Discussion: What should the gitcoin community multisig do with the donated AKITA

[Nelsonk]

Español/Spanish

Yo creo que con el 5% deberia ocuparse en :

1% asuntos de traducciones y comunicaciones ya que somos muchos de diferentes partes y no vamos a estar siempre operando en inglés o telegram así que por ello 1% destinado a traducciones y comunicaciones a todos los miembros de akita que sea por tiempo más que por inversión. Pienso que ser parte de algo no es ver qué parte tiene la persona.

1% en una inversión que sea de Akita que de dividendos como por ejemplo algun equipo de deportes electrónicos que sea de Akita o auspiciar un espacio en Youtube sobre akita (elijiria en este caso a thetha y así promocionar la cripto y el mundo de estás) sería la idea.

1% Donarlo a Cardano Ada con su intención de ayudar a Africa con ello abrir vínculos con lugares más allá de Avax

1% Quemarlo

1% donarlo a el 50% más bajo de los holder de akita que son los que sufren con todo esto de las subidas y bajadas.

Será un lindo mundo este de Akita

[SvenGali]

What is the role for the AKITA token in Polarfox?

From these repos Polarfox has PFX token (polarfox-app/index.ts at b160174fe789db204942cabfd4a68264a8db1cf0 · Polarfox-DEX/polarfox-app · GitHub)

The Polarfox governance uses PFX /Polarfox-DEX/polarfox-governance

Dreamswap has DREAM token /Polarfox-DEX/polarfox-dreamswap-contracts/blob/main/contracts/DreamToken.sol

Dex reward PFX token github.com/Polarfox-DEX/polarfox-core/blob/master/contracts/utilities/StakingRewardsFactory.sol

The Akita token seems to not being used in the code.

You have the Akita contract in repo /Polarfox-DEX/polarfox-core/commit/5bf6f6c9fc697a618cad65ea37d952f9110aef6f but if you deploy this it would make new Akita token that you would control the entire mint balance of.

Why all these extra tokens?

What is the use for Akita here?

[JTraversa]

Is it rational for you to pretend these coins weren’t sent to VB for safekeeping?

Yes it is. To do otherwise is nonsensical. Further it contributes nothing to the discussion and completely ignores the situation.

Or would it be more rational for all of us to see that you are simply in a position to benefit from these coins, thus explaining your “difficulty” grasping this simple concept, which has already been iterated to you through numerous comments, and proven to you via screenshots of the website itself?

My project is already funded and I gain nothing going forward from Gitcoin’s quadratic funding, but I care deeply about the open-source funding of web3.

Wouldn’t it also be rational for us to assume that had you been an Akita holder, you would be in quite a different position from where you are now, and would not want your investment plundered by others?

No it would not. I would understand the risks of buying a coin where 1 person holds 50% of the supply and if faced with this situation as a dev would attempt to tie value to the coins through one of the many open-source projects I work on.

It is rational to deduce that it is only because you are NOT in that position that you’re cool with plundering Akita. And every word you have to say in justification of that action is just plain spin control.

Hopefully by now youre getting the point. Personal attacks dont change the situation, and telling people to ignore the donation or simply burn without any rational reason doesnt help either.

What I am asking for is an Akita dev to come forward with any developmental or technical solution that might bring value to both parties. So far there hasn’t been any.

There are many ways to provide perpetual funding through a protocol. It’s the Akita devs job to try to bring an offer to the table. E.g. profit share to gitcoin matching fund in return for the burn.

[JTraversa]

@personofnointerest

Why doesn’t it matter?

Because we are not philosophers and moreso once getting into moral consideration there will be opposing points that cannot be resolved in a Gitcoin thread.

e.g. Even if we settle on some utilitarian basis, what gives more value to what party? This very quickly becomes vacuous.

[Klemah]

Hey SvenGali,

Glad to see you did your research and actually looked at the code. I hope I can answer all your questions here!

---

Polarfox
The DEX is not finished yet - we have been working on making an ETH / AVAX bridge over the past few weeks and have been making good progress in that. This bridge will allow people to send their AKITA over to AVAX and vice-versa.

