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
It’s not “free”. Work was involved. And for those of us that take our jobs as testers seriously, will continue to be involved, on a daily basis.
Like i said, the only natural next step is to propose all no LP tokens are not vested , ever so LPs have a $10 coin that nobody uses…
1 Like
- Please note, Sergey suggested much softer terms
- Are you in talks with the funds/investors/ etc? the current tokenomics is killing the project
- I disagree with your suggestions as you know from the previous discussions, but probably solution can be to
- incentivize beta.gammas for the longer lock up
- make the lock up/vesting somewhere in between of what you are saying vs Delphi proposes (but closer to delphi)
So lets play with the model
u dont need tokens to get rich just go short in 2022)
If u think that after 1 year cvp will cost zero why are u here?
(exept u a going to dump on LPs before CVP going to 0 obviosly)
Like I literally said like ten times on multiple posts - I am all on board with longer vesting. I am just tired of random trolls who keep personally attacking when all many of us are doing is finding middleground
- Yes sergey, we agreed on those matters. I even said last day lets talk when you were busy lobbying to pass proposal quick
- I am from a fund. The new token economics don’t look al that attractive either. Focus on the token sinks if that is what you really want.
- Longer lock-up tester votes getting more weightage is the easiest solution to lock up liquidity.
That being said - can we please stop with the personal attacks when many gamma testers and especially me have been here 24/7 trying to find a solution. I dont know how much more assurance than me agreeing to a contract I can offer. Its becoming a waste of time.
1 Like
In all of my previous comments above I am not referring to myself. I am a long term holder and represent a bunch of similarly minded long term holders. I am talking about beta and gamma testers in general. And not all are as invested in this as you and I are.
I am more and more convinced tha we need to make the public KPI for the testers.
@LordOfArda please look through the discord and here on the forum - you ll easily find out that the LPs are nervous about what actually the testers are doing .
Who is the tester? why we call them testers? As Ithough testers are the team (3-5-10 people) which test the product. and this is a profession
Well we see around 15 testers who at lease active here and in discord, but what about other 285 testers?
Anyway, in the end of the day their success with this project heavly depends on us, LPs.
So if you want a content discussion re the testers - lets start to put it in a way of what the testers are exactly doing. Not “marketing, opinion leaders” - what all these words exactly mean?
Do you want to say that if someone has 20k followers on twitter he/she will not dump the tokens?
I would be happy to have a great CPO or QA instead of 25th guy with community in telegram or twitter
So please lets use the facts, not general words
3 Likes
yes sure lets catch up in telegram and have a chat, thnanks for reminding.
I have been lobbying it because we didnt see any response from the team and it seemed to be urgent.
After the noise happened (or just Delphi guys woll out their proposal) team seems to became more open to a dialogue.
1 Like