Delegate Compensation Program Pilot [Final]

Delegate Compensation Program Pilot (Final)

Co-Authors: @AranaDigital, @PGov, @Doo_StableLab, @Mel_StableLab

Summary

This proposal introduces a Delegate Compensation Program to incentivize active participation, enhance accountability, and support sustainable governance. Delegates are essential to Compound’s governance, but the lack of compensation impacts participation and retention. We propose a structured program to ensure fairness, transparency, and high-quality contributions, run over the course of the coming 6 months. If this proposal passes, the Compound Governance Working Group (CGWG) will immediately begin administering this program as per the below specifications (see “Detailed Specification"). Selection of this initial cohort of delegates will follow a delegate score that aggregates delegate participation data over the past 6 months, incorporating voting %, vote timing, and impact on new collateral TVL growth.

Overall Budget: $288k

Duration of Pilot Program: 6 Months

Total Delegates Selected: 16 (divided into 2 tiers, with 8 per tier)

Background

Governance in Compound has been live since 2020, and the protocol has grown considerably over the past couple of years, now reaching a TVL of over $4B. There have been 375 proposals so far, and as the protocol grows, there are more proposals per month than before.

However, the number of voters has been decreasing, despite their importance, likely due to the absence of a financial incentive.

Compensation Philosophy

Effective governance within a DAO demands engaged, well-informed delegates who diligently track ecosystem developments, analyze proposals, and participate in governance decisions with both expertise and integrity. However, the absence of compensation places a significant financial and operational burden on delegates, forcing them to limit their engagement, resulting in uninformed or sporadic participation. A significant consequence of such complacency is governance attacks, such as the one faced by Compound in Q3 2024.

To address these challenges, this compensation program is designed to align delegate incentives with Compound’s overarching goals, ensuring that their contributions directly advance the protocol’s long-term success. By rewarding behaviors such as thorough proposal evaluation, consistent voting participation, and meaningful engagement with the community, the program fosters a culture of diligence, responsibility, and strategic decision-making.

Community feedback will play a central role in shaping and refining these incentives to ensure they remain aligned with the DAO’s evolving priorities and values. By running a pilot, this program not only provides immediate benefits in enhancing governance participation but also establishes a scalable framework that can evolve alongside Compound’s governance needs. Data collected after the end of the 6 month period will be important for amending and refining future compensation cycles.

Ultimately, in an increasingly adversarial landscape, where well-capitalized entities can exploit governance vulnerabilities—often due to delegate complacency and voter apathy—underfunded governance participation poses a significant risk. Without proper compensation, DAOs become susceptible to governance attacks, inefficient decision-making, and weakened resilience against extractive proposals.

Delegate Compensation Programs Across DAOs

The program we are proposing aligns Compound with high-performing DAOs while allowing the CGWG to adapt incentives to meet the protocol’s unique needs. A key feature incorporated in this pilot program is the delegate score, which aggregates various factors, including TVL-based impact as a result of a delegate’s voting decision.

Detailed Specification

The compensation program will run over the six months. With a budget at $288k, the pilot will be allocating $48k/month, which will allow Compound DAO to evaluate key metrics, including delegate engagement, governance outcomes, and community feedback. These insights will be critical in assessing the program’s effectiveness and identifying areas for improvement.

The CGWG will oversee program implementation and rewards distribution. Funds from the passing of this onchain vote will be sent to the working group’s multisig (0xfd947c72f09703210eeCbcab9c9206fE5e1Bb6e2). All distributions will be paid to program participants in the form of COMP tokens after the conclusion of each month.

Two different groups of criteria will determine how a delegate may be admitted to the pilot program vs the compensation attained while partaking in the program.

Part A: Selection Criteria

For admittance into the pilot program, the below delegate score over the trailing 6-month period will be utilized:

You may view the up-to-date delegate rankings here.

One of the predominant pieces of feedback we received when designing this initiative was to not heavily bias the score towards delegates with large amounts of voting power. This can act as a double-edged sword, where large delegates in theory should be rewarded for their proportional contribution to meeting quorum and thereby prompting the further increase of protocol TVL, for example. To address this concern, the voting impact score, which is a function of a delegate’s voting power, remains capped at 20% of the total delegate score.

We also decided to keep the voting impact score present in the calculation since tangible influence on protocol metrics like collateral TVL was an additional concern posed by delegates, where voters should be rewarded for increasing protocol growth in a more objective manner. For the pilot program, we will solely use delegates’ impact on TVL for new markets/collaterals as the primary metric—this may change in future iterations of the program. Impact-weighted scores are scarcely used by DAOs today for paying delegates, and they inherently contain a bias towards those with more voting power since more VP means higher impact on the passing of a proposal. KPI-driven compensation is something that DAOs should start trending towards, at least to a degree, hence why we are including this metric.

