First of all; congratulations on the funding proposal. I think a $150M FDV in todays current market (which equates Gearbox to Yearn) is a great achievement. Bravo. This is especially important considering Yearn is revenue generating, battle-tested and very prominent within the industry. I don’t think terms such as these would be easy to find elsewhere.
Considering my aspirations for the protocol, I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is, so if there’s space to join the round (under same conditions) as those listed above I’d be very much interested.
What can I bring to the table?
Primarily: Size and heavy use of V2 yield farming capabilities and resultant feedback on the platform. Have recently gone FT Crypto and looking to get more involved in the protocols I am interested in.
On the issue of the weight of the institution getting the DAO, the proposal and Ivan did not state and did not consider.
I think the issue of the proportion of voting weight for institutions is quite important.
Institutions have the strength to get more token, and these institutional participants have an incentive to use DAO to do evil if there is a possibility that the gearbox will grow into a protocol of the volume of uni crv. We should prevent the treasury of gearbox from being emptied at a later stage, and prevent DAO from being controlled by large institutions. And at the same time maintain relative fairness, will not appear similar to juno , solend this strange phenomenon of killing giant whales.
To set a parameter in the voting weight of the DAO for institutional participants
I would personally be in favour of this approach. Changing FDV and locks might be a bit too stringent (let’s not forget the terms are in a good middle ground, subjectively) - but letting more chads and community members in should be encouraged, if they have the size and want to get in. Your post is great so is @Sha256, Juan on Discord, @grin and others. I believe @lewi & @amplice also were considering.
So on that note, it would be great to discuss the following… If those few chads are to get in, I would think the terms should be the same. After all, strategic = strategic be it institutional or not. But the question is where that $$ will go. Based on @apeir99n & @jared_gb projections, these 5-6M are enough of a runway (even with a slightly scaled contributor team) for about 2 years. And as the OP post shows, that is WITHOUT taking protocol revenue into account. In essence, this $$ is to iterate on the product suite and try to find PMF so that earnings kick in harder.
Beyond 6M, more audits and bug bounties can be done - which is great. But probably with a marginal decline in necessity and quality. There are simply no 10 best auditors, only like 5. And we already have covered a half of them? So basically, too much money is not needed either.
As such, WHAT IF the extra demand goes into an LBP or other style program? Perhaps into @banteg’s “liquidity seeding” contract of last year (or was it 2 years ago?) where this extra $$ can actually already be used for POL of the GEAR-USDC(ETH) liquidity pool. Because we will get into this question weeks or months down the line, so maybe it’s good to start stacking up demand for that now?
Firstly,I’m favorable with this proposal which could help long-term positive development for community.I read Sushi Phantom Troupe despite it failed,I think several points are worth discussing.
1.Added value from strategic investors.Gearbox is at a different protocol stage with sushi in term of the financing timing,I would put VCs or individuals who can help gearbox transit to the next stage in the first place.I wish VCs or any other individuals who’d like to participant in this round should tell us in public what’s added value they can bring to Gearbox community.Quality is prior to quantity.
2.UMA success token.It incentives strategic investors to make postive contribution to protocol before unlocking(tbh,verbal promises are not very reliable,there is no offense to genuine VCs and individuls).Considering $GEAR doesn’t come into circulation,we need modify the design of success token if we all agree with it.
Besides,it’s hard to measure how much the strategic investors contribute,I’m not sure wheter it’s feasible to introduce tiered success token to incentive them maximize their contribution,coz it will result in more complexities
I support this proposal and fundraise. The vesting terms are a bit short but securing the DAO and operations going forward makes total sense. The FDV is a bit of a steal but maybe thats because I am so bullish on the project!
It goes without saying that I would like to participate in the round. I have been a believer in Gearbox and have been supplying coins to Gearbox Earn for while and my funds account for a couple of percent of total liquidity provided to Gearbox Earn. (Hopefully other investors have put their money where their mouth is and have done similar prior to this investment round!)
