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

[simonc]

As part of the Akita community I first of all want to say a big thank you to relic and his team that have worked so hard on our behalf both before and during these challenging times

There is clearly a lot of fear felt by the Akita community at the moment that can lead to emotionally lead comments being made - however, I personally have faith that the team at Gitcoin will work alongside Relic and the team at Akita to find a solution that works for both sides and allows all to grow together in achieving our aims.

I want to thank all involved - both in Akita and GitHub - for taking time out in their lives to give this matter the attention and careful consideration that it requires.

[owocki]

Hi everyone,

Thank you all for posting your thoughts here. I have mostly been listening + digesting the conversation, trying to prioritize the community voices - and be a voice that encourages digesting information + prioritizing deliberation over hasty decisions. I’ve also been spending time getting to know AKITA core team and token holders, trying to understand what drives them and drives the project. (It is our mission at Gitcoin to help builders build/fund the open web, and unpacking this situation is kinda a part of that IMHO) By understanding each other, we can understand if there is a foundation for a positive relationship between the two communities in the future.

Maybe at some point I will write up a post that tries to synthesize what I’ve heard and/or laying out where/how to vote on this, but even if I do that I want to again emphasize that this is the community’s choice, and not Gitcoin Holdings (the company). I do not plan to put my finger on the scale, but I think one role I’m being asked to play by a few of you is helping create consensus on how we could get to a decision that has any finality (this discussion is our first big debate on this forum, so some precedent needs to be set).

In the meantime, a few people have asked me why Vitalik sent Gitcoin the tokens. With his permission, I’m sharing a screencap of something he sent me the morning of the transfer. I’m not sure if this adds to the discussion or not but a few of you have asked so figured I’d pass along (again, only with Vitaliks permission am I sharing this)

Remember to breathe people,
@owocki

[Adamscochran]

As a separate and general rule, I think that the matching pools should always just be ETH or stables.

Using other tokens in matching is going to open up a can of worms where its seen as an indirect endorsement and you’re going to have everyone donating newly minted coins for matching.

[scco]

isnt vb solving the freerider problem with this move ? taking from speculators that totaly knew the risk - giving it to the people that build their wallets, exchanges, chains and favorite websites …

im ok using these tokens for grands - as vb suggest with the donation - BUT it would be awesome to keep 1% to ensure gitcoins bright future.

[Reader_kk]

QUESTIONS we would like to ask ourselves:

1. why wouldn’t vb sell the tokens to usdt and donate with usdt? he got lots of people to help with systematic liquidation and slippage issue.
2. vb send over shiba token to covid-relief, with the situation that shiba is in binance listing, capable to stay afloat no matter how big the liquidation from covid-19 relief is. there will be people doing future shorts on shiba and profit from it and using the profit to pump back to shiba to profit again.

OBSERVATIONS from vb action:

1. shiba and akita experiences sharp decline partly from these vb actions and doge decline. Do take note that as our discussion drags, our value in Akita reduced by a great percentage.
2. a crypto group in twitter started an action against ethereum as retaliation for “rug pulling” shiba. gathering size is currently a small 883, compared to 124k shiba telegram channel members. other group not monitored yet.

ACTIONS and possibly consequences:

1. • sell all, killing akita in the process,

• hate group will be there waiting. generating 43k of Akita holders as hater at an instand. I hope they are not in our ecosystem, don’t like to deal with sabotager popping up out of nowhere.
• we can forget about funding public goods, we have become a destroyer while we should be a creator.
• even if the akita hate group don’t boycott us, our competitors with a better image will rise up. (but we have a huge injection of funds now)
• our image tainted.

2. • part sell part hold.

• systematically sell a portion of Akita token to get our fundings, over a few years. Risk: if Akita crashed to zero in the next few months, we get near to nothing. Reward: if Akita token value rises (need to consult reliable trader to get a sensing), we get a funding machine for a longer period (more years), or we can increase our systematic amount to sell, maintaining healthy trading chart.
• if we decide to sell, we should not broadcast our decision here. it will cause panic and the result of it, before we can even sell a single Akita token, is that the value drops to worthless in 3-5 minutes. to get a sensing of crypto, I joined several telegram crypto channel and fud is a serious issue that spread like wild fire, having the ability to destroy 99% value in an instant.

3. • special funding segment : fund public goods in Akita tokens, telling them that this will be the currency in use and condition that it should not be cash out for the entire duration of sponsor by themselves. big ticket items should be paid in Akita tokens and that vendor (furniture, computers. advise to vendor Akita is currently illiquid and there are slippage, thereby a premium will be paid to vendor) are allowed to cash out by themselves (gitcoin->sponsor company->vendors). payment of salary to employees should be time delayed/locked for a period of 6months (6 months for Akita to recover to pre-vb saga or crashed). internally, company could pay employees
     82.5%cash/20%Akita (2.5% risk premium for employee’s benefit)
     65%cash/40%Akita (5% risk premium for employee’s benefit)
     47.5%cash/60%Akita (7.5% risk premium for employee’s benefit)
     30%cash/80%Akita (10% risk premium for employee’s benefit)
     12.5%cash/100%Akita (12.5% risk premium for employee’s benefit)

of course these risk premium can be adjusted accordingly as their HR’s preference to attract talent.

4. return all token

• defeat the purpose of vb sending it to us in the first place, but
• if we do not want to deal with the “hands in the blood”, we could send it all back to him, tell him it is difficult for us to deal with this matter and could he send us usdt instead.
  • if he don’t send, we get on with our lives. lost a great opportunity to regain our control of gitcoin from vc. alternatively, he might send Akita tokens to covid-19 relief. the other side has a mandate and noble reason to sell off shiba to cash for the emergency issue they are facing. our side don’t have that emergency urgency to liquidate Akita token to cash but we face the risk as mentioned above if Akita token crashed to zero in the next few months.

all eyes are seeing how we handle this issue. how we can progress forward will depend on the vote.

another is to for both Gitcoin and Akita to request for binance listing. listing might not be good for Akita as usually price will crash on the first minute, but we get to sell our token progressively without slippage. The visibility from vb’s action has propel both Shiba and Akita, therefore as head of Gitcoin and Akita, do have a talk with binance. nothing to lose.

[personofnointerest]

Well VB’s recent move with the