I’m so thrilled to see this proposal has gathered so much engagement! The ideas and discussion that I am seeing are absolutely invaluable, and makes me even more confident that the final proposal will be amazing. I wanted to share a couple of my thoughts on some discussion ideas to be able to decide how to best go forward:
After reading through most reactions to the fairdrop, I think we can all agree that it should not launch in its current state.
Since the final Fairdrop criteria were meant to go on a separate vote to be approved anyway, I suggest we create its own dedicated thread to discuss it further
The idea of the fairdrop was to invite members that initially felt excluded from the DAO to rejoin the conversation, but alternative solutions can be worked on that the community would agree more with!
On separating discussion
As already mentioned, I agree that it is best to separate the discussion of the fairdrop, as both that one and the GovCo votes were meant to be put in another vote in the future. However, any further splitting might un-intuitively lead to even less productive discussion.
One point that I find is important is the atomicity of these sections. Separating the discussions makes sense if some of these sections can pass a vote while others do not (such as the fairdrop and GovCo member elections), but all other sections are linked and rely on each other. Without the fee redistribution, there is little point in the ParaBoost system or staking mechanisms. Without GovCo the voting changes, sePSP will not be the voting token of choice, and we will not have a framework to handle future proposals that could occur from introducing such a major system.
Offchain boosts and sePSP adjustments
The suggestions on how to make the sePSP system more balanced and better distributed are amazing, so thank you to everyone who has suggested ways to make them even more fair (shoutout to @enerow , @xtatik and @maxax , go check their posts!). You all raised very good points that the formulae could easily be adjusted to be more socially oriented.
Regarding the contributor boosts, that is something that was on the original draft of Social Escrow. However, in the end I arrived to the same conclusion as other DAO members, that these contributions are better suited to be handled on the Social DAO level rather than the PSP Protocol level.
Fee redistribution should be as easy to decentralize and as trustless as possible, which means it is best to only account on-chain quantifiable variables. Anyone should be able to recalculate the distribution on their own end. Because of this, it might be better to leave these contributions to a system on the DAO.
sePSP2 and other clarifications
Finally, here are some miscellaneous clarifications that I thought are worth mentioning:
- sePSP2 will receive a 2x value increase in both voting power and the ParaBoost. This is the only boost that will be applied on both levels, with all other ones being only concerning to fee redistribution. This is to further incentivize the contributions of liquidity
- A zk badge was considered for ParAccounts, but ultimately they would not have been beneficial. This is because all the data is available on-chain. The main purpose of the ParAccount is for ease of use of users who wish to separate these activities but want to accumulate their boost in one ParaBoost.
- The window to claim with a small delay is being suggested to reduce abuse of the system and reward users that are actively engaging in the protocol. The fee situation is a valid concern, but its going to be resolved once we expand 2.0 to go full multichain. A roll-up claim function could be considered.
- Finally, adding a flat 0.1% fee to all trades through ParaSwap sounds like a good idea, but considering that the main purpose of the protocol is to deliver the best prices, it would render us too uncompetitive. Other forms of revenue accumulation can be discussed once PSP 2.0 is accounted for.