Draft Authors: Icedcool, Ernest of Gaia, Sprinklesforwinners, Tomahawk
Working Group: Tokenomics Squad
This bDIP recognizes tlBANK as a component of L1 membership, and a core primitive of BanklessDAO.
As the utility of the BANK has evolved organically, the token itself has evolved beyond its original use to provide services within the ETH ecosystem. To keep up with these changes, it is imperative that the token itself evolve. tlBANK was first introduced on the forum here 5. Since then, we have seen support for the use of tlBANK grow. This can be seen in multiple forum posts that have obtained quorum. This can be seen here 5 and here 2. The use of tlBANK was ratified in this 2 snapshot vote.
Recognize tlBANK as L1
L1 - Members
L1 - Members
Full DAO members are those who have accumulated the requisite 35,000 BANK and are authenticated in the Discord server. The benefits of L1s include access to additional Discord channels and no longer needing to renew the guest pass.
Full DAO members are those who have accumulated the requisite 35,000 BANK and are authenticated in the Discord server. The benefits of L1s include access to additional Discord channels and no longer needing to renew the guest pass. DAO Members that mint the preset tlBANK will also be given L1 Membership with the included benefits. Only the tlBANK minting address receives the L1 access.
This will create secondary use cases for the BANK token by:
Allowing tlBANK to trade on any NFT marketplace.
Creating new areas of involvement and alignment of projects.
UI will define lockup, but open ended on the back to allow projects different involvement.
ONLY the minting address will receive the L1 Access to the DAO.
Upon ratification, go to snapshot
Upon snapshot approval, modify CollabLand configuration to support tlBANK as an L1 level.
Full DAO members are those who hold 35,000 BANK or mint the preset tlBANK and are authenticated in the Discord server. The benefits of full membership include access to additional Discord channels and no longer needing to renew the guest pass.
Good point! I mean voting rights. I’d assume voting weight would be determined by the amount of bank locked. It would be interesting to explore increased voting weights, but my immediate thought is it would introduce another way for whales to skew the vote
Do you not feel this statement covers voting rights? i.e. it states that Level 1 membership is given.
I thought you might mean whether the Snapshot strategy would read the tlBANK NFT and implement the corresponding voting weight for the amount of BANK locked, which is not addressed at all by this bDIP.
I’m wondering if the suggested text needs further consideration, not only as per @links’ comment but also to ensure that the full context and implications are captured. The suggested text is Discord-centric.
Yea, tlBANK is equivalent to BANK.
(In current form!)
So locking up any amount, would confer 1 to 1 amount of voting for BANK.
I actually think this requires an update to this bDIP, to include:
At BanklessDAO, decisions regarding governance, treasury, projects, and proposals are made through a democratic process. BANK holders ratify decisions through off-chain votes held on the voting software, Snapshot. Any BANK holder can vote in a Snapshot. The more tokens a user has, the more voting power they possess.
At BanklessDAO, decisions regarding governance, treasury, projects, and proposals are made through a democratic process. BANK holders ratify decisions through off-chain votes held on the voting software, Snapshot. Any BANK or BANK derivative holder can vote in a Snapshot. The more tokens a user has, either in wallet or locked up, the more voting power they possess.
Thank you very much for the tag. The difficulty I’m having at the moment with this and other pending bDIPs is that the Constitution working group is very close to bringing a revised draft of the full Constitution to the community for feedback.
In that draft, we have already suggested changes the text referred to in this proposal. Consideration has been given to streamlining the text and removing excessive references to specific platforms, although references to Snapshot do remain elsewhere in the draft text.
In our document, the section you have tagged me for now reads:
7.1 DAO Governance Overview
At BanklessDAO, decisions are made through a collaborative process. Initial consensus is gathered in Discord channels through discussions and polls. Depending on the financial or governance implications for the DAO, a formal proposal may be required. If necessary, a proposal should be posted to the Forum. Once defined quorum and approval thresholds are reached, if necessary, the proposal moves to Snapshot to be voted on by BANK token holders.
We could easily add in ‘or BANK derivative’ after ‘token’ in that last sentence, if that covers it?
The harder part is the L1 membership section which is referenced in this proposal. We have made substantial clarification to the text about membership, so changing just the L1 section probably won’t be enough to accommodate the addition of tlBANK to DAO membership parameters. For space reasons I don’t want to post all the text here but if this bDIP goes to Snapshot and passes, its text might be quickly superseded by the proposed holistic wording our group has developed.
We have been monitoring changes and incorporating as we go but it’s becoming a bit of a chicken and egg game. I don’t know what the right answer is but I am wondering if you would be willing to check out our proposed wording and work with us to include tlBANK in that – and then either re-post the bDIP for a new vote or proceed on the understanding the agreed revised wording will be included in the forthcoming full Constitution draft.
Yep, the challenge of working on things as they are moving.
I think best path forward is allow both work streams to continue, since we don’t have clarity in terms of when you all will be done.
If we run into a condition where both would need to be ratified in snapshot, I think what you all are working on would supersede this one (and others), as your change looks to be a Major, while all bDIPS up till now have been minor or patches.
I was discussing with @0xbaer, and we think that we can consider tlBANK the same as a liquidity position (similar but different), which is assumed and covered under the current wording of the constitution.
So I actually think we are good, and do not need the change I suggested above or modify what you all are working on.
I like the direction of TL-BANK and am voting to support this initiative, but a mainnet lock requiring mainnet renewals is a non-starter for me, personally. I hope this can be supported on Optimism or Polygon. Or maybe even an option for a lock doesn’t require a renewal? Is that possible as a thing?
Gas fee to unlock liquidity from an LP.
Gas fee to time lock that BANK instead.
Gas fee every however often to renew.
No apparent yield on the locked BANK, sacrificing yield from the LP.
This feels like a subscription to sacrifices. Maybe it’s just me, because I can’t afford to actually use mainnet for things, but I suspect I’m not alone. Definitely looking forward to seeing how this develops, though.