This is an aside, BUT, can we develop a proposal for testers who want to LP to receive some portion of their beta or gamma distribution of CVP sooner? I’d like to LP across several of the pools, not just the 10% CVP, 90% ETH pool, so if we could skew rewards to be higher for LPing vs beta testing, and apply a bonding curve or vesting schedule to the LP rewards, wouldn’t that also solve the problem of changing the distribution of CVP over time and encouraging lockups? Just thinking out loud here - seems like it would be a good mechanism to separate people who want to market sell vs people who want to accumulate voting power by LP’ing.
2 Likes
I think I’ve voiced this before but as a Gamma tester just reiterating I’d be fine with a vesting period of a year, particularly because LPs are subject to it as well.
Meltdem,
Thanks for participating in the forums. It’s refreshing to see a tester here.
Is this accurate to what you’re proposing?
Proposal
Don’t dilute tester allocations and impose a vesting schedule
Offer an alternative vesting schedule for testers that want to LP
Tester LP rewards have their own vesting schedule
Comments
I am against this proposal as that would double down on the influence of testers that have no skin in the game and would earn exponential funds off of the house’s money. I would be for this proposal in typical VC and private sale deals where there’s vesting + forced participation in the protocol through lending or staking. However, testers never spent money on allocations.
4 Likes
Agree with @DeFi
The fact that there was no capital at risk to receive the testers’ allocations is a pretty important factor that restricts the implementation of the model you describe.
Also, could you please advise how to tie a bond curve mechanics here? not sure I fully got it
Thanks
2 Likes
As I said in response to your prior proposal, I personally don’t have issues w changing the balance between testers v LPs, so long as it has community consensus to pass, that’s the whole ethos of Powerpool - distributed metagovernance. I’m saying that testers who want to LP should be able to do so, you’re saying testers shouldn’t get anything and only ppl who had capital to buy tokens should, so idk that’s pretty far apart in terms of philosophy. Predicating participation based on $ is sort of antithetical to the Powerpool experiment - I find it odd that you’re advocating for plutarchy (pay to play) in an experiment that attempt to change the dynamics of protocol politics by giving active participants and contributors a stake early on. Anyways, it really feels like a few people want to push things in a very specific direction so I guess this is the best test of the Powerpool governance mechanism. Unless the voting dynamics change, it’s really up to the Alpha testers and the VCs who market bought their tokens.
1 Like
You can now go vote on this proposal at the link below. We made a few modifications based on feedback.
4 Likes
This. I think the other side of this proposal is voting that testers receive no tokens at all so prices head one way. Clearly anyone buying into the network knew the vesting terms. For them to acquire tokens retroactively and pull activism to push out people without hthem having a say in the network is going to be the bane of the project. I have personally stopped spending time because it did not feel like there is a middle ground. Other large influencers like DeFi Prime have also began pulling out. Clearly the trend is obvious here if this is how this community wants to run itself.
Also with all due respect to the folks at Delphi - what are you really optimising for here? You curate a group of 300 people who can vote and help meaningfully then say they cant vote for 12 months after breaching a social contract that clearly said the 10% of supply will be released at mainnet launch. This is some really dumb shit.
I am sorry i sound so frustrated but clearly some members here want to pass proposals without discussing or finding middlegrounds. I have spent sufficient time trying to talk sense on here…
Will see you at the voting grounds. Also please dont come at me with some “bUT br0 u Want dumpz” nonsense. I literally agreed to signing legal contracts and pushed for longer vesting the whole time but somehow the whole ethos is to block out all testers and frustrate them with the most pain in every way you can.
Why should testers make money on top of free money? You claim that not allowing this is antithetical to Powerpool’s “experiment”. This is false. PowerPool’s mission is to deliver power to small holders to match that of the VCs, the influencers, and the inner circles (pretty much you).
Every governance protocol has your definition of plutarchy. Why? Because those with skin in the game have vested interest and responsibility to ensure proper governance.
