What amount darling ? You think the team spends 20k/month ? In what world do you live in ? 
1 Like
Please let’s stay focus on the topic here, you’re the one being rude here. Please don’t turn this serious topic into personal settlements. We got your point, now let’s listen other people opinion.
5 Likes
Seems like you missed the deleted post from Stikers who keeps throwing accusations at me each time I disagree with him (same with other people)
Could you please address your personal issues outside of the governance forum ans stop interfering with real people trying to debate on a real important DAO proposals or is that too difficult to ask?
6 Likes
Can we please stay focused on the subject at hand and refrain from infighting? If we want to encourage more people to get involved with the protocol and the DAO, it’s crucial that our discussions remain professional and constructive
4 Likes
@stikers did you hear that ?
We can work on a conspiracy movie, I think that you’ll do good 
Hello erveryone.
From my point of view the price of PSP will improve significantly when the institutional will enter. The market is still traumatisiert from the airdrop. The retail will not bet on paraswap, until institutional will come and invest for real purpose and long term on paraswap. Then the price will be up.
Better wait, the project is working well, the way is still very long.
1 Like
I agree with the proposal 
2 Likes
I completely agree with this point of pure governance.
The choice of whether or not to reclassify the governance proposal as a research topic rests solely with its author (if the proposal complies with the framework of course).
It’s the snapshot that is currently the only way of deciding and getting feedback from the community on this subject that has awakened the interest (:
3 Likes
Good idea i agree this proposal…
1 Like
After reading through all the discussions, I see that there are differences regarding the purpose of burning tokens in lock for years 3 and 4. The disagreements revolve around the usefulness of this action.
Before going further and for a better understanding of my points, I am also in favor of the Burn.
I won’t go over all the advantages that have already been mentioned several times during the discussions. I won’t repeat the disadvantages either.
I wouldn’t contribute anything to the debate by reiterating the advantages of a burn with which I align. I will focus only on what has already been done with Paraswap’s treasury or what has not been done precisely.
Since the creation of the DAO, very few significant/impactful actions have been taken with the capital available to the DAO. The only major evolution that Paraswap has undergone is its transition to the SePSP model. This action helped to curb the rampant inflation on the token. Since then, at no time have we used our monetary resources to climb to a new impactful level for Paraswap. If we take the example of the pool on Optimist that required a PSP allocation, it lacks depth, and the number of SePSP2 stackers has been decreasing for three epochs. The principle was good, but the result leaves something to be desired.
So, the question I ask myself is why sit on such a large amount of cash if we do not use it to develop the reach of Paraswap (ecosystem, marketing, CEX listing, promotion,)?
Be cautious; I can anticipate some reactions after mentioning “CEX listing”; you might think: here’s another MoonBoy who wants his bag propelled into the stars after a listing. No, these are just steps among many others that any protocol must achieve to grow. And I don’t place this step at the top of the list either.
Let’s get back to the point.
We talk a lot about the future, but why would we have more to do tomorrow than today? It is now that we must develop, strengthen our network, and our visibility, especially if we enter a bullish market phase; now is the time to deliver and use our funds!
So, keeping money for the future, yes, but for what purpose? If those who are against this measure can provide us with a development plan that requires using this treasury, we would be greatly delighted. We would have a better understanding of why we must keep these funds absolutely and not burn them.
Once again, keeping money aside just to keep money has no interest. And I think we have enough funds in case of action that would require soliciting treasury funds. Moreover, we already have a protocol that is starting to generate its own revenues and progressing with each epoch.
If we look again at the facts, a lot of money on the side but very little used to develop the protocol. So why want to keep even more once the vesting is over?
In fact, the debate should be in this direction: what are the reasons that would push us to keep this money dormant? Do you have an action plan? Costly marketing operations coming soon? A CEX listing (yes, I dared to say it again 
)? Strategic partnerships that require allocating funds?
If you could give us some insights, I would be delighted, and it would help me better understand your point of view.
