I think this is a great discussion. Some of it went over my head but i think I understand the just of the convo. I agree that we should start exploring methods to turn $BANK into a store of value. I’m not sure which model would be the best one but I’m in favor of staking $BANK and buy back and MM. I think Staking yield has potential as well, but it sounds more complicated than the other 2 methods.
2 Likes
Just one note about this:
I think the buyback and burn (at least a portion) or market making will have an impact on the valuation of the token.
Currently DAO membership is about $1,000. I’d support a change to the membership threshold so that an annual membership is priced in the fiat equivalent rather than the # of $BANK to account for price appreciation. I did see other ideas about subscription models which could also be appropriate.
But my main point is that we can adjust these thresholds and they shouldn’t have a huge impact on the value accrual strategy.
3 Likes
Pretty much 100% in alignment with frogmonkee at this point.
Voted no to first question, because I would personally like to see the treasury build a bit before tapping into it or minting simply for BANK holders’ rewards. I’ve already weighed in on different forums so I won’t belabor any points, but essentially I feel it’s important to align incentives such that the DAO attracts working talent that is fine working for sweat equity, swag, and increased voting share (where possible, obviously some jobs are big and will require real compensation).
As soon as BANK holders have a stack that is accruing real monetary value, conflicts of interest are natural and unavoidable. The DAO has to ensure capital is wisely accumulated and spent on mission critical endeavors, not flushed out to BANK holders who may or may not be active contributors.
The buyback and market make mechanism sounds great for ensuring liquidity and managing the available float of BANK tokens. I think it makes a lot of sense to actively track available liquidity for those who wish to buy in to the DAO and make periodic adjustments to keep that affordable.
4 Likes
Just want to agree that the vast majority of this went over my head. Despite my presence here, I’m actually not that much of a numbers guy.
But what’s important to me is the long-term viability and growth of the DAO as an organization, and it feels to my smooth brain like the burning option does a better job of ensuring the value of the tokens not get diluted.
Please feel free to correct me! I am here to learn
1 Like
Not smart enough to know and fully understand but want what is best for the DAO and what the community wants. Long term strength of the brand whatever vote attempts to secure support for the values via vision and mission. Finding best first is always though. Think we are on the right track here.
1 Like
Thanks to everyone for their great participation and conversation. It appears we have a consensus to move this ahead to a formal proposal focusing and Snapshot vote focusing on allocating a portion of the DAO’s Treasury to bolster the value of $BANK.
A forum post re: this will be up later this week.
3 Likes
I’m not sure if this should move to Snapshot. Sure there’s consensus on the poll but the actual conversation in here so far seems rather on the fence.
From my opinion, it’s way too early to be allocating revenue to BANK (we don’t even have any revenue yet!!). Imagine if a startup decided to start paying profits out to investors when there wasn’t even a product or revenue. Implementing this would just be ineffective and wouldn’t actually do anything (because there’s no revenue to pay for buybacks, burns, etc.)
More importantly, we can’t even afford to pay contributors yet.
It’s not that I’m against this proposal entirely, it’s actually well written and the economic design is well thought out, but it’s way to early to be distributing profits to BANK holders when there’s no revenue, products, and we’re still in a bootstrapping phase. It’s just too early and from my perspective, it would be an inefficient allocation of capital right now to implement this.
As a result, I’m voting no on this and personally will not be championing this proposal to Snapshot (All Genesis Squad members have the ability to do this though so feel free to reach out to them and see if they’ll support it).
When there’s revenue, contributors are being paid, and we have excess capital, I would be in favor of this. But right now it’s just too early.
3 Likes
@0xLucas:
To clarify this point:
The point of the Snapshot vote would be to codify whether there is community support behind the concept of allocating Treasury revenue to support $Bank’s valuation.
As I mentioned above:
. Is it too early to begin thinking about diverting a portion of the DAO’s Treasury toward increasing $BANK’s value given that the DAO has no significant revenues?
My Response : It’s never too early to make a decision about whether to utilize a portion of the DAO’s Treasury to support/boost $BANK’s inherent value. Doing so will ensure that conversations moving forward about DAO revenue utilization and allocation account for the fact that the community wants to utilize some of the DAO’s resources to support $BANK’s inherent value proposition and bolster its market valuation.
In addition, also as mentioned above, the Snapshot vote would be focused around:
- Should the DAO do this?
- Providing permission to move ahead to understand how – timing to be determined.
I explained the rationale and the approach in this post.
We’ve had a robust conversation about this issue and there seems to be agreement about the best path forward.
So could you please explain your perspective on why we can’t or shouldn’t move ahead with a Snapshot on this narrow question? Thanks.
1 Like
This could just be a social contract/idea among the community like most other DeFi protocols. Committing to it via on-chain snapshot vote seems preemptive from my perspective, especially since we’re in a bootstrapping phase.
Also if there’s no plans to immediately implement, it seems weird…like when does this get implemented? Is there a KPI threshold? It could be months or years before it does and then the entire landscape could change and the proposal would be irrelevant (like we decide to go with a different design in light of new info).
Short answer: if it’s not going to be implemented immediately and there’s no specific timeline on the implementation, does it really need a Snapshot vote right now? What’s the rush? Can’t we just wait until the DAO is in a position to implement for us to push to Snapshot?
5 Likes
Think of it in terms of a development direction that’s serious enough it needs hard consensus to proceed.
If we were to build out a complete model it would probably take us 3 months or longer. This proposal ensures that we don’t embark on that work without it being the direction the dao wants to go. When a lot of us are doing this as interns, to waste any time building something out and then have it voted down would be disasterous. It’s asking for the green light to plan ahead.
As far as implementation, that’s the conversation that happens after the snapshot. When we know this is the direction, then we chart the course and set sail.
By the time we get to the end of the development path, we should be earning revenue from the Bed index, Metafactory, our own merch shop, Sovereign health, NFT factory, piedao/liquity referrals, and whatever else we spin up in season 1. If we wait to develop these paths until after the fact, we’re playing a reactive game that will slow the Dao.
Best part: if the snapshot fails, we all direct energy elsewhere until it’s matured.
I think it’s not a question of executability, it’s a question of the will of the tokenholders. Soft consensus only goes so far when the settlement layer is currently snapshot.
That’s how I understand it
5 Likes
Moving to archive. Please reply to reopen.