• Proposals
  • KIP-24: Utilize USDC to Extend Development Runway

Overall, in favour of this proposal.

The one change I would like to see however is a heavier weight on the split for USDC. For example something like 30:70 KLIMA to USDC instead of the current 50:50 being proposed.

Main reason being that paying out less KLIMA per month to contributors can aid in reducing any sell pressure from those "forced" to sell KLIMA if it is a large/primary source of income and they need to money for other things. In addition, those who want more KLIMA can simply buy it with the heavier USDC portion of their allocation thus introducing more buy pressure into the market.

Ty

    In principle in favor but I would like to see a clearly defined roadmap of the development over the next months.

      Alanos86 Yes, product development should be the primary focus. On a protocol basis Klima deliver two key DeFi-based benefits, liquidity and demand. The focus for the DAO moving forward through creating demand for the token and tokenized carbon. The way that the DAO can create demand is through further productization of tooling such as offsetting for specific use-cases and this requires product development. To the real world partners, this is being worked on and is a focus for the DAO.

      Operatingcan We will be posting a DAO budget approval which includes regular contributors and bounties following this proposal however we won't be doing a compensation break down per contributor or department. Let us know if you have questions as to why.

      Valid point on the roadmap, we can definitely help here.

      Market validation-could you please expand here?

      Unsure of where you're getting 16 core members but as you have been informed multiple times the Core team was funded by the early investors of the protocol. This scenario is not unique, it has been utilized for protocols such as Vesta, Redacted, Olympus and so on.

      This KIP is to provide funding to contributors to support continued development of products and services. Also it is important to note that the protocol health is very hands-on at this point and time. If all contributors up and left the protocol would spiral itself toward an unsustainable and inevitably bad predicament.

        Joel_ Ultimately it's better for utilization of KLIMA than USDC, one counter point is the use of the USDC for inverse bonding.

          I'm in favour of extending runaway for devs, but as I posted on discord the KIP projections appeared to be way off. In May, even with zero premium, we bonded 200+ base tonnes of carbon. For revenue to be only 22k USD in September, the bonding should be just 20k tonnes per month according to my calculations, a 90% decrease. Seems very unlikely.

          Also, as I suggested, inverse bonds should have the 30% for DAO wallet too, to not cut devs revenue.

            json Market validation as in investors want to buy the token. I thought 16 was the # of core members, sorry if it was wrong. Happy to edit my comment with the correct #.

            We should have visibility BEFORE budget changes, not after.

              Really would like to see a public facing comprehensive roadmap, a retrospective of efforts thus far, and dashboard of payments made to contributors/core.

              Good luck.

                Operatingcan budget hasn't changed! We only reduced the budget due to the cuts and then moving forward we want to establish a ceiling essentially. Compensation per contributor can change month to month, depends on their schedule and

                Investor validation-I would highly suggest everyone follow our twitter account, it posts almost daily about the value of that the DAO is building day after day for the token and it's growing ecosystem.

                  SlaptainShwirv as mentioned above, roadmap is doable however we will want to avoid extraneous exposure of alfa or deliverables that the DAO can't necessarily promise by a specific time.

                  The DAO will not be posting compensation per contributor and there will not be a dashboard at that level of granularity. It is important to note that there is a dashboard currently being built to look at the DAO treasury as a whole and how the organization navigates its runway.

                  json Yeah we'd had some discussion in the discord, kek, about potentially using some of the USDC for inverse bonds. Would be in favour of inverse bonds if they were proposed to become active.
                  I'd still personally prefer paying contributors more heavily in USDC (with still a portion of KLIMA, just smaller %) even if there are benefits to paying in KLIMA (I understand why Olympus pay in gOHM and I imagine the same reason apply for KLIMA I just don't agree 100% with those reason).

                  Have any of the DAO core members actually run a real business? Say, an IT company with more than 100 people?

                  In times like these you trim the fat, hunker down, and conserve cash. Not keep paying people you’re going to have to let go in 3 months anyway.

                  I don’t really care how you pay people (Klima vs USD), just make sure you really, really need them in times like these.

                  And I agree with other comments about lack of details. Stop asking us to approve the spending of money and not telling us how the money is being spent. A product roadmap would’ve been helpful.

                    Car54 Yes, many of the contributors have ran real businesses and have created several SaaS start ups. Additionally some currently work within finance industry.

                    gui_m_p just my thoughts as a policy team member on your last point - the net effect of inverse bonds should ideally benefit all Klimates who remain believers of the protocol as much as possible and the DAO wallet should not have an extra edge in this operation. The KLIMA received through inverse bonds should entirely be burned to accomplish said goal. Buying back a native token (which is what inverse bonds essentially serve to do) and treating part of it as revenue does not sit well with me. Happy to discuss further on this if you have any thoughts

                    A few thoughts on this KIP:

                    • It definitely makes sense to lay down a strategy to extend the runway to more than 4 month
                    • Using parts of the USDC treasury seems reasonable – also because it reduces the sell pressure on KLIMA which hopefully contributes to stabilizing the price (in combination with the lower AKR from the last KIP)
                    • Reducing the monthly burn / # of contributors should be considered if it doesn't come at the cost of sacrificing culture or fundamental knowledge loss. One option could be to double-down on the most promising initiatives but reduce the number of overall topics on your plate in order to increase the focus. So sharing an updated roadmap would definitely help to align everyone on the next steps.

                    Why can't they be paid from the same source as Core? Just asking.

                    Also, by how much will this decrease our active runway?

                    As a former Controller, I think the contributor rates need to be evaluated, probably reduced, and an analysis should be performed to determine the cost vs. value they actually produce. When the ship is taking on water, you need to lighten the load. Hodlers need protection, especially those who participated early, which allowed the project the initial runway. Their stake no matter what the AKR %, has dropped to approximately 1%, if that.

                    A real understanding of the financials, with a decent flexible model needs to be produced for best, probable, and worst case scenarios. Just my 2 cents.