That’s a very nice perspective! If we burn the tokens now, we’re maybe doing a big disfavour to future generations that will join the DAO and may need these tokens. Being in crypto for years, all I can say is that there is no way to predict the future, this industry is very nascent and growing too fast that each cycle comes with complete brand new ideas and concepts (BTC/L1s in 2013-2014, ICOs for 2017-2018, DeFi/NFTs for 2020-2021, and god knows what we’ll have this time…). The people defending the burn may not be around in 2-5 years but the project is meant to live forever. So why burn something that can become precious in the future?
I suggest a middleground: instead of burning the tokens, let’s create new 4 years vesting contracts:
Year 3: Will vest from Nov 15th 2025 to Nov 15th 2029
Year 4: Will vest from Nov 15th 2026 to Nov 15th 2030
This will guarantee that these tokens won’t hit the market in this cycle and it will provide ParaSwap a leverage that it may or may not need. If it needs it, it will have to be justified, if not it can re-vest for another cycle.
TLDR; Re-vesting provides optionality, burning is destructive and irreversible.
Let’s think big & long term success of a protocol that can not only empower DeFi tokens, but real world assets one day!
In my opinion, not burning these tokens is an abuse of weakness. Let me explain.
I’ve seen a few messages suggesting that we need to plan ahead.
But when you set up a business, the funds you commit initially should be used as quickly as possible to maximise revenue growth and diversification.
When I read that these funds could be used in 5 years’ time, it scares me to death!
Because if you think for a second that this is possible, it would mean that Paraswap isn’t earning enough revenue, that no big investment fund wants to invest and that the token will be at rock bottom. In short, Paraswap will be dead.
I reiterate that 400m of PSP are more than enough to prevent the future and we’ll have to think about burning them too within 1 year, if they’re still useless.
I still haven’t seen a solid argument against burning 2 years. Except the “fear of lack”, which is irrational.
I can see @Xutyr is trying to take a step towards those against the proposal by suggesting a burn of 1 year, first. I appreciate the approach and openness. But, it doesn’t seem to satisfy anyone: neither those in favor of the initial proposal nor those against it.
I saw several counter-proposals on this topic, but none seems to get as much support as the original proposal… So, I agree with @caprice, we should stay focused on the initial proposal.
And I hope, we’ll be able to vote it soon, since this is what a DAO does to take decisions.
The arguments for and against go round and round… I don’t think it will change either side.
@Xutyr do you have any plan for the voting phase? Temp check / vote dates?
@yongsen & @caprice are @Paradigme’s fake profile. That’s considered an abuse and against the terms and conditions, both are suspended & @Paradigme you are warmed, and please stop this kind of abuse, you don’t need to create multiple profiles to express the same opinion. The proof is kept secret for privacy reasons.
Take not that from year 4, the DAO will be able to mint 2% / year of the total supply.
Which at the end is similar with your suggestion but it require less tx to ‘revoke/burn’ at least year 3 as I’m proposing in an update and we could mint later if it’s needed (which I doubt).
I’m not looking to reduce the impact of the sell for this cycle tbh, I doesn’t care about $PSP price (I see it as a lost tbh), I’m looking the DAO and its treasury to be healthy in a long term (as 1inch treasury), so we should believe more on the revenue generated for the DAO at each epoch than having more than 30% of the total supply.
Regarding the snapshot, with Christmas holidays, etc. I will let open the discussion and debate until the 2nd of January (1er Tuesday of January). The 1st I will make the final update regarde ‘revoke/burn’ year 3 or years 3/4.
The re-vesting is a brilliant idea. I suggest we add that to the voting options.
Btw, as I explained before, ParaSwap is still in high growth mode and far away from being profitable. It should net “profit” this year at ~$400k, which is almost like an ok Coffee Shop in a cool city no expenses are supported by the treasury yet, that would’ve put the DAO on the negative even if we consider the whole $2M as a revenue…
I’m not sure what makes you think that about me, this is also abusive and disrespectful. Not because I disagree with the proposal that I’m a fake profile as you are with these 2 accounts.
FI: A DAO is not a nation state to call it a democracy, that shows the level of small thinking you have…
Not the same thing, both could be needed actually… how do we know years ahead in this constantly changing market dynamics… ?
To reduce the price impact, you’ll need to burn more than 20% I’m afraid (the other 80% will be still circulating…). The current market depth in Balancer is ~$40k, this means that $40k in PSP sold will take the price down 2%, 10M PSP sold will crash the price by at least 10%, add to that both panic selling & stop losses triggers, we’ll be looking at 25-30% price drop… and that’s only 0.5% of the total supply Removing that 20% won’t make any difference if the market stops believing in ParaSwap.
The market wants to see ParaSwap growing, generating more volume/revenue, onboarding more users, expanding to new markets… Not burning tokens that could be needed when its competition has 40x more money
1inch treasury is worth $16M in liquid assets (40x vs us), how do you intend to build that with a $400k/ year net revenue ? Also, as most people who were around the last few years know, 1inch DAO is controlled by the 1inch foundation that raised +$200M, how do you think we stand a chance to compete using such an improvised financial planning ?
What happened to this by the way?
I understand that some are expecting to exit this cycle but this burn won’t help you, ParaSwap will be valued more if it succeeds on building more traction & better distribution, nothing else.
That’s not our job, it’s the foundation’s job, isn’t it? The foundation still has a huge number of PSPs and now ARBs and OPs.
You persist in thinking that the sole purpose of this proposal is to increase the price of PSP in the short term.
