I’m still convinced that it’s better to respond for a longer period than to reduce compensation. Then we accept 12 months or 18 months.
Hey, I m not blinded (this is quite an emotional word btw:), I am pragmatic.
OK, Let me experiment with vesting. But to do so it should be a very rude increase of vesting.
Will revert soon with it.
I am happy you are from VC. I am also have a decade of experience but mostly in IB/PE, but dealt a lot with financial and tech comps (and oil&gas ahah) so lets use the best of our experiences to come up with the best solution
@boopPlease check out the spreadsheet #3 here with no slash but 24 months vesting
It actually looks not so bad imo
What do you think?
1 Like
how can you say testers lost money? You can only say that if you are planning to dump when tokens are released…
The only ones that have lost money were 1) those who bought anything above the current price and 2) LPs.
1 Like
I agree that decreasing rewards will be tough, and the testers will and should be pissed off from that, it’s not their fault after all.
Longer vesting period does seem to be the consensus so far.
24 months … It’s long. Even in 24 months, 3 → 3 → 3 → 3 → 4.4 
20 is better. But in any case, it’s still more convincing in 24 months than in half the amount of compensation.
Sergey - directionally I am in alignment with this proposal (vs slashing). I think we just need to work out the vesting amounts now. Give me a bit and i will post back with some thinking post going through the sheet.
Glad we are working things out here and I really appreciate you being open to me inspite of my hostility
1 Like
Proposal 5 is live guys: https://app.powerpool.finance/#/mainnet/proposal/3?governor=0xdc27ad4351cec2099c438dae9f39aa38dbd50901
2 Likes
Sergey I just went through it.
I think the problem remains that if you vest too little, too late - people will have no reason to really stay aligned. If I could, I would structure it like this
5% in week 2 (after main-net), 5% on week 6 (after main-net)
From there on, i would reduce 30% per quarter cliff supply to 5% per month over a period of 18 months.
This will even out the distribution while almost doubling the vesting period from 9 months to 18 months. Happy to hop on a quick chat if you want to work this through and hear my thoughts on why a supply release thats more split out matters more than tying up tokens forever.
sure would love to discuss, but I am focused on chasing guys to vote for halt of the distribution.
The good thing is we have a tool to play with tokenomics and see outcome, so can continue the discussion in s structured and content way
I dont think protocol layer decisions made with 0.2% o the network’s tokens are fair or acceptable but will leave to you to decide what’s best.
Why is it always the small folk that suffer, when the high lords play their game of thrones?
Do you think your comment really adds value?
It is neither insightfull nor funny comment, but some people may find it insulting
why proposal defeated?
400k + votes reached
need 400+ only for?
1 Like
I have a same question - why proposal defeated?
For - 371 842.15
Against - 42 623.25
Who defeated the proposal? Any explanation on this?
Or dev team just didn’t like this as they didn’t like to forum conversations before? WTF?
If that’s what happened - this project is doomed (which I hope it is not)
1 Like
This question worries too
Proposal had to get at least 400k CVP votes to be officially approved. 371k is less than that. But, we understand the community wants to change some stuff in tokenomics. According to this reason we delayed the launch until the community makes its choice on LM rewards program and Beta/Gamma lock-ups and vesting schedule.
1 Like