Oh okay - That makes total sense - can we praise the gamma/ beta testers that hold and not dump too?
Guys u get tokens. Almost for free. If project will be successful u will sell at 50+ prices rather than 0.5$.
Mb u personaly will not dump. But if most only have the possibility to dump it is enough to destroy the project.
We have seen what happens with alfas. Most cashed out. Same will happen again because most of gammmas are just bounty hunters (project was already known as giving free money when team start to collect gamma testers applications).
U think it’s not fair compare to alfas? I think that buyers of tokens(belivers) Should be defended first of all because testers are winners in all possible scenarios.
That is fair
6 Likes
Lock-ups are pretty strict, but if you think about bigger picture, it give PowerPool and opportunity to become a real deal, even outside of crypto.
With proper delivery, Power Index can become a major entry point for institutionals, hence skyrocketing the value of CVP. And I believe technical & marketing teams of Power Pool are capable of doing it.
Complexity of the situation is to do right by all the participants, meaning LPs, testers, buyers.
PowerPool community is well-spoken and articulated, so I invite everybody to raise their voices. We need support & alignment across the board.
4 Likes
Not to sound rude but you’re getting 50,000 free CVP tokens, i don’t know how you couldn’t be satisfied with that? You just need to wait 12 months to receive them, i think that’s a fair compromise. Alpha testers that didn’t sell are the type of community members that i really want to see in this community. They could of sold and cashed out hundreds of thousands of dollars but the ones that didn’t sell obviously believe a lot in this project.
4 Likes
Proposal is good but if testers will get full voting power from the team efforts testers could easily cancel vesting
To emphasise again on the points I am driving
-
Longer vesting is good but simply saying lets put longer vesting to burn tokens is nonsensical. Its breach of a social contract, burns reputation of the project and sufficiently incentivises rent-seeking. By that logic, lets put on 10 year vesting… you see how its a slipper slope? In addition a year from now if price is not where we want it to be we will be playing this same dumb game of charades again saying lets burn all tester tokens because they didn’t do anything. You may as well have that liquidity in the market sold and re-distributed.
-
I literally said multiple times that I am FOR vesting but the way it is structured is intellectually lazy in the sense that it does not balance incentives with rewards. The easiest way to circumvent this situation is to reward the initial tokens on main-net and extend the vesting over longer period of time…
To make my intention very clear - I am happy signing a legal agreement of not moving 90% of my gamma tokens if it helps. What i dont want is some form of self-cannabilism (if thats even a thing) where you piss off people’s alignment with the project and then sit wondering how to make this project work. What I absolutely dont want us for us to focus on the nonsensical (Tester tokens, LP rewards, price dump) without emphasising on how to make the index and other token blackholes work.
I may be burned for my opinion but saying burn tokens or push maximal vesting is populism at best .We aren’t finding middleground.
1 Like
To assume gamma/beta testers as the source of all pain while they barely have any assets and ignore everything else is the crux of what we are doing wrong.How blinded does one have to be to think that…
I mean by this logic proposal 7 may as well be : Cancel all Beta/Gamma tokens and redistribute them to token buyers and LP’s
Happy to do that if thats the game you want to play
There’s a very real irony when a community gets a curated list of 300 people from 15,000 applicants then it decides to piss off 200 people that were selected from that list. You are getting the most resourceful people in an industry to care the least.
4 Likes
Project gain value from its fundamentals and token economy
not shillers
I didn’t know about getting tokens when I applied - and started learning/ joining community of power pool. I’ve stated that before. I am done discussing price and vesting of tokens. It’s time to focus on the protocol and making it successful. I’ll trust the team and community to the do the right thing.
1 Like
Can you provide us examples or links to what or how you helped the project?
1 Like
Beta / Gamma testers are getting a pretty sweet deal. The fact you want to get your hands on the tokens so soon makes me believe you just want to sell them. You wouldn’t be pushing for that outcome if you were just going to hold. I haven’t seen one LP complain about the proposal of mining rewards being locked for 1 year from the date they’re paid and we have the most to lose as we have risked our own funds
4 Likes
Great job guys, thanks a lot!
Lets discuss some metrics and launch this proposal
- The 7 mn grant is something like I proposed earlier to incentivize the composite members and moreover incentivize the projects to become the composite member
Lets consider a bit of “gamification” (it is started to be implemented in other projects as well) here:
if the total TVL is X, than the total grant is 500k CVP
if the total TVL is X2, than the total grant is Y2 etc
Maybe we should add the same mechanics as we use for CVP 1/8 to stimulate the composites to maintain right shares in the index ( like the projects themselves will be interested to push their token holders to put it into Power Index) on top of the increased incentives for maintaining their share?
I.e to allocate 10% of the total grant value and distribute it to the most “active” composites
Also please advise why don’t you think there is a risk the mechanics proposed will just create investors apathy? like the CVP price is too expensive, why should we get there.
