Motivation

With the growth of the DAO and the emergence of new initiatives, it becomes increasingly important to decentralize and desynchronize processes further. To this end, GIP-43 proposed the use of OBRA framework and fund separate initiatives independently.

So, TechOps Initiative, Business Development Initiative, RiskDAO initiatives and others were formed. And now it seems it’s time to reframe frontend development as a separate initiative: once v3 is launched, initiative will be working on two semi-independent interfaces - one for trading, the other a basic (& focused more on leverage farmers) interface.

In addition, a separate interface for analytics (charts.gearbox.fi) and Gearbox Risk Framework https://risk.gearbox.foundation/ (that is covered by Risk DAO though) should be supported. I propose to separate this scope into a separate initiative - Front initiative.

Front initiative configuration

The team consists of three full- and one part-time initiative contributors. As of the publishing of this proposal, two headcounts are semi-open (I have candidates, waiting approval of budget from DAO to finally onboard them).

Initiative Members

Position	Unit
Full Time
- Initiative Lead	1
- Senior Frontend developer	1
- Middle Frontend developer	1
Part Time
- UX designer	0.25-0.5
Team Total	3.25-3.5

Budget

20k$/monthly* compensation and the corresponding amount in $GEAR depending on their multiplier choice, determined using a system of multipliers from GIP-43. Additional 10k$/yearly budget for HR expenses. Out of this, the finder fee to an external unrelated platform will have to be paid for securing new members for this initiative. This is typically referred to as the finder’s fee in HR.

Current costs of contributors related to frontend development is ~17-18k$. As such, there is no large increase in funding related to this initiative despite new members joining. Obviously, the contributors related to frontend who are now on the multiplier system with some others, will move into this asynchronous initiative separately. That means the costs are not -20k/monthly - but rather -3k/monthly only.

It is assumed that this initiative is automatically extended if there is no separate vote on its adjustment. This initiative, like a few others, rolls into the new cycles unless discontinued.

Voting

Simple Approve/Reject