In accordance with compensation programs instituted by other DAOs, we’ve kept the primary weight on the delegate’s participation score—retaining that at 60% of the total score. We strongly believe that this weight should account for at least 50% of any compensation program since high rates of participation directly dictate how well a governance system is working.

Delegates for this pilot will be selected solely based on their delegate score and will be divided into two tiers. The top 8 entities with the highest score—that apply to the program—will fall under Tier 1, and the following 8 will fall under Tier 2. Relative to other protocol DAOs, this program is indexing on not only rewarding larger, active delegates but also attracting a new cohort of voters.

If the proposal to pursue this program passes, we will be releasing a forum post that’ll act as the venue to submit your application. Just because a delegate has a high score does not mean they will be automatically inducted into the program; everyone must apply. A 7-day period will be granted for everyone to submit their applications, which will ask for basic details about the applicant and prompt them to set up a delegate communication page to articulate their voting rationales. To reiterate, admittance into the compensation program will be solely based on your delegate score, and the top 16 applicants will be eligible for this program.

Part B: Compensation Breakdown

Monthly compensation will be divided into two payment types: base and bonus rate. Base rate is the amount a delegate admitted into the program will receive for voting on onchain votes. The bonus rate is the amount a delegate will receive for posting rationales regarding their voting decision on their respective delegate platform.

Tier 1

  • Monthly Base Rate: $3000 in $COMP
  • Monthly Bonus Rate: $1500 in $COMP

TOTAL = $4.5k*8 delegates = $36k/month

Tier 2

  • Monthly Base Rate: $1000 in $COMP
  • Monthly Bonus Rate: $500 in $COMP

TOTAL = $1.5k*8 delegates= $12k/month

Monthly payments will be delivered by the Governance Working Group after the conclusion of each month. The base and bonus rates will adjust in proportion to monthly voting %. In other words, if a month has 5 onchain votes, and a delegates votes on 4 proposals, then the base rate compensation will be (4/5)*Base Rate.

The same principle applies to the bonus rate, however, in order to attain the bonus fee, delegates must have voted on the proposal associated with the corresponding rationale. For example, if a delegate does not vote on “Proposal A” but issues a rationale for it, the delegate will not attain the bonus rate since the bonus is contingent on having voted for that proposal. Finally, to attain bonus rate points, a delegate must post their rationale behind a given proposal within a week of that proposal concluding. In other words, if a proposal’s voting period ends on February 12, then a delegate has until February 19 to post a rationale.

To remove subjectivity from the bonus fee process, we will be requiring that all delegates admitted into the program provide a rationale for ALL onchain votes, including the customary market updates recommended by teams like Gauntlet. There isn’t an expectation for delegates to express their rationales with verbosity. For basic votes, it’s okay if delegates disclose why they voted in a particular manner with just a sentence or two. However, for the introduction of important markets, organizational changes, alterations to governance contracts, selection of service providers, or the movement of treasury funds, we do expect delegates to provide more comprehensive rationales. Although there isn’t an overt criteria for judging the quality of rationales for determining the pilot program’s compensation, there is a social expectation that paid delegates engage actively during important proposals. It may also be the case that a rationale-based scoring system is implemented in the future—so delegates keen on partaking in future iterations of compensation initiatives should do their best to engage in active forum discussions.

Next Steps

Upon execution of this onchain vote, the CGWG will create an application on the forum for delegates to register for the program. Once the week-long selection process is complete, admitted delegates will be tracked on their participation by the CGWG and rewarded based on the above compensation breakdown monthly. This program will run between March - August 2025.

4 Likes

Hello CGWG,

We noticed a small discrepancy between our Participation Score and the one displayed on the Dune dashboard. After investigating, we believe this may be due to the new Governance contract not being considered in the query.

It looks like you’re using this table as a data source for some of the queries: https://dune.com/data/compound_v2_ethereum.governorbravodelegate_evt_votecast

We confirmed that the last record added to this table corresponds to the final proposal from the old Governance contract, Proposal ID 393: Compound Governor Contracts Upgrade

Query we used to confirm this: https://dune.com/queries/4764240/7906368/

Because of this, we suspect that the table isn’t accounting for proposals from the new contract, which includes all proposals submitted in February.

We’ve identified that this table is tracking the new Governor contract: https://dune.com/data/compound_ethereum.compoundgovernor_evt_votecast

We’re not 100% certain, as there are multiple queries involved and we might be overlooking something, but we thought it would be worth bringing this to your attention.

We apologize if this is a mistake and the table is accurate. Thank you for taking the time to read our message!

3 Likes

Thanks for highlighting this! We’re working with the Woof team to verify the dashboard is tracking the new governor contracts.

1 Like

Hey. We updated the Dune Dashboard to track the new Governor.

2 Likes

OpenZeppelin reviewed Proposal 409 to fund the Delegate Compensation Program Pilot. Our report is available here

3 Likes

Below we outline additional details pertaining to the execution and management of the program in response to OZ’s feedback.