Honestly, if testers were given the option to choose between locking tokens or being an LP then 100% would choose to become an LP. Why? Because just holding locked tokens means you’re not achieving alpha. The result? 10,000,000 CVP or $30,000,000 LP-ing with free money to make more money and control more of the CVP in 200 wallets. How does that solve anything? If LP rewards are vested then that still doesn’t solve the skewed allocations and inevitable distribution. The distribution under your “proposal” will transfer a larger absolute percent relative to the circulating supply than the current proposal. When Delphi Digital’s proposal vesting period ends and testers receive their free tokens it will be a lot smaller relative to circulating supply then if it was released tomorrow. Your proposal makes it 10X larger. Which would probably destroy the project.
-
You continuously make it seem like a bad thing that people spent money on a startup they believe in. Is this psyops? Crypto Twitter Influencer gets free tokens and shames people who had to pay.
-
Do you read the Discord, blogs, team statements? The testers will be able to vote on Proposal 6.
Also- stop referring to PowerPool as an "experiment’. Does your attempt to deprecate the team and community’s work help you validate your false sense of entitlement?
2 Likes
I’m proud to say I was the winning vote in this historic moment
3 Likes
You haven’t won anything yet. Tester votes will kick in after 12 hours. Sorry
FYI - I will fully rally behind a proposal that says 10% on main-net, and linear vesting from month 3.
Not giving the mainnet promised assets is a breach of social contract and changing vesting terms retroactively.
guess you are right, I just woke up and went straight to voting without even having coffee or breakfast.
Sincerely hope this middleground proposal can reach consensus!
I’m FOR this middle ground proposal.
Tokenomics make or break a project, this middle ground fixes this. Testers will still be able to participate gradually in governance, while LP’s taking the higher initial risk gets rewarded. If there’s no balance, current LP’s will just bail from the project. LP’s are as essential to the success of the projects, as are testers/promoters.
Liquidity Mining Rewards’ 12month lock up totally makes sense too, if LP’s wanna profit, they can’t dump right away, it’s the same logic with tester’s tokens. We need to be aligned for the long term, not the short term.
3 Likes
we did not receive tokens in alpha
1 Like
Like i said, your priorities are different from other testers and maybe a reasonable thing for you to do would have been to discuss this with them before trying to pull populism. Quite disappointed as a long term subscriber to Delphi
Our priority is for PowerPool to have the best chance to succeed. The proposal smooths out new supply coming to market over a longer time horizon to better enable that, while also depositing most of the supply in the treasury for the community to manage moving forward. We proposed a governance vote, on a governance platform, with CVP we purchased, 1 week after sharing a full write up and model to support our reasoning.
4 Likes
Alpha’s tokens were released right in the beginning, we weren’t able to do anything about it, and we saw the outcome. This is our chance to fix this.
In regards to your point 3, testers will still be able to participate in governance. What you are saying is that testers need the incentive (from the liquidity of the 10% unlock) in order to continue participating, really?
“Whale driven network”, lol. Have you even seen the holder’s allocations? The whales are the 300 testers. Please stop spreading fake news.
It’s also not cool to publicly accuse Delphi from having received tokens in alpha, when they have clearly stated they have only participated in gamma, specially if you are a “long term subscriber”. If you were you’d be aware of their frequency in updating their transparency board.
Can you please stop with the “pls stop with X argument”?
3 Likes
I have withdrawn my statement.
Apologies.
No worries, it’s fine to have different opinions. Appreciate the discourse
Mate we are going to pointlessly bicker over this all day
Will leave to the voting to figure what’s best. Sorry I keep bringing this conversation back…
I still stand by my statement that 10% on main-net + Linear vesting from 3 months is ideal. It reduces sell pressure, and is perfect middleground. If this does not pass, Delphi has the choice of going in that direction. Either ways, I do think it will and we will be in month 6 arguing the same thing when price is not where we need it to be. Clearly collaboration is not the ethos we are looking at. Its each man for themselves. Delphi has an in-market position so this serves their purpose regardless of what you say (they literally said they purchased it) - for other testers, this may not fit their requirements. Voting is the only way to know.
2 Likes
I think the updated one is exactly what you say here - feels fair compromise