But this is not the case. The aim of this proposal is to give meaning to outdated tokenomics.
Tokens were allocated to a staking system. The system no longer exists and the tokens have been burnt. IT’S ALL FACTUAL.
By insisting on giving these tokens another use, you are implying that the initial tokenomics was not viable.
Overall, I feel that the “debate” is not rightly scoped. It is asked to people who are against the burn to justify their choice.
There is a system that exists. Some people want to change it. The responsibility of convincing people that their system is better is 100% on them.
We are talking about changing one of the core fundamentals of the tokenomics. And this should be done over a “burn or no burn” vote?
In order for me to support such a big change, I want to see why 20% is the optimal choice. Why not 25%? 15%?
What would be the other possibilities for these 20%? Why burning them is a better choice than distributing them to stakers or other solutions?
So yeah by default I vote against this as I didn’t see a detailed argument that shows that a good study was done on the topic. By voting yes to this, we open a door where anyone can come and ask for a burn without a data driven back up. Why not ask for an additional 20% burn right after this vote?
Because again, this is about year 3 and 4 DAO claim, which is 200M + 200M = 400M = 20% of 2B…
You didn’t because it seems you didn’t read all the 73 messages before yours.
EDIT: I just try to read all the proposal and its replies, now I’m 5 minutes later and ofc I didn’t have enough time to read everything.
Yeah I read the full thread while I wasn’t connected and I logged in to write my message.
You created multiple accounts to influence people and then you go look for the stats of my account to see if I’m legit…
My approach is that by default I’ll vote “no” to any supply modification and that I need to be convinced. As @0xYtocin said “the burden of proof” is on you. Prove that this is the best way moving forward and that comparing to many other strategies, this is the best approach. It’s not only about proving that A is better than B. It’s also showing that you thought about C, D, E… and that A is the best solution.
And sorry but you are far from this. If you consider that your arguments are enough, it’s your right, but it’s also my right to consider that I want to see more in order to vote Yes. And I invite people who don’t have their mind made already to consider how a change that important requires an important work to prove that it’s the best solution. Maybe the 20% burn is the best plan moving forward, but it’s really impossible to say at the moment as there isn’t much to back it up.
@Paradigme This is discouraging other people from participating in our forum discussions. Questioning the legitimacy of members based on their login hours while creating fake accounts to influence the discourse is another kind of abuse. This is the last warning before a permanent ban.
I had invested in the revenue generated by the real yield, not to speculate on the token price.
I’m wondering how you think that now we will use more than 200M $PSPs per year when we are in a bear market and in 2 years we barely used 90M. The only reason for using so much PSP from the treasury now is to pay the core team with it (maybe we will have a proper roadmap and cost/expense analysis ).
Funny that as @stikers, you still insist that I’m pushing this proposal to increase the price of the $PSP, which, by the way, will benefit the DAO by granting less $PSP overall. Since the beginning we announced it not about price, in any case if we are in bull market those people will leave anyway… if in 77 posts you still didn’t get it…
It’s also funny that when others compare our DAO with others, it’s pertinent, but comparing with our main competitor or others that do not make you right is not.
But let’s take the example of AAVE:
So, 104.25M$ of $AAVE tokens that the DAO owns, which represent 1,012,135.92233 of $AAVE tokens. BUT:
This amount represents 6.34% of the total supply, not 34.5%. In the year 1 & 2 claim happening soon, we will have 19.5%.
There is no mint() function in the token contract that the DAO can trigger.
Well, Aladin just voted for an 85% burn of their supply, but it looks like it’s not an acceptable example.
The 20% isn’t arbitrarily defined by the proposal; it’s a result of the amount vesting for years 3 & 4. As this amount scares some people, I proposed to replace the year 3 & 4 burn with only the year 3 burn (200M of $PSPs, which represents 10% if you want to know).
If you followed the discussion, the DAO used ~90M of $PSPs in 2 years, where the first year, the PSP1.0 was active with all rewards/incentives in $PSPs. At this day, we reward more or less 1.5-2M of $PSP by the gas refund per epoch (this amount depends on the $PSP price & gas). But in a few days, we will claim 290M of $PSPs, which should be more than enough, and we also have the 20% of revenue at each epoch in $ETH. But all of this was described above.
We described the reason for this proposal several times, but anyway, enerow well described it:
In any case, whatever proofs we bring to show that the proposal is a good idea to end the last part of PSP1.0, you will slash them on the reason of treasury usage speculation. I proposed to update the proposal for burning year 3 as the first step, but nobody against this proposal reacted; it’s better to point out the same things again and again but yeah burden of proof Well, who knows, maybe 400M of $PSPs will be needed for the Android app.
@Xutyr I’m also confused, sometimes you say that PSP is unique and now you’re comparing it to 1inch, AAVE & …Aaaladin? Make up your mind ser @stikers do you agree with that ?
Aladin burned their tokens but this is a tiny 12M FDV project, is this our model now ?
Because they were smart enough to not let amateurs manage finances of a serious project and this proposal is a good example…
My vote is a big NO and I hope this will be the opportunity to rework the tokenomics and bring in professionals (like AAVE)…
Aladin DAO has an fdv of 85M, and the latest project they’ve built, f(x) protocol, launched 3 months ago, also has a higher fdv than paraswap…
It seems there are no arguments, explanations or comparisons that might influence positions that are already locked in (on both sides).
Personally, I will vote Yes to this proposal.
no expenses are supported by the treasury yet, that would’ve put the DAO on the negative even if we consider the whole $2M as a revenue…