Fluctuating COMP Price & Refunding Process:
Following suit with other DAOs’ delegate incentive programs, we will be issuing compensation in the form of the native COMP token as opposed to USDC. At the end of every month, the CGWG will calculate the dollar equivalent value of the COMP to be distributed to each of the program participants. Upon reception of the COMP, the given delegates will at their discretion choose to either hold or sell their COMP. This is done to help align delegates in the program with the protocol since a handful of delegates may be interested in holding their attained COMP and use it for voting purposes.

The potential downside to budgeting the program in terms of COMP while simultaneously paying out capital in dollar terms is facing a deficit. If the summed COMP price drops too low, then the CGWG will need to request a rebalance of the budget. This will require the submission of another governance proposal, aiming to top up the balance at which delegates can choose to rebalance or not. If the pendulum swings the other way and there is excess COMP in terms of dollars, then this surplus will be recycled into the second cycle of the delegate compensation program—this is granted a second cycle is voted in by another governance vote. If delegates decide not to vote in a second cycle, then all funds will be returned to the Compound treasury.

Since each month the compensation amount may vary due to delegates not attaining the full amount of available points, there may be excess capital left over by the end of the program. Excess funds from underutilized funds will also either be recycled into cycle 2 of the program or fully refunded to the treasury.

Control of Funds:
Trust in the CGWG’s ability to properly custody this program’s funds, as well as carry out effective distributions, was implicitly granted upon the instatement of the working group. Since there will likely not be a constant transfer of funds to the program participants—due to month to month variations in levels of participation—there will be a need to adjust each payout to assess the appropriate amount of capital to transfer to each delegate. Since we will be distributing capital in COMP, we’ll need to calculate the end of month dollar value of the distributions. Due to the mentioned complexities and variations in distributions, the CGWG will be allocating these rewards manually via its multisig.

The CGWG has also been working with teams on administering mulsitig operations, acting as additional signers for certain programs. For example, our members are a part of the Immunefi Bug Bounty multisig. We are also coordinating with other groups like Gauntlet on helping execute payloads for the upcoming Morpho <> Compound collaboration on Polygon.

The 5760 COMP from the execution of this proposal will be sent to the standard CGWG multisig, at 0xfd947c72f09703210eeCbcab9c9206fE5e1Bb6e2. We intend to keep all of the funds for the delegate incentives program in a new safe created 0xEB525ba911dAa7b1f76fc8d1Bf6D3f5C81B711D5. The purpose of this is to separate the two wallets’ funds in order to reduce any issues related to accounting.

Since the tenure of the CGWG will run until the end of 2025, and this program will be operated for the duration of 6 months, there will not be an issue regarding the continued implementation of this program.

Participation Restrictions and COI:
The current criteria for receiving rewards and qualifying if voted in are objective on chain metrics. This was done on purpose as to ensure the CGWG has no subjectivity on who to include and not include. Some members of the CGWG have individual delegations as well and do intend to apply as payout metrics are objective and as they are active delegates in their own accord. Additionally, other entities, whether they be grantees or service providers, are also eligible for this program, as long as they decide to become delegates. The door for who can or cannot be a delegate is wide open. Again, this is to prevent subjective perimeters that would bar certain entities from partaking in the program.

Lack of Transfer Controls:
Similar to prior messages mentioned above—future iterations will look to explore different ways to custody and distribute funds. Due to the potential complexities and discretion involved in tallying scores and distributing non-constant amounts of funds on a monthly basis, we believe that manually operating disbursements is the most efficient method.

Flawed Incentive Mechanism:
The title of this section is a bit misleading and is more so a suggestion on how this first cycle of reward implementation is being decided. Of course, we welcome all suggestions and would like for them to expand upon “a more nuanced approach” that may “lead to better outcomes relative to the resources allocated by the DAO” for future cycles and edits. Based on the discourse over the past month and a half, we believe that the current setup is satisfactory, especially when compared to other DAOs’ incentive programs. As always, feedback is welcome for future cycles.

3 Likes

This is a great update. Will these changes be part of another vote since OpenZeppelin’s report suggests canceling the current one?

All of these details are aggregated into the same vote—we’ve taken OZ’s suggestions into consideration, as outlined above, and do not believe an additional vote is needed.

We supported the proposal before the report and your update, and many voters opposed it because of OZ’s report prior to your update. We believe it would be a good idea to hold a new vote on a proposal that includes the feedback you’ve incorporated following OZ’s report, and see if they still oppose this updated proposal.

All “named” delegates we’ve spoken to supported the proposal or abstained. We will create a more detailed follow-up update next week—but the addresses that voted against this proposal were the same ones flagged during the governance attack (i.e. Humpy used his massive voting power to single handedly reject the proposal).

3 Likes