Regarding the Burn Itself:
I also understand that it might be daunting to see 20% of our total supply cut off at once. We can also implement a monthly burn procedure. This would allow us to halt it in case of any black swan event related to the burn. I believe this has already been mentioned above.
It is important to plan, but even more crucial to use the resources already available for development. I am convinced that if we had an additional 2,000,000,000 PSP locked up, you would receive the same response. It’s not a question of burning 20% of the supply; it’s more a matter of fear if we find ourselves short of capital.
Conclusion:
If we have no plan for the use of these funds, I see no point in keeping them dormant in our chest. They have more of a negative impact (already mentioned several times above) than a positive one.
Of course, this remains my point of view, but I hope to have brought elements to the debate to help us move forward on this proposition.
I would also add that we lack a bit of “skin in the game” for this kind of decision, although it should not be taken lightly
PS:
I understand well that your opposition simply reflects your concern not to make the wrong decision for the protocol.
And I am convinced that we all wish for great success for Paraswap and that it finally takes its seat directly across from its colleague, 1Inch!
8 Likes
Hello everyone! I’m happy to see the good engagement regarding this topic.
It has been 1 week since the opening of this proposal discussion about the $PSP supply reduction, and several key points have emerged. Here’s a quick summary:
Pros:
- Aligns tokenomics with the new reward distribution model.
- Enhancement of diluted supply metrics.
- Mitigates concerns about reward sustainability, as current treasury holdings are deemed sufficient for the next few years.
- Clarifies the gray areas on the remaining offer for future investors.
- Influences Perception and Adoption.
Cons:
- Some see the burn as a high-risk, speculative action.
- Concerns about the irreversible nature of burning a significant portion of the supply.
- Questions about long-term impacts, especially if the token price doesn’t increase as expected.
- Suggestion to consider more data-driven decision-making and research.
Unanswered questions for those against include:
- Do you think that DAO revenues received at each epoch, plus the approximately 290 million dollars of $PSP, will suffice for the next 2 years?
- How did you arrive at this 2 billion total supply?
- What was the plan with the 870 million $PSP allocated to the DAO?
Some participants noted that these tokens haven’t been released yet, suggesting that ‘reducing the supply by 20%’ might be more accurate than ‘burning the supply by 20%’.
Furthermore, I’d like to highlight that AladdinDAO recently voted to reduce by 85% their supply, as seen in their discussion and vote.
9 Likes
Wen temp check & vote? It’s been quiet for almost a week, I guess everyone had a chance to speak!
1 Like
Thank you @Xutyr for summarising the points discussed so far, this thread is very long and it is hard to stay on track of all the points brought up.
Before answering to your summary, I would like to point all users at the DeFi Llama dashboard, as it feels it could help drive some data-driven solutions to this discussion as opposed to the current speculative ones: https://defillama.com/treasuries
All the major treasuries of the space have a composition that are made overwhelmingly of their own tokens. Despite this, they are highly succesful protocols, and none of them (especially not OP, Uniswap, ARB, ENS) have received any of the concerns people have discussed here before about ‘not using the whole treasury’. Even DAOs that have revenue in other tokens decide to keep their tokens as strategic assets, as opposed to burn any yearly vesting that has not been spent within that particular year.
If anything, many of these DAOs are strong BECAUSE of their strong token treasury that has not been used completely. Think of the Arbitrum STIP programme, the Optimism councils and ENS streams, for instance. All of these initiatives have helped drive new users and programmes to their space, leading overall to a higher return of DAO investment in the form of human capital, attention and growth.
Looking at success stories in DAOs show that true adoption and interest in the space does not come from manipulating supply metrics, but instead utilising the grants in ways that can drive demand to their DAO compaed to others. These are much better examples that we as a DAO should be looking at, as opposed to Social Club tokens in the 1100th market cap position with less than half a dozen people participating in their discussions.
Some additional thoughts to share:
As one of the main authors of the new tokenomics model, to be honest it’s kind of weird being corrected on the own tokenomics I designed. Transferring half the treasury to 0xDEAD does not align the tokenomics in any way, if anything it simply uses all the PSP that the treasury has accumulated so far from initial emissions (and more) on a single irrevesible action.