The next step after the bridge is to implement AKITA governance on the DEX. Two new tabs will be added to the Polarfox DEX:

1. AKITA Liquidity Mining: This tab will be similar to the already existing liquidity mining tab, and allow users to stake AKITA against AVAX and / or PFX to earn gAKITA tokens, which will be the AKITA governance token.
2. AKITA Governance: This tab will allow users to use their gAKITA tokens to vote on various proposals to determine the future of the AKITA community.

Doing it this way will allow us to bring some AKITA over to AVAX and have proper governance, all in the same platform as the Polarfox DEX.

Another thing: the Polarfox PFX pre-sale will only be accessible to AKITA holders.

As time goes on, we will add more use cases for the AKITA tokens.

---

DreamSwap
DreamSwap is a different project, intended for the people who want to stay on Ethereum and for the people who are interested in other meme coins.

As I am not a developer on DreamSwap, but only on Polarfox, I will not be able to give you as many details as for Polarfox.

The DreamSwap exchange is going to be about staking AKITA against other dog and meme coins to earn DREAM, the native token of the platform.

---

Basically, you could say it this way: we want AKITA to emancipate from its “meme token” status, while not forgetting its heritage, which we are not ashamed of.

Polarfox represents this emancipation. It will give the project governance and make it part of a bigger, more “professional” ecosystem.

DreamSwap, on the other hand, shows that we still like that heritage.

---

To answer your other questions / concerns:

The Akita token seems to not being used in the code.

This is correct as of now, but will change as we add new features.

You have the Akita contract in repo /Polarfox-DEX/polarfox-core/commit/5bf6f6c9fc697a618cad65ea37d952f9110aef6f but if you deploy this it would make new Akita token that you would control the entire mint balance of.

Correct. The reason we have it there is because we deployed it on the Ethereum test nets to properly test the bridge. We will also need its ABI later when making the AKITA governance. Since we already have experience making the PFX governance, this should not be an issue.

Why all these extra tokens?

Basically two extra tokens: one to control the Polarfox DEX, one to control DreamSwap.

You are asking why, here are some reasons:

• Funding: we have no funding at all so far, and only own little AKITA;
• Control: with no control whatsoever on the original token and with little supply, we’re basically asked to drive a car with no arms. On top of this, the AKITA token does not support governance. The PFX token will be different;
• Give rewards on the long-term: having a large supply of PFX will allow us to very slowly and gradually offer it to investors in various ways. The governance will be used to validate or refute this use of the PFX token. Some PFX will go towards funding the AKITA project, which we would be completely unable to do without another token.
• Implement a deflationary mechanism: having our own token means we can implement new features, and a deflationary mechanism is one we have decided to implement.

What is the use for Akita here?

I think I answered this in my already long post, but if I have not, let me know.

---

Thank you for your interest and your time, and I am here if you need anything else / have any other questions.

Have a nice evening / afternoon / morning / whatever

[vbuterin]

Definitely surprising (in a good way) to see so much vigorous discussion on this happening over the last two weeks!

I gave the coins to Gitcoin because I support their work in public goods funding and I think robust public goods funding institutions are something that the open source and crypto worlds really need more generally. There’s a lot of good that could be done (for the Ethereum community, for the world at large, and for the AKITA community as well) out of having a large and sustainable long-term pool of funds being guaranteed for future public goods funding rounds.

I think there are much better alternatives to just burning the coins, even for the AKITA community’s interests! Cryptocurrency communities generally suffer from a severe lack of public goods funding, and so we regularly see multi-billion dollar projects languishing with 4-person development teams. So… why not just put the coins toward long-term funding of public goods?

Here’s an example simple proposal:

• Put the coins into a Sablier contract that unlocks them over the course of some long period of time (eg. 20 years).
• When the coins come out, use them to fund quadratic funding rounds.
  • One possible split is 50% Ethereum-focused, 50% AKITA-focused.
  • Another option is 40% Ethereum, 40% AKITA, 20% not-necessarily-crypto global public goods.

