Creation of the tokenomics committee (Draft 1)

[AboveAverageJoe]

Gonna try to address all the comments so far with this follow up:

@mgoesdistance

what would be an impactful example of a token use case to roll out, besides providing liquidity in Balancer, etc?

-Permanent liquidity allocations
-Single sided BANK staking
-Liquidity mining incentives
-Token Swaps
-Yield generation (Alchemix, etc)
These are a handful of ideas that off the top of my head may be under the scope of the tokenomics committee.

@mgoesdistance

this proposal is requesting a lot of resources (initial funding) +25% of DAO’s revenues

The revenue allocation is actually not set, 25% was a suggested number. we’ve also discussed minimum balances/revenue streams to warrant use of non-bank funds.
The details surrounding those parameters are debatable, so rather than codifying any exact amount right away, an example is given.
(Those revenues could become single side staking rewards for instance)

@tommyolofsson

For me this amount of back-pay for gathering consensus (in part) is a bit problematic I must say.

I actually agree with this. I think at most 40% should be allocated that direction, and would encourage this number’s reduction, though others in the squad may have more to say about it.

@tommyolofsson

For the 2M, it’s a lot without a clear guidance on what you’re planning to do. So I would think this needs to be clarified.

A lot of this was outlined in greater detail in previous proposal versions, and it was mentioned that the scope of the proposal in that format was too large. The plan is for the 2m to provide sustainable incentive amounts + development and marketing budgets throughout each season. Much of these funds will end up in guilds as they are hired to perform these tasks.

@tommyolofsson

I would also like the proposal to split renumeration of members from their operating activities to increase the value of BANK in their budget. This would allow you to present what kind of work youre estimating to be done here and how much is to be used for tokenomics.

This breakdown hasn’t actually been discussed yet. I’ve been operating under the assumption that the 2M bank is for tokenomics and development specifically, and will not be allocated to committee members. (perhaps this can be codified in the proposal)

@tommyolofsson

Would the revenue % of non-BANK revenues be on top of the 2M?

Yes, it would be. However, the percentage, and eligibility parameters haven’t been set yet. I’m a fan of 250k Min balance, 100k/Season Min revenue = Eligible for 25% of seasonal revenue for tokenomic purposes only.

@tommyolofsson

I think 2.5M BANK (50% of guild budgets or over 2x our largest project last season) is an ask that needs a lot more clarification. Do it in steps and ask for a smaller amount until you can present something a bit more tangible in terms of strategies and why you need 2M + ETH per season.

@Eagle

In addition, I have also the feeling that the 2M amount is too high and that the presented program is too generic (for such an amount).

Since most of this funding is actually going to the implementation of incentives, with the intent to expand the economic bandwidth of BANK, I feel comparing it to other projects (which mainly are development budgets) is apples and oranges. I’d love to specify more which incentives are going to do what, but that is going to require results from the research guild on tokenomic activity effectiveness, and we’re planning on gathering approval in the forums for incentives before implementation.

In terms of overall incentive allocation, this comes out to .8% of the DAO’s total supply per year, which is (compared to most incentive programs in DeFi) far less funding than most of our competitors.
If broken down into 5 different tokenomic activities, that’s 400k/activity for Development AND implementation per season.

@Eagle

Nobody asked for retroactive payments concerning specific tasks.

Actually, Bankless Academy Did ask for retro compensation for season 0, and it was granted (albiet less than they asked for) It just didn’t happen until season 1.
I feel reducing the amount as I had mentioned above is a healthy move to alleviate this concern somewhat.

Finding these points of ambiguity/clarifying is exactly why this post is labeled (draft 1)
I hope my answers can provide some clarity. Thank you for the feedback.