The actual metrics on are not going to change fyi, if the tokens are claimed and minted the max supply is still going to be shown as 2M, just with a different wallet holding 20% of the circulating supply. We will rely on third parties to adjust this manually, but the etherscan max supply would never change.
If the current holdings are deemed sufficient, then it is best we use these holdings and allow the next year’s budget to be used as runway for future ones, as all the top DAOs do when they do not use the whole treasury. See Optimism and their treasury foundation budget proposal, for example. Not a single mention of burning the unused tokens!
This is just arguing semantics, in the end it still actively uses treasury resources to transfer funds to an unusable address.
Most of the questions were answered at the start of my post, but one last thing I would like to bring up to make this discussion more useful is the concept of the burden of proof.
I was not present on the initial tokenomics design, but this is not the point being discusssed. The point being discussed here is whether 400M PSP being transferred to an inaccessible address is going to lead to all the benefits that have been excitedly shared over the last 50 posts.
I would love for them to turn out to be the case as well, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case, we are making a decision that has a budget higher than all the previous proposals combined.
Judging by the current arguments, the best evidence we have found for a large token treasury with demand-driven DAO growth are ENS, UniSwap, Optimism, Arbitrum, Frax, AAVE and more. The best case for a large token supply burn and supply-driven DAO attention is Alladin DAO
4 Likes
Thankfully, this will also be the case of Paraswap since DAO will claim year 1 and year 2 tokens, and also thanks to the foundation that will free us from the OP and ARB tokens, increasing the “own tokens” ratio.
What matters is also Total supply, if you look at Coinmarketcap, we can see:
2 Likes
You’re welcome for the summary.
It’s a good idea to check the DAO treasury on DeFiLlama, but as @Paradigme noted, having 290 million from years 1 and 2 isn’t sufficient. However, it’s interesting to note when looking at the treasuries that our main competitor, 1inch, owns fewer of its tokens than the rest, which indicates a healthy treasury…
Isn’t this what the core team did with the $OP & $Arb tokens? Although, to be fair, Optimism presented a real proposal with detailed costs, etc.
At the end, these tokens will likely be dumped on retail investors, and this seems to be why the majority are in favor of this proposal…
What if, instead of burning 2 years of (20% of the supply) now, we burn the year 3 (10%)? With this update, we will have real data for one year and only miss out on 10%, but the years 1 and 2 tokens that we’re going to claim soon should be enough. At the end of 2024, we can do a retrospective of the spending and see if burning was worthwhile or not.
6 Likes
I’d rather vote for a 2-years burn, instead of a 1-year burn.
But I’d rather vote for a 1-year burn, instead of no burn.
I don’t think we should introduce the 1-year options, since alternatives to the original proposal weren’t supported by replies.
And this would split the vote, which is bad.
Also why not burning year 4 instead of 3… Many questions.
I believe most people are in favor of a 2 year burn.
1 Like
I’m not talking about adding a new option but rather than update the proposal to burn only year 3 at this time. Why year 3 instead of 4 it’s for several reasons but the main one to me it’s to avoid the multi sig to sign 4 transactions for years 3 where maybe we will make another burn next year (save team time)
1 Like
I totally agree with ALL what you wrote. The way is still vey very long and we may need, we will need this PSP token soon or later. Burn token now - at the just beginning of the paraswap journey - is a non sense for a compagny who want to still be there in 10-20 or more years… The price of the token will improve when its time come. We all want to see the price improve, we all want to see the price rise, but it would be a huge mistake to do so at the expense of the future development potential of Paraswap.
I want to finish by asking this question which is addressed to all of us, in a humble, honest manner, without judgment and which of course does not require any response in this forum, but a simple personal questioning.
Which of us have already created a business and grown it over several decades? Who knows what the crypto ecosystem - which will probably soon enter a new, more regulated era, with new challenges - will have to face in the future?
Let’s keep these tokens, we’ll need them.
2 Likes
Ok ok, that’s also interesting! I don’t know what others think about it.
1 Like