Having a large pool of coins in a dedicated public goods funding pool actually empowers a community much more than those coins being unavailable entirely; it ensures that there are resources to support ecosystem projects, execute on a roadmap, and do other things that ensure the ecosystem will continue to be very relevant for a long time. Putting them in a stream (could be Sablier or could be a dedicated contract), in the mean time, ensures that participants have confidence that nothing is going to get dumped quickly (a 20-year stream implies a 5% “issuance” rate during those two decades, equivalent to what DOGE has forever).

The decision is definitely far out of my control at this point, but it would be amazing if long-term public goods funding can be considered as an option!

[relic]

Hello “VB” seems like your thought process was quite different for SHIBA. Also your account here is quite new, I figured being such an avid supporter of Gitcoin that you may have had an account created before 30 mins ago.

I do agree on funding public goods long term, I just really want the original tokenomics kept intact.

This is what I told my community. Maybe I am wrong but this is what I see.

“Vitalik really did comment, the implications are now that he intended for more from our community all along. He burned shibs tokens, and intends to cultivate ours. This really was a giant social experiment. I don’t think this AKITA project could have served a better purpose.”

[Klemah]

Hey Vitalik,

A lot of people in our Telegram group do not know if this is the real Vitalik Buterin speaking - I guess you are a victim of your fame - but regardless, I think this is a very interesting proposal.

It does benefit both parties, and the fact that it will be given over 20 years will give AKITA a long-term vision, while allowing GitCoin to fund public goods without dumping the coin and hurting the community.

Although I like Relic’s proposal a bit more, I think your proposal is pretty damn good as well, for both parties. I’d be very happy if this was voted, and I think GitCoin’s team would be as well.

Have a great day!

[Barger]

This proposal even if it sounds cool, would give distrust to the Akita community. There are too many people that don’t trust to keep coins in vaults anymore due to the recent rugs. It’s the kind of proposal that voting is needed first from the community so they can understand that it is safe. I prefer the @relic proposal to burn 95% of what gitcoin has and I’d add that both teams develop something in conjunction to help open-source funding and the token price. The token has 45k holders, it is already too big to just rug it and forget about it, it has solid ground for better projects.

[Tyu1278198182799279]

Yakim news for akita shows how big and fair gitcoin is

[Mantarochen]

In my opinion this is a great idea which everyone would benefit from. Totally agreed.

[Sahputra]

Hello Mr.Buterin

Regardless if you are the real one or not (i do hope you are) , your comment could change alot…

Fristly in all honesty i dont really understand all the technical side of your proposal but if the Gitcoin community is unwilling to accept the offer Relic made this would be (from an investors side) my 2nd pick…

Giving out the AKITA tokens over 20 years sound way better to me than some of the Brutal “dump fast quick or sell to a market maker keep it inter so no one knows we are slaughtering a community” methods i’ve read so far ans if even Mr.Klemah thinks that this is a good idea than i have no reason to think different

I personally would hope for the burn and Relics proposal to be accepted, but if that is not an option and if you really are who you claim to be i think even a certain someone could not debute as he has been voicing the intend of your donation for quite some while

[calbear4life]

Understanding that much of the intent behind the donation was actually to foster discussion from the immersion of the communities (the Ethereum community, the world at large, and the Akita community) is extremely helpful. Appreciate the clarity Vitalik.

I understand that much of this discussion is around tokenomics and fundraising, but I think the bigger lesson here is in building consensus. Consensus across community lines. Neither GetCoin or Akita wanted to have to deal with each other, but the Ethereum community more broadly, and the world at large is going to demand we all work together.

[vbuterin]

@Barger

There are too many people that don’t trust to keep coins in vaults anymore due to the recent rugs.

I should clarify, I don’t mean keep the funds in a multisig where someone pinky-promises to release them on a schedule. I mean literally keep them in a smart contract that only lets you take the funds out on a schedule.

That said, I would totally respect if people find even that too untrustworthy or some other option preferable for whatever reason.

[Barger]

Probably it is what would happen, but that’s why voting would be necessary in this case with information explaining how gitcoin would make it impossible to release them before schedule. Adding a migration of the owner of the time lock and migrate it to the burn address would keep them in peace.

[WryRyeRy]

I think this is very refreshing, and thank you for sharing openly. Two communities have been brought together, not in an arranged marriage per se, but a de facto collaboration that is a first of its kind in crypto history. This is quite something.

