More to this point, I was speaking with abvJoe and he suggested that there needs to be a delineation made in between active L’2’s and L2 alumni. Both have been recognized by the community, but one is active while the other is more free form. so instead of being stripped of that which was earned they are instead given the L2 Alumni role
1 Like
not at all, actually been couple forum posts on this over the year
there has been not much data to support the claims in the proposal, the proposal is what should be required to show data
I am just saying that L2s are getting coordinape on top of what they get paid to do, where as guest passers mostly not.
Looks like it is hard to agree on anything at DAO, so maybe Amoeba management is the direction. Instead of trying to design a perfect system by the board, Amoeba management use the power of free market, to let every department/team/employee acted like a company. DAO can be an upgrade of Amoeba system. Let every member/guild/project to be an Amoeba. No levels, no coordinape, just buy and sell between Amoebas use Bankless tokens.
Proposals require consensus, not data, isn’t that correct? I did provide data in the original proposal and got even more from Ops Guild as I was working, but the key is that that 95% of people feel that this proposal has merit. Obviously people feel that a change needs to be made.
Hitchen’s Razor: “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. You have stated this multiple times and not provided any evidence to that effect. I don’t think it’s true, but would be happy to be proven wrong. The top Guest Pass in the last round (you) has multiple paid roles IIRC, so it’s possible that Guest Passes are also getting paid on top of their roles.
Thanks again for your feedback, I truly appreciate it even if I don’t agree with you!
3 Likes
That’s a form of capital controls, and while I understand and agree with the purpose, in practice it’s a net negative to do. I’ve considered some voluntaryist alternatives for this problem recently, and one of the best things I can think of is a “Coordinape redemption program” where a phase before settlement of bank and after give allocation takes place. It could vary quite a bit at this level, so the interaction is more important than the minutiae in this example.
Say BDAO Treasury earns $10k over the course of the month during a given coordinape round
We take $2500 of it and allocate to the coordinape redemption program
The month’s give have been allocated, and the intermediary phase begins:
Before receiving your bank, you “vest/stake” (pick the most appropriate term) if you want a portion of the stables in the redemption program.
You can allocate as much or as little bank as you want in this redemption
Bank allocated in this way is retained by the treasury, and not emitted
When all Bank allocations are in- Pro-rata settlement of the Stables based on bank contributed
Many of those who sell their earned bank do so for living expenses, and this creates a twofold solution: We mitigate sell pressure because those users have a new way to convert bank to stables at a sustainable rate, and we get an emergent ratio of Bank/Stables demand which can be analyzed to yield information about our compensation and earning rates.
This also mitigates the need for the above mentioned capital controls. It may not be a complete solution at our current revenue levels, but It gives us a revenue target in order to become a complete solution.
In terms of the minutiae on this strategy, I’d love to have some coordinated discussion about the best pathways to implement, as that’s all that’s really missing from adding this to the GSE compensation plan.
2 Likes
Yes, agree with this, i’m thinking this as a way to do OTC deal (kinda)? or i have misunderstood the idea?
Just an option to consider, but if the profit pool is established based on the profit for the current month (rather than stables held in reserve from the previous month) that would create more of a risk/reward payoff (though that may be antithetical to the goal of a stable pool in the first place). Another thought would be to allow stakers to forgo this period’s payout (when it is announced) but rollover staked BANK into the next period in hopes that the profits will rise or the participant pool is smaller. Both of these mechanisms create rewards based on the expectations of higher future earnings rather than reserves from past earnings. I have a tendency to overcomplicate things so think of this as more of a brainstorming exercise than an actual proposal.
1 Like
IMO this doesn’t prevent selling their BANKs though, they can just sell everything when they’re unlocked. This is even worse for people that live full time on BDAO, what should be done in their case ? Locking their payment is not a good way, this is a DAO however people handle their BANKs is left to them, we can only urge people not to see my making them see the perks they’ll enjoy if they hold their BANKs.
There’re other ways to ensure members keep don’t sell their BANKs, and should they decide to sell for reasons best known to them, we should show them it is Good to not sell everything. People live off of BANKs don’t take that away. This is A DAO.
1 Like
Can UMA’s KPI options make sense to implement n some sort of way?
Personally I totally agreed with @okachu
He sees a clearer picture and i’d really like to appreciate that. I’m just getting to know this place exist tbh and I’m sure many other people doesn’t know of this place as well.
Should we archive this to prevent confusion now that there’s a Draft 2?
1 Like
Sure! How do I do that?
I think a Discourse admin does it, but I don’t know who that is.