[Ideation] SCP-172 DFC: Expand or Alternate?


This document presents two governance proposals to enhance the DAO Finance Committee (DFC) structure: A) expanding its membership or B) introducing an alternate member role. Additionally, it proposes compensation adjustments for workstream leaders outside of the Tokenomics Workstream.


With the recent expansion and clarity of the DFC’s mandate AND the renewed interest in DFC membership, there is a need to source opinions/thoughts on how we might want to adjust the DFCs operational framework to ensure effective financial governance.

For this reason, I propose we do one of the following: a) increase the committee size for broader expertise or b) establish an alternate member role for governance continuity.

Lastly, as the TMDC evolved into the DFC, the rigor desired and deliverables required of individual DFC members has increased substantively. To align with these additional workloads, this proposal also recommends compensation adjustments for anyone besides the Tokenomics Workstream Leader, to reflect their integral role in the DAO’s operations.


The expansion of the DFC and the introduction of an alternate member are motivated by the committee’s increased responsibilities and renewed interest by the community. These structural changes aim to fortify the DAO’s financial governance framework and facilitate better, more data-driven, and more critically thought out decision-making processes… Parallelly, recognizing the contributions of DFC members through fair compensation is crucial for sustaining high-level engagement and acknowledgment of their efforts.


Proposal A: Expansion to Seven Members and Compensation Adjustment

  • Expansion: Increase DFC membership to seven.

  • Compensation for New Members: Each new member, including those currently on the DFC (excluding Tokenomics Workstream leader), will receive a monthly compensation of 1250 USD worth of FOX tokens.

  • Total Impact: With the addition of two more members under this proposal, the total monthly compensation impact would be +3750 USD worth of FOX tokens.

Proposal B: Establishment of an Alternate Member and Compensation Adjustment

  • Alternate Member Role: Introduce an alternate member who is compensated and steps in under specific conditions (to be voted on by the DAO if this option should pass).

  • Compensation for Alternate Member: The alternate will receive 750 USD worth of FOX tokens monthly for their readiness and contribution.

  • Possible Conditions for Alternate Member: The alternate would be able to step in as a full voting member of the DFC in one of the three following circumstances (or any other described/discussed in the forum comments below):

  1. Steps in when the DFC fails to achieve a quorum (currently quorum is 3)

  2. Steps in when the DFC fails to achieve full membership that day (5 members total)

  3. Steps in when a DFC member has an extended leave of absence (either planned for or unexpected)

  4. When planned for, the duration would be set by the member absent

  5. When unexpected, the alternate member would step in at the 2nd/3rd meeting of which the unavailable DFC member has missed, and will remain until either

    a) The unavailable/absent DFC member returns
    b) The Tokenomics Workstream Leader puts a proposal forth (starting the process no later than 10 days after the first absence) to add the first alternate as a member, and elect a new first alternate.

  • Total Impact: This proposal’s adoption would result in an additional monthly expenditure of +2000 USD worth of FOX tokens considering the alternate’s compensation and the change to reinstate previously foregone compensation for any member (with the exception of the Tokenomics workstream lead)


Benefits of Proposal A

  • Enhanced Decision-Making Capacity: Expanding the DFC to seven members introduces a wider array of perspectives and expertise, potentially leading to more robust and well-rounded financial decisions.

  • Increased Operational Capability: With more members, the DFC can manage a broader scope of responsibilities, better reflecting its expanded mandate and ensuring that all areas of financial governance are adequately covered.

  • Recognition of Contribution: The proposed compensation recognizes the importance and value of the DFC members’ contributions, aiding in retention and motivation.

Benefits of Proposal B

  • Operational Continuity: The alternate member ensures that the DFC can maintain quorum and continue its governance functions without interruption, even in the absence of one or more members.

  • Flexibility and Responsiveness: This setup allows for a more flexible and responsive governance structure, capable of adapting to unforeseen circumstances or absences.

  • Cost-Efficiency: Although there is an additional cost, this model is more cost-effective than expanding the committee permanently.


Drawbacks of Proposal A

  • Higher Financial Commitment: The additional compensation for new members increases the DAO’s financial outlay, impacting its budget.

  • Complexity in Coordination and Consensus: With more members, coordinating meetings and reaching consensus may become more challenging, potentially slowing down the decision-making process.

Drawbacks of Proposal B

  • Limited Increase in Perspectives: While an alternate member can maintain operational continuity, this approach does not expand the diversity of expertise and perspective as significantly as adding more permanent members.

  • Potential Underutilization: If the conditions for the alternate member to step in are infrequent, there could be periods where the compensation does not correspond to active contribution, leading to inefficiencies.

  • Complexity in Role Transition: The conditions under which the alternate member becomes active and reverts to their non-active role can introduce complexity, requiring clear guidelines and potentially complicating governance dynamics.


DAO members are called upon to vote on the following aspects:

  • For Proposal A (Expansion and Compensation Adjustment): Support for increasing the DFC to seven members with corresponding compensation adjustments, resulting in a total impact of +3750 USD in FOX tokens monthly.

  • For Proposal B (Alternate Member and Compensation Adjustment): Endorsement of establishing an alternate member role with a compensation scheme, alongside adjustments for workstream leaders, totaling an additional +2000 USD in FOX tokens monthly.

  • **For Proposal A with changes (please list below in forum)

  • **For Proposal B with changes (please list below in forum)

  • Against: Preference for maintaining the current DFC structure and compensation model, without the proposed expansions or adjustments.

Currently our monthly budget is $6250 Total.
adding 2 members is 2500/ m more $8750 total budget.

(not counting the 'ALT" option)
Members choose to not take the payout as they desire.
adding ALT to 5 members makes it monthly $7k
and 7 members would push that to $9500 / m (this would be A + B options)

(minus off the choices made to not get paid at all, or fox bonus etc)

Thanks for thinking about few ways to consolidate this committee, it might not be a popular opinion but I do not think the DAO ever really suffered from the previous defections/changes in the composition of this committee. I think our governance process ensures it is possible to deal with these situations quickly enough that we do not need more members or alternative members, especially at an increased cost to the DAO. So I’m currently against this proposal.

As the time/competence requirements have increased for the committee members, reconsidering the compensation for members who have decided to renounce it is legitimate. But if it implies a larger budget than the one FOX holders have voted on (e.g. in SCP-148, totals did not include compensation which members renounced to) it has to be in a new proposal as you’ve suggested in a call @profMcC_shapeshiftde . Even if renounced funds have been earmarked by GK in prevision (if I understood correctly), I do not think it has never been made clear they would be allocated to the TMDC/DFC for future distributions in case member changed their mind… and to me disclosing that choice regarding compensation has been an integral part of the election process.

1 Like

oh? i thought their payout was set in the proposal, and they did a choice after that.
Well maybe prof included his Position as never paid, but part of… (now that i think harder, so i probably should redo my calc.) but any others?

My leaning is toward just an ALT. We have had to use alts before, im sure we will again.
setting up ahead isnt a bad idea.

1 Like