Yes agreed. Also we have indicated that we want liquidity, and in theory the demand for this round would be eating into the demand that would seed the initial liquidity, so it should definitely be used for liquidity. We still should have one final degenesis/gnosis auction style event before opening liquidity. This puts more tokens on the open market + lets smaller holders buy finally. I think we’d update the min price for both degenesis and gnosis auction to 0.02c to reflect the ability to buy tokens without a lock, compared to this round. Lastly, I think this event should happen a couple weeks after v2 launches so people can have time to digest what V2 is and the value it brings.
Perhaps we aim to vote on this in a week or two so that devs have time to set up degenesis if that option wins, and so marketing has time to react to whichever route is chosen. There could also be an option to just use the $1m from this round + GEAR from treasury as POL, for $2m total liquity, but I think we should aim deeper than that to create more stable liquidity/less volatility at a time where many eyes may return to Gearbox.
Separately… maybe it makes more sense to do this final round before V2, then seed the liquidity after V2 launches? Makes it more likely we sell to people who have actually been wanting to get more of the token and then anyone who comes in after v2 can purchase at MP. Idk… not sure on this one.
It would be unfair to jack up the price for the relatively small open interest for this round by the community. I would suggest to keep the terms the same at least within the $1M range.
In terms of timing, doing before v2 is not realistic technically speaking. Now, when to do after that - that is a super subjective topic. I don’t have the right answer. My gut (which is always wrong) is telling me to keep pushing for V2 and adoption, and if PMF is there - proceed with it. Otherwise keep untransferable at least until September minimum. Why? Because if we make it liquid, there is also a higher risk of not doing LM for LP efficiently enough, as the markets are deadly right now.
I believe keeping this demand not catered is both unfair and is risky - I would entertain a proposal to collect it, but not use for ops (to remove risks with regard to participants’ source of funds). So like, raise that amount at same terms, and wait to see the liquidity as we figure out the time for #2.
I want to participate in $50000, thanks team ! Thank you for this chance ! I’m also one of the users who participate in the public sale and lobsterdao nft holder ! ps. my discord ID is llamacorn#2986, thanks as always!
@RV_ivangbi - You make a good point wrt. to ‘tainting’ and associated risk to protocol through raise from anons. I agree with you in that once we’ve raised these funds we then set them aside and work out the nuance of their use for LP/POL.
Couple of other comments:
I don’t think @ov3rkoalafied was suggesting this Part 2 Community raise should be at a different price, (correct me if wrong). Indeed, we’ve been soliciting interest at same terms as Part 1 and changing these terms at this stage would necessitate starting afresh (otherwise there’d be a conflict of interest/allegations of unfairness etc. etc.)
I don’t think anything should be put in front of V2 launch. A safe product to market should be utmost priority in order for the DAO to begin generating revenue wherein the intrinsic value of $GEAR will inform its market price (and avoid the shitcoin speculation scenario perception risk).
@ov3rkoalafied - I also agree with you too in that an additional $GEAR auction/event is necessary. However, I’m of the opinion we get V2 public launch out the door for a period of time with a few metrics ($ generated etc.) behind the protocol to enable a data based valuation of $GEAR to take place (as per above).
Anyway - I’m off to the pub so next time you hear from me the deadline will have passed. If you see @Sha256 or @Maksim on Discord please point them in the direction of the above and their need to clarify their level of participation.
Fully agreed. Keeping the same terms sets a standard of openness and defeats any future criticism of VCs getting more favorable terms than the community. The $1M range is small enough not to raise concerns of dilution or of depleting reserves.
I disagree that Part 2 would eat demand for a later auction-style event, for the same reason Part 1 wouldn’t eat that demand. Part 2 implies the same vesting as the VCs, while an auction-style event implies no-lockup which is a very different incentive and elicits bids from more short-term oriented parties. The different terms appeal to different entities, and are complementary in the sense that both help building up future initial liquidity by catering to actors with multiple time-horizons.
I 100% agree with you @ov3rkoalafied in that a final auction style event is needed to further seed liquidity, but IMO we have the chance to tap different types of demand for that, and in the current dire market conditions it seems wise to seize that opportunity.
Summing that structure:
-Part 1 secures financial resources to iterate on the product suite till PMF is found by taping key industry participants.
-Part 2 extends the same terms of Part 1 to other long-term aligned community participants, as proposed by @RV_ivangbi in the “Accepting volunteering participants” segment. This follows an ethos of openness and taps demand from low time preference individuals (by means of the vesting schedule) to seed initial liquidity.
-Part 3/Action-style event taps demand from high time preference individuals to further seed initial liquidity.
Regarding timing, I agree with @RV_ivangbi that pushing V2 should be the priority. Smaller, well-funded structures can iterate faster to find PMF. When we’re sure V2 is safe, stable, with a clearer growth trajectory, we can leverage that interest to call on liquidity from the broader market.
By pushing for the final liquidity event before PMF has been found, we’d risk scattering votes early on to speculators therefore slowing governance/product iteration, and risk wasting the “silver-bullet” of growth too early. That’s without even speculating on market conditions.
Hello, everybody. Want to invest 40k usd also. Got like 5+ years expiriance at crypto, pariticpated at many dao. Like to test new tech etc. (lobster dao holder :D). Also i am providing liqidity at gearbox pools. my telegram @mkey123
As the process went through, it became apparent that US domiciled parties are a no-go neither have the framework to get involved in a no-legal-counterparty-DAO-round, nor would some DAO members feel safe taking on personal risks. As such, A Capital and Galaxy Digital were not able to complete the procedure. They are free to elaborate on reasons / internal procedures / etc. - I don’t have full context of those nor do I want to really - I am just reporting back with what I learned, in order to keep DAO members aligned. And they are still friends, it happens <3
That isn’t an issue though, as the DAO doesn’t have 50 operators feeding off the treasury. So the runway available is safely putting the DAO at 1+ year at minimum, or almost 2 years actually - and that’s not counting anything on the token side, revenue by the protocol, grants, and so on.
So, the total is $4.15M as visible in the financial multisig:
Operatooors, please take change and proceed with token vesting deployments.
I would like to participate in the private sell.
You can write a lot and for a long time how good I am and let me invest that I like Ivan (although Ivan is a really cool guy))) and the CEO, but it’s all just lyrics.
In general, the team’s approach is very productive and it seems that with burning eyes, one wants to believe in such teams and projects.
Yes, this is quite normal conditions in the current realities))