Just want to discuss this part in a bit more details
- The 2m CVP per month mining rewards
a. should be added retrospectively, on top of current early miners rewards (but with the same vesting obviously)
b. Need to play a bit with your model to come up with the details, atm seems like 24 mn being distributed (even with the lock up) per year seems like a huge amount
c. As we discussed earlier - we have a blue ocean of opportunities with ETF product line, so maybe it is better to distribute less CVP in LM program but having them for rewards for 4-5 different ETFs
- regular 1 per month voting - is a great and engaging measure
-
Please advise on the distribution of 3m reward for Power Index voting
a. the tokens which participated in voting for Power Pool composition will be only blocked from LM of Powerpool index, right? so they will be still mine the CVP in other liquidity pools and will be able to vote
b. As we discussed earlier - we need to create a framework and aggregate all the date on the Power Index candidates, to let the community make an educated voting - I am happy to help here! -
Great idea with decaying penalties for withdrawal - I believe YFI should learn from you guys:)
-
Please clarify re the part with creating a deep liquidity for govn tokens (the idea itself is to be implemented for sure)
a. How would you collect the fees nominated in govn tokens? is it technically possible? -
As was proposed by @protocol in the discord, we should definitely add the deflation for those who are not voting.
I am strongly believe we shouldn’t incentivize the holders with CVP for voting.
It should be a duty
https://discord.com/channels/737711771699249226/737711771699249229/759047148905168936
Other
7. Need to think over re the lock ups for early LP rewards vs beta/gammas - this is like with private sale rounds - who risked more (buying at more expensive prices) always have a better lock up terms
- CVP holder base since they are comprised of either 1) Alpha participants who held, 2) people who purchased on the open market or 3) people who took risk providing liquidityю It would be a disadvantage to those early supporters to release the Beta and Gamma distributions quickly
Here is a weak point - why are you assuming the Alphas hold their CVPs? and I do not agree, that for Alphas it would be a disadvantage if Beta/Gamma get token quickly. Alphas did not take any risk as well (I mean capital under risk)
So what I suggest: lets engage the team to speak with Alphas and vest them tokens.
the team has the list of Alphas. Just max 50 of them are holding CVP, so it should be easy to propose them to say the under 12m vesting.
This can be a very long leverage to additionally improve the tokenomics
2 Likes
not the same risk - alphas were unlocked beta.gammas are locked - diff risk
Mate, please give the community members a bit time to align all the numbers.
this is a tough and more like micro management type of job but it should be done
2 Likes
True, we can take some time to make some adjustments to all the numbers. Do it carefully and don’t hurt the beta, gamma testers.
2 Likes
Beta Tester here.
First of all – huge kudos to Delphi team for putting this together.
Generally I’m for this proposal. But there are few questions/suggestions:
-
Locking mechanism and voting power for Beta/Gamma testers. Since Beta/Gamma testers are people who helped with project promotion / feedback / product and token related stuff they should be able to participate in community governance. Is there a way to give them locked/vested tokens which represent their 50k allocation? And add additional locker mechanism similar to Curve so for example if I want to increase my voting power I can decide to prolong my lock / vesting and thus gain more voting power.
-
Change in locking/vesting to keep testers engaged. Let’s be honest. Most of the Beta/Gamma testers will just dump their tokens once received. So by increasing lock we just postpone that moment. What if instead we increase vesting? So instead of having 1y lock / 12 month linear vesting we introduce 24 or even 36 months vesting linear vesting. This is also important to keep Beta/Gamma testers engaged. In case of 1 year lock it’s such a long period of time and most of the Beta/Gamma testers just won’t contribute in any way because they will feel disconnected from the project. Giving them a very small portion each month can increase their engagement and keep them in the loop.
3 Likes
This should answer your question on #1
2 Likes
this is intersting idea. Skin in the game
Disagree with u here. Most will never evem read what are they voting for
2 Need to think over re the lock ups for early LP rewards vs beta/gammas - this is like with private sale rounds - who risked more (buying at more expensive prices) always have a better lock up terms
-true
3 So what I suggest: lets engage the team to speak with Alphas and vest them tokens.
-thats kind of punishmet for holding. thata not fair
Let’s be honest, locking up the tokens of all the beta and gamma testers - many of whom include significant influencers and major crypto personalities - until 2022… is unlikely to sit well with them.
2022 is very likely going to be the next bear market for the space. You’re essentially asking these gamma and beta testers to contribute during 2021 (which is likely going to be a raging bull market) for zero reward? Come on. They’ll likely leave and forget the project.
To keep them onboard they need to be rewarded. I would suggest you extend the vesting period slightly, something along the lines of the testers getting 10% per month as follows:
Oct 2020 10%
Nov 2020 10%
Jan 2021 10%
Feb 2021 10%
Mar 2021 10%
Apr 2021 10%
May 2021 10%
Jun 2021 10%
Jul 2021 10%
Aug 2021 10%
Do not alienate your strongest and most commercially aware supporters. Just extend their vesting to keep them actually interested for longer.
3 Likes