As an investor in crypto since 2017, the AKITA Network was a project that was appealing at a time when pandemics, insurrections, and continued abuse of centralized power were culminating in a dark way. The token metrics alone were interesting, and for 10UNI, my investment was able to check off the box of trite, but fun things to say as a crypto investor - right after “Own 1 BTC (before flipping back to ETH)” was “Own more than a billion tokens of SOMETHING”. But why be billionaire of just anything? That’s not interesting to me.

The interesting thing with AKITA Network was the long term path to cross-chain exposure, taking a stab at a DeSoc platform, all while still maintaining an ETH origin. This was very appealing to me. It was easy to spot the gimmick that the original devs tried to capitalize upon before exiting, and it’s a shame that they did so and didn’t bother to take down the old website in their wake, as some of the BSC rugs have done so kindly lately. Its great to see that https://akita.network is now a functioning Web3 location for people looking to research AKITA Network before buying. The struggle to get CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap to acknowledge our legitimacy has been an uphill battle, but they have (slowly) given way and changed their materials.

I don’t think I can put into words the level of respect and hopes I have for the AKITA Network - together we have built a very tight community over a few months, united in an effort to invest in a future set of projects, very clearly documented and discussed in their social channels. Veteran crypto investors are intersecting with newbies, explaining the Supremacy of DYOR & DD, and maybe even giving them a drink of the water they led them too, not just walking away.

Sir, think about what pump and dump means, and why do you want to be invested in such a project? You won’t find that here, friend, but stick around and maybe we can convince you why hodling is just the beginning.

Relic’s proposal is solid, and it gives good measure to the present and future of both communities. As an investor in crypto since 2017, I am very aware of how scarcity is extremely valuable, but legitimacy is ultimately the store of value. I appreciate that your proposal continues to acknowledge the future through an endowment, and that you also suggest grounding some of the benefit derived from this opportunity to public projects outside of the crypto space. This is true long-term, sustainable thinking.

As an investor in crypto since 2017, I understand “Not your keys, Not your coins.” I really value that this opportunity for constructive discussion has invited other AKITA Network community members to choose action, and engage with this forum, in whatever way they choose to do so. I’m really looking forward to seeing the result of the Gitcoin founders’ decisions, and how AKITA Network and Gitcoin can amplify their respective networks to leverage more stability for decentralized public projects in the future.

TL/DR: This is history in the making, so thank you for being (eventually) a willing participant who has taken the social experiment to a new level.

[personofnointerest]

Disagree on two accounts.

I’ve seen at least 1 member from the Gitcoin community with a genuine Philosopher King outlook. We don’t live in a vacuum where pure rationality exists. We live in a world govern by entropy and our attempts to reign control can have unintended consequences, this is why we have philosophy.

Secondly, my earlier comment below highlighting how Gitcoin’s mission, and its public presentation of it, is enmeshed so intensely with ethics.

@personofnointerest

“Connect with the community developing digital public goods, creating financial freedom, and defining the future of the open web.”

“Open source code meets open economies. Build resilient projects, better coordination, and positive-sum outcomes .”

“Growing networks with aligned incentives towards the wellbeing of each participant and the system as a whole.”

“Through distributed funding and organizations, we build together toward our shared goals .”

To me, if ~40k holders (at the time of writing), experience severe detriment in order to fund Gitcoin’s mission, is that mission, it objectives and the means of which it carries out to achieve those objectives, genuinely consistent with how Gitcoin publicly presents itself?

[lostcod3r]

None of these solutions seems very fair in the spirit of crypto/gitcoin, considering there are many great projects looking for funding of any kind.

Why not just allow the tokens passthrough to any gitcoin grants over the next X months? Just take the current spot price +/- some slippage and give some Y% of the funds any grant is receiving in these tokens? I’m sure this issue will come up again, and could continually be solved in the same way. Or, if you’re concerned that no project would want these tokens, add it as a ‘bonus’ until the supply is done.

[isaac]

Well it seems like we have a way forward now that there are gitcoin governance tokens!
I expect there will be a vote held sometime soon.

[carykive]

Please burn them all.