Recently, I came across an interesting analysis—someone compared the compensation of executives at the Uniswap Foundation with the Optimism Grants Council, and it turns out that UF's compensation levels are indeed relatively high.

The specific numbers clearly illustrate the issue. During a similar funding cycle, the total grant budget for the Optimism Grants Council was $63.5 million, and personnel compensation for review and follow-up only cost $2.14 million. When including other costs, the total budget pressure is around $0.5 million.

In comparison, UF's compensation arrangements seem a bit off. Of course, the two organizations may differ in scale and functions, but from the perspective of funding efficiency, this gap is worth discussing. A DAO's decentralized structure inherently requires greater transparency; the clearer the compensation structure and fund flow, the better, otherwise it can easily raise community doubts.

This also reflects a common issue in Web3 project governance—what level of compensation is considered reasonable? Who supervises these decisions? If these questions are not clarified, it could be detrimental to the healthy development of the project in the long run.