If you want to know what testers are doing, take it up with the team. All I know is what I’m doing as a tester, and it’s not “nothing”.
This is what I have been talking about for a while. This is not my fault you didn’t track discord and this forum (though this is not your duty of course)
Dont worry, I will take it up with the team. And before this happened please don’t blame the LPs for being nervous about what the testers are doing - this should have been disclosed by the team this is not LPs fault
1 Like
Nice to hear. So u dont need any unlocks)
its very good that those who not invested will not have oportunity to dump on us)
1 Like
Can you share links or provide details of the work you provided to the team or community?
I track more than you know my friend. Please stop being so presumptive, and why are you being antagonistic? We are all on the same side here. We want what is best for the project.
The spirit of this proposal is fine But I think you need to be a little more accommodating to the testers. At the end of the day, unless you propose something that will at least partially entice them, they are just going to vote against this.
I think we need a middle-ground approach. Perhaps 1/12th of the rewards spread over the next 12 months, starting from this September?
3 Likes
Ok, so will be happy to see content comments from your side.
1 Like
No, that’s not happening.
1 Like
They are getting 50,000 free tokens, if that doesn’t entice them enough i don’t know what will. All we are asking is that they get locked for 12 months. We aren’t asking them to wait 10 years. Like i said earlier LPs are going to get our rewards locked for 12 months and i haven’t seen one of us complain about that. We believe in the project and it’s long term objective and we have put our own capital on the line, we have the most to lose. if your worried about the testers not being engaged in the project because they have to wait 12 months than these aren’t the type of people i want in the community. From my experience in this project so far the most active engaging group is by far the LPs. There are a handful of active testers engaging daily but there should be a lot more with the amount of rewards they will be receiving. The testers don’t seem to be even engaging on social media, you would think that each tweet that powerpool sends out that a large majority of them would be liking and retweeting but that isn’t even the case.
3 Likes
My proposals are to decrease the lock time and increase the vesting time for Beta/Gamma testers
Beta testers: 6 months lock-up and 12 months vesting
Gamma testers: 9 months lock-up and 18 months vesting
1 Like
I agree a middle ground approach is best or the testers will just vote it down.
I think everyone here can agree the PowerIndex and your proposed design are fantastic. The contention is around test wallet vesting. I believe we should be pragmatic about how this can impact the near term support we gain.
12-24 months is a lifetime in crypto.
I would propose that we vote in a 12 month lock-up, but that there be a TVL or market capitalization target that if reached based on a 30 day moving average, the unlock would begin then. It would encourage the community to work together to reach that goal to achieve earlier liquidity.
If my proposal is too complex, then I believe voting in this proposal as is makes sense. You can’t argue with it from a trader and LP perspective. This will make CVP a top, top tier project.
5 Likes
great idea!
So we can include this one for the grant distribution Proposal 6: Vesting, Liquidity Mining & PowerIndex Design
and the one proposed by @DerPolitiker
I believe there are other opportunities for KPI-like distribution can be added in future
3 Likes
Agreed completely - well said
1 Like
This is brilliant. Love the thought of “gamifying” to encourage more engagement. Some variant of this would be great.
Most of the conversation here was about the vesting and right fully so, BTW i am for @DerPolitiker proposal.
I didnt see any discussion regarding the pool which is the prodact. So, since its a blancer fork it will have only 8 tokens…
I was wondering why everyone is referring to only one pool if we are talking about ETF’s? why not have more than one?
A number of pools will open the project to a variety of possibilities & ETF’s products: small caps, mid caps, large caps, risk parrety ETF BTC/ETH/DAI ETF’s (uncoralted tokens Rebalancing over time…).
There might be even more possibilities like trading ETFs as a BTC/ETH pair or maybe even ETF’s pool (the pool of pools)
And since we are talking about governance tokens(which in some point in time will be moat DEFI tokens) the project could be branded as an ETF the might/should pay dividends at some point in the future.
Would love to ear your thoughts!
Fill free to draw holes and/or add layers to what i wrote.
@YHRW we dont referring to just one pool - we discussed an ETF product line - many diff pools (rather than just one pool) from the very start.
I think that the ides now is that we need to launch the flafship ETF index (Power Index), test it in real life and after that start adding other indexes
And we also discussed the pools like ETF/Power Pool token. I believe the team keeps it in mind
I’ll to explain where i am coming from
The innovation in the space is moving forward exponentially (which it should BC we are in experimental phase inside a bull market).
Just look at what is happening around ETH its like any 2 month there is a new hype.
In my view it serves three goals:
- Proof of concept for the leading protocols in the segment.
- Expending network affects exponentially for the new protocols/apps.
- Buliding a moat around ETH ecosystem.
In order get to proof of concept you basically need to cupture enough people attention for enough time.
In order cupture enough attention for enough time we’ll probably need more than one or two products without any new “features” (LP & lending).
SO You basically need to innovate until you’ll be able to accomplish proof of concept.
So IMHO one pool & lending won’t be enough but, just for example, if you can list a ETF token on a few exchanges with BTC/Stable pairs you will certainly capture people attention (and that is only 1 feature and there might be others with more appeal).
Now, It seems there’s a team here that can execute and implement fast but if we are not going to have those debates now they won’t have enough time & we might lose the momentum, look what happened to DMM).
So all i basically saying is we need to have those discussions about what should be instore in the pipeline now. So when the time comes we, as a community, will be able to vote smoothly & fast in order for the team to start working…
It seems the only discussion we are having lately is about token distribution which is understandable BC it’s one of the basic fundamentals of the project but its not enough.
But we need to have more discussions in order to understand what needed to be done moving forward.
1 Like
Doubt is an unpleasant position. But certainty is an absurd one.
1 Like
Yeah, I am fully agree that we should speed up the inovation. And the arguments about listing the diff pair on diff indexes sound reasonable.
To be fair, the first version of Power index was delivered superquickly, I am pretty sure adding other indexes is not a problem.
Would be great to lay out a publicly available pipeline/strategy and drive it by the community and discuss it with the team. Looks like there are enough community members which can add a lot of value with product ideation and bootstrapping, so this can be beneficial for the team to outsourse this function on the community
I see the first step need to be done here is creation of GTs (gonv token) matrix so as
- everyone can understand how the index building works and how exactly the indexes differ (based on numbers)
- community will be eble to make educated voting on the indexes composition
2 Likes