What I can offer is my extensive experience in defi. This includes insight into things such as credit account parameters (i.e. leverage terms), future Gearbox partners, new product offerings and token economics ($GEAR implementing a safety module similar to $AAVE and offering tokenholders portion of profits). And I am just a good guy to bounce ideas off of. I support different and radical thinking and the current state of the market and defi provides Gearbox (and other projects) this opportunity.
This is just a long way of me saying Gearbox is sitting on a revolutionary product and itd be a privilege to be along for the ride as an investor/angel in this round!
Either way congrats on the potential raise Gearbox team, well deserved.
Hello DAO! I would like to participate in the private sell. I got some tokens airdropped, participated in credit account mining and supplied a big amount of liquidity via app! I found myself with too little GEAR tokens and either I dump them or build a more strategic position with the private sell and hold. I trust IVANGBI.
Ready to invest 20-30k$
I am personally against of the mob mentality. meaning “go look into what this contributor is doing at 8 AM or we don’t pay”. What happened with merit circle seemed unacceptable to me - you can’t just take someone’s money. I know there was more nuance to it, I am just referencing - no disrepect to that dedicated community. I am just very against it, and if I were personally asked too much of my “value add” I would just leave, truly. Now, that doesn’t mean there is no accountability. I would just propose to look at it from the different perspective: not that “only these parties can be in” (that is when mob starts being angry, and often for no reason) - but that “these parties + other members who can prove at least some good presence in the space”. Then it becomes inclusive and nobody minds to mob each other, focusing on growth instead! So if you wanna be in, please write a few words, that’s it.
PS: I am not calling you or me - mobs, just bad lingo that I think a few can see references in. Accountability is important as long as it doesn’t make all the processes fully inefficient.
This can come as a design later, like for LM - but the issue is that this cannot be used for risking DAO’s future when funds are needed. Replacing current proposal with “maybe we get same attention for this” is not a good idea. That I am certain of. Now whether this can work for LM or something else - remains to be seen. Would defer to @ov3rkoalafied on this topic. Overall, I think it’s too complex for farmers and gives marginal benefits only.
@FranktheTank would you please reference your twitter/telegram/other “public” activity? And the size!
It’s definitely a good timing to secure funds for a liquidity pool. Specially since we can tap into participants that are agreeing to a vesting schedule. But as jared_gb and ilgiz mentioned on Discord, assigning these funds to the DAO leads to higher optionality and flexibility.
On the topic of reducing voting power for vesting contracts in this round: @ivangbi’s argument about it not being an attack vector in the current distribution makes sense.
The added benefit of a 0.5x might be making this round more palatable by ensuring smaller holders’ votes are less diluted in guiding the protocol forward. That’s a worthy goal in itself imo.
Following @0xBeckoningCat 's prime example, I’ll add a few words about myself in the same format:
Top 5% DeFi user, Credit Account Genesis miner, 2-5% of Gearbox’s total TLV for a couple of months, snapshot.org gov participant for Gearbox.
Old and “in it for the tech” enough to have voted on early yearn gov proposals. Degen enough to have been top 3 volume on Cronje’s IBFF (later merged with Keep3r), and at some point I was 7%(?) of all veKP3R (after a few months got diluted by other bullievers).
What can I bring to the table?
I’ll keep aping and trying to “break” things on-chain, on-track with the behavior listed on the previous paragraphs. I’m primarily a user, tester and governance participant. Reacting to the FDV and locks remaining the originally proposed, I’d amend my proposed participation up to $150K.
Note: I’m open to core/ex-core DMs so that I can sign msgs with accounts verifying the claims above. I’m a bulliever in on-chain credentials.
Happy to see my post and that qualifying oneself by DegenScore was well received. ( @grin - nice!)
Quick comment; Let’s take a moment to appreciate how great it is that Gearbox is in the position of effectively having to work out just how much capital, and from whom, they should raise. Being in the position to turn money down is always a good one to be in.
@ivangbi makes a good point wrt. to raising funds just for the sake of it as it can remove the urgency of getting to market and finding PMF. But we should ensure we have enough ‘fat’ in the raise to cover delays and unexpected costs (everything always takes longer than expected). Is there a forecast of costs to measure the $5.65 M runway against? What’s being set aside for contingency?
My thoughts on next steps:
I advocate that you should move the existing $5.65M Funding Proposal to a vote and lock in those aforementioned investors. We shouldn’t allow the expansion of this round (or creation of an additional round) to inhibit closing and securing the funds on offer. Market conditions can change and investor willingness can evaporate.
2.a Identify others (e.g. @grin, @ludlows344@Ivan062@FranktheTank etc.) willing to contribute on same terms and collate overall value of said contribution. (I’d be happy to match @grin and participate w/ $150,000).
2.b Having identified the total additional $ sum on offer from DAO members such as myself et al. (i.e. not those included in above $5.65M) we should discuss what this sum should be used for. If the sum is negligible (~$300-$500k), then, in my opinion, it should get added to the DAO multi-sig and used as development/ runway. If the sum available through DAO members is substantial then we should open the topic for its use for discussion and probably look at POL liquidity seed.
I still think, even if we do use additional funding to seed liquidity, that we should do some form of public raise albeit at a higher value (considering no vesting/lock-up of tokens). The wider community loves the idea of getting in at the ground floor and it’s always good marketing.
One additional comment; trying to lock investors into subjective value add metrics (i.e. ‘Investor X contributes via increased exposure’ [which would be very difficult to measure the origin of additional users etc.] is a well intentioned mistake. They’re willing to pony up hard earned money which should be enough. Additional value add beyond that is a plus and informs future rounds; it shouldn’t be a heavily weighted consideration presently (imo).
I’ve been a gearbox fan and user from the start. I am in favor of the proposal, i would like to contribute, but probably my degenscore is too low (https://degenscore.com/profile/sureb) to allow me to understand why the min amount is 50k.
I like the idea of seeding POL with any additional funds raised from folks like grin, 0xBeckoningCat and myself, but I also appreciate that well-run protocols like Gearbox should have optionality/flexibility where possible. I think a comfortable middle-ground is that these funds are "earmarked’ for liquidity at the time of raise, yet in the event other DAO funds begin to run out due to market conditions, we explicitly state now that the funds earmarked for liquidity can be used for other purposes subject to DAO approval (obviously once the $GEAR token launches this option would no longer be available). Thus we have true POL in the roadmap but can pivot without controversy if circumstances change.
@0xBeckoningCat I think the below from ivangbi addresses your question re: costs. Maybe a detailed forecast will provider further comfort.
“Based on ilgiz & jared_gb projections, these 5-6M are enough of a runway (even with a slightly scaled contributor team) for about 2 years. And as the OP post shows, that is WITHOUT taking protocol revenue into account. In essence, this $$ is to iterate on the product suite and try to find PMF so that earnings kick in harder.”
@ivangbi Like 0xBeckoningCat, I would match the grin proposal and participate with $150,000.
As for me the Tank, I was working at a top global law firm until recently (hence my limited public persona) and am happy to assist with legal advice/guidance in the future in addition to other insights/protocol testing/liquidity providing so asked of the Gearbox team.
Agree with the latest! I think there is quite some solid consensus at this point.
So as per above suggestions, would agree to move forward with this proposal as is and the terms as is (again, to secure DAO funding and not play games with it) - and then use this window of opportunity, the next 2 weeks, to also allow for a tranche for those who volunteer. The DAO can decide whether to use this $$ also for ops costs later, or for LP.
I guess to keep expectations clear, that second tranche should require:
those who volunteer to give a brief intro on themselves / social media profile (twitter is fine). I would think the comments and intros as you guys put above - are fairly sufficient as is!
the size of the second tranche can’t be unlimited though, should keep it reasonably tight