is, macro-level, two-fold, organizational structuring and ensuring equitable governance. Right now, council members will only be paid $3000 per month if Push is $0.27 or higher. This was already agreed upon by all council members who are proposed to be eligible for being paid.

  3. This is to give us a clear runway in terms of the budget we need to operate for the year and incentivize contributors to pursue initiatives that lead to the appreciation of the greater value of the PUSH ecosystem. We do not and cannot speak directly to the value of the token because doing so would be inadvisable both due to legal and regulatory concerns and to the fact that no one can actually promise anything related to token value.

  4. All contributors to the DAO will be paid at the same rate for the current six months This is 11,111 PUSH at $0.27 per PUSH. Council members will be paid $3000 as a maximum when the Push Price is at or above $0.27 for 3 weeks or more out of a given month. Council members will be paid a minimum of $2000 in PUSH in all other cases.

  5. The DAO Council who are not FT employees of Push Foundation will receive an equal stipend of $3000 each month if PUSH is at or above $0.27 (tied to the fixed rate of PUSH of course). This includes Carla. She is not a FT employee of the Foundation. As noted above, we need to agree on a minimum in all other cases.

  6. The DAO Council will be eligible to participate in SubDAO programs i.e they can be paid for BD or Grants subDAO related efforts when determined to be aligned with KPI related needs. They cannot request grants for projects in which they are the recipient (also they cannot review any projects which they are a part of). Changing this would result in various conflicts of interest. The Council needs to be beholden to the DAO above all else, helping to steward Push DAO and its master strategy.

  7. Payments to DAO participants will go out on the same day each month, with the exception for grantees who we aim to be paid shortly after approval.

  8. If this vote passes, it approves Sixty Keys and EC3 as the budgetary working group, cementing their responsibilities over the budget in their capacities as the Ops and Governance Leads. Practically that means that they both approve transactions made and act as part of the signers.

  9. If we don’t have compensation for the council, to put it simply, we risk spiraling voter apathy starting from the top and a misalignment of incentives throughout.

  10. If council members act against consensus in a malicious manner that can harm the community, a vote can be initiated to remove a member. This vote, however, requires a super-majority of double the council weight in PUSH. That means 1,400,000x2 in votes.

  11. Council members are reviewed for performance based on the key KPIs here, which are the master KPIs for the DAO: Increasing governance discussion, Increasing proposals made, Increasing Push DAO’s social(x) following, Increasing voting, Increasing grants given and the impact of grants on the Push ecosystem, Increasing both general community and developer numbers, and increasing DAO contributors, partnerships, and integrations with Push Protocol.

I am formally requesting a snapshot vote for the DAO to formalize this structure.

Additionally, I’m requesting the fast-track procedure be used in this instance. By definition, that can be reached with a 4/5 temperature check from @christiandike @EC3 @SixtyKeys @Carlaupgrade and @Rene.

All thoughts are welcome as always. I also propose that fast track proposals will be allowed in the simplified format above, which will become a practice if this vote passes.

Voting options will include:

FOR: Additions to Council Rules
AGAINST: Additions to Council Rules

  • Fast-track to vote
  • Do not fast-track to vote
0 voters

When and if the above proposal receives for yes’s aka “fast-track to votes” from the council, it will have passed the temperature check.


I’m totally agree, we need a decent compensation for all the DAO teammates to stay tuned and committed as a comment, we can use Superfluid or Hedgey to stream the compensation to lock the tokens and incentivate the price action and price discovery of $PUSH token, unless we are going to suffer the token stress for sell for all our delegates, and also as i mentioned before, it would be great if we can also stake our tokens to this delegates to represent us also in another decissionss.


I think it is a very good proposal, I agree with the transparency. Also, that each delegate can have the compensation for the work that is done in the DAO and all that you want to do.

Interesting the approach @CryptoReuMD makes about being able to stake our tokens to these delegates to represent us in other decissionss as well. I had not considered that option.


I completely agree, in the end you need a good compensation for the people working, making everything transparent and decentralized as well as all DAOs, the whole council works for a specific goal and everything should be aligned, I love how this is being handled and very excited for the next step for the DAO.


absolutely @fabiancripto - we encourage $PUSH token holders to delegate their voting power to members of the DAO council. it’s part of the functions of the DAO council to serve as delegates for the community. this was included in the DAO council proposal that passed last week :purple_heart::bell:


I’m pleased to see Push DAO making efforts to decentralize, taking steps that are undoubtedly historic. However I feel that voting would become a routine and efficient process if we allow ourselves to do it conscientiously and frequently.

This addendum is a clear example of processes yet to be defined: what happens when a Council member resigns? If we have defined that the Council can conduct quick votes how long will those quick votes last?

It’s an excellent time to seek the participation of many contributors to the DAO interested in governance and there are clear incentives for them in the short term.
There is a lot of potential in our community.

Taking in consideration that not receiving a incentive for being part of the council could lead to apathy for the members as you well expressed in the proposal (“If we don’t have compensation for the council, to put it simply, we risk spiraling voter apathy starting from the top and a misalignment of incentives throughout.”), I have decided to resign to my position as Ecosystem Lead of the Council, as it’s very likely that my motivation to participate on it would decrease over time and I preferred to let this role open for a community member that can receive incentives for it.

Also, I would like to request new regular vote be taken to elect another person to this role and have the Council nomination process well documented from the start.


Carla was a part of the council nomination process from the start, which ended in a public vote based on the people who had been working on the DAO specifically, full-time since my start here.

The vote above is being amended. There was a miscommunication on the foundation side and there is no conflict of interest with Carla being on the council at all.

The community, as per the governance process here: CharmVerse - the all-in-one web3 space, can and will be proposing amendments and changes to any process, all of which is encouraged and planned since we are so early.

The DAO Council is by no means set in stone forever.

As per the recent vote: Snapshot, the council will definitely be re-elected in a year and as per the governance process above, additions to the council, to clarify, can be proposed as votes too.

In terms of resignation process, yes that’s helpful. The proposal above is exactly this, to get the discussion started on all clarifications that should be included in this next vote and added to the rules of the council.

Thanks all for your input so far!


This is a great point @CryptoReuMD and @soymaferlopezp. I’d love to discuss more on streaming compensation. Given a process we all put into place, we could make it that way within 2 months or so. Just because it takes time to implement the tool stack.


To be clear as well, thanks for participating in the fast-track. That’s for everyone. Not just the council. It’s just that as per the governance process, if 4/5 or 5/5 of the council agree, it will be fast-tracked. -CharmVerse - the all-in-one web3 space

1 Like

As this proposal affects all DAO contributors’ compensation (including BD participants and Grantees), I suggest changing the title and wording in the proposal to “Push DAO Compensation Plan.”

As some of the DAO programs will start in June, I also suggest you specify how long this rate will be effective.

I agree with adopting the simplified format used above for fast-track votes, especially when the problem is clear, concise, and easily understandable.

As a member of the DAO Council, I fully support the proposal, pending the changes suggested above.


Edits will be processed tomorrow. Thank you all so far!

1 Like

Edits have been processed above!


I agree with this because transparency and reward for effort is one of the most important aspects of a progressive DAO


It looks like we have a unanimous temp check to fast-track this proposal :fire:
Formally requesting a snapshot vote for next Monday, 13th May 2024 @EC3 to run for 3 days / 72 hours.


For full transparency in the council meeting today, we discussed putting a temporary hold on the proposal pending clarifications. We will update the status of that hold Monday, earliest!


Thanks to the Push Foundation for taking the time to clarify my situation to avoid any conflict of interest. Following this, I can confirm that since there is no conflict of interest between the functions I perform as Community DAO Relations and the role of Ecosystem Leader for which I was elected to the Council, my desire to continue in the latter role is irrevocable. I kindly request the Council to schedule a Snapshot vote on this Addendum to move the DAO Council forward.


This is great news! But, Can you clarify more What are the activities like “Community DAO Relations”? Only to get more ideas so I can support you and collaborate in the next steps. :smiley:

Thanks all for your input. Given the status of this fast-track vote as 4/5 approval (via temperature check via the poll above) + the launch on June 1st, this is expected to happen and finish before June 1st.

I’m asking for final comments until the end of this week, Friday May 17th, EOD! Thanks all!

1 Like