I cannot speak to any side or support per se - I just appreciate the strategy taken from back in the days - thus my tweet about it. So far I am seeing “delay” comments & criticism, but I am not a dev… is this really 2 weeks? If so, I don’t think that is valid criticism. Think more.
If the model is better (is it?) it can even be +30 days. It has been one year, what's the point rushing with an imperfect plan (is it though?)
I am a fan of no new inflation though.
I am a fan of avoiding raise-legal risks.
I don’t want to carry those for no reason.
PS: as noted before, I am not allowed to personally vote in any token related matters.
Sorry, I don’t drink that stuff. It seems that your proposal should be discarded.
disagree ser ，just use gnosis-auction plz，most of dao members can not understand this strategy，so difficult
agree ，so difficult，just use gnosis-auction
Hey hey really appreciate you writing this up! And being willing to put in the dev effort to make it happen. It’s a holiday week in the us so just wanted to say that I’ll give proper feedback as soon as I am able. But this new option certainly offers some benefits and some drawbacks. Most notably the dao doesn’t sell any tokens.
It is novel and maybe difficult to grasp, but most of the ppl saying “too complicated gnosis auction is easier” prob also didn’t really understand or know gnosis auction existed before the current proposal explained it. I do think pairing with usdc is meh for tokens that will prob correlate to eth but rewards could counteract. Also curious what the curve V2 liquidity curve would be.
I def still have some questions around the specifics and will get those here asap.
From the perspective of my proposal, I think it makes sense to make it very clear that this proposal exists and voting no on my proposal could indicate desire to explore this path.
Hello good sers & gearheads
It was a very well written forum post. Thanks for taking the time to make it simple, to the point + not boring.
Covers all original needs&reasonings to make token transferrable with way less liability + with greater efficiency. Setting us up for a better future.
Considering the reasons why the token is being made transferrable, Gnosis Auction really adds no marginal value, other than providing a mechanic to source new liquidity (which ends up in LP anyways) While eats away a good chunk from the supply just to do that. (+opens us up for potential legal raise risks)
For eliminating unnecessary supply expansion & potential future legal risks, i think 2 weeks is a very cheap price to pay. Lets be real, even tho we all would love to get it transferable soon, there is no momentum/trend in the marketplace that we’r missing out by moving launch window 2weeks in any direction.
I’d be for this approach
I think this is a VERY good proposal. I had spent quite a few days trying to figure out if there was a way to source the initial liquidity from current GEAR holders, but I was too smooth-brained to come up with anything like this.
TL;DR of his proposal: People who want to sell their airdropped/farmed GEAR can dump it smoothly, roughly all at the same price, without trampling each other on the way out with this mechanism. That’s not possible with a gnosis auction.
Points 2. and 4. of your “upsides” section are the ones that make this a better option imo. They’re clear, valuable advantages for price discovery.
My answers to “Questions to solve”:
ETH. The simpler the better. I believe a natural correlation with ETH is beneficial. Gearbox’s ethos is very much aligned with that of Ethereum’s community in general. All stablecoins have additional counterparty risk. By building on Ethereum we’re also assuming some counterparty risk, we don’t need to compound that risk by correlating Gearbox’s liquidity with the success of Circle/Tether/Frax.
The buffer is a step in the right direction. It helps incentivize liquidity to stick around, but I don’t think it’ll be enough to achieve that.
Unfortunately using the DAO to seed some of the LP might be the only option to guarantee a minimum amount of permanent liquidity. It gives up a bit of the upside of the proposal, because we’d still slightly expand the circulating supply. But it ensures back-up liquidity if all GEAR bulls seed the LP with ETH to buy GEAR, and proceed to un-LP and sell the rest of their ETH to buy more GEAR (or vice-versa for GEAR bear holders), rugging all liquidity.
I agree with $150M FDV. Note that most of my GEAR has a 1 year lock+1 year vesting since I participated in the DAO Round 2, at THE SAME FDV OF THIS NO-LOCK-UP proposal. Yet $150M is still what makes the most sense to me, because we guarantee $3M USD of buyers and we ensure that we avoid overpaying those who use this as a mechanism to exit their farmed/airdropped GEAR.
Suggestions to the rest of the proposal:
It sounds like this has non-negligible technical complexity. It requires fresh contracts. Everything that reduces its complexity should be done, e.g. Stage 3 should only happen after Stage 2, and we should use ETH instead of stablecoins, etc
This needs to be extensively audited. It makes no sense to rush it, nor to dismiss a better proposal because it’d take longer to code+audit. We need to make this as safe as possibly, because economically, this is objectively a better option for the DAO.
You should be rewarded, but X days after this has launched and survived without smartcontract failures. It just better aligns incentives for all participants.
This proposal’s purpose is to buy back GEAR from early DAO participants. Giving no premium at 150M FDV means early community testers, CA miners and V1 LP providers either break even or take a small loss (taken from CAM fee) - for a 1 year forced hold at current time.
With crvUSD and veYFI right around the corner, anyone who sells their GEAR to this LP will be paperhanding GEAR at multiples below market conditions and sound logic.
If this proposal passes, LP must be at 250M-300M FDV. Otherwise at 150M FDV, any seller is just a sucker and GearboxDAO will effectively exercise a put option against earliest community supporters right before DeFi Season.
Judging by support from everyone relevant, proposal will pass. Frens, don’t sell your GEAR to LP or have fun staying poor shortly after transferability occurs.
No more slow down plz. Why its even necessary?
the idea seems too raw and the wait/timing of it all along with the added security risks of a new contract seems unnecessary at this stage. plus, all the marketing/articles with dates and info of the gnosis auction and token transferability have already been published. it might not be the best look to outsiders with the last minute changes and uncertainties.
stick with what already works and no more delays!!
I like your idea very much, I think it is very cool and very creative, I hope your idea gets more attention. I agree that it can simply avoid more $gear being sold in the early stage, which is very beneficial to the long-term development of the project.
Some people, because of their own interests, say some inappropriate things, the butt decides the head, I don’t think you should pay too much attention to their opinions. Try to improve your idea and I’m sure more people will support you. Go for it!
Appreciate the effort but disagree entirely with this proposal. If you were wanting to implement something like this, it should have been proposed months ago. At this point, no one knows who you are, why you waited this long, and what the actual motives behind this are. If this came from Ivan, or a core contributor, sure it deserves some thought. But right now, it’s looking like you are someone from Sam’s team or something wonky like that.
Encourage everyone to vote on the upcoming transferability vote without considering this proposal. Please make sure all of your delegates are voting the way that you guys want or remove and redelegate or vote on your own!
I think this idea is from a whale who is trying to buy the Gear token from early supporters with cheapest price. Later on the whale can dump the gear token on the open market. No reason to support it as the unproven social experiment concept compared to the established and well-discussed gnosis auction model. The intent to raise this discussion before the vote to token transferability is questionable and not good at all.
DO NOT agree. Maybe your idea is good, but it doesn’t fit the time. We have the GIP-32 ready and ready to vote. You’re wasting our time and GEAR
Also, I think you’re Andre.
You write like Andre, have Andre’s idea style… If you are Andre, hello sir! But still don’t agree with this proposal at all.
I find your motives really ridiculous. You sent out this new economic model two days before we were going to vote. What were you doing before? If you had published this article two months ago I might have thought otherwise. But what you are doing at this time makes me think that you are not really thinking about the community.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this very very very complex proposal! I believe no people are willing to sell tokens at a unit price of 1Geartoken0.015U. If you are willing to buy the tokens in my hand at the unit price of 1Gear1.5U, I am willing to sell it to you, after all, I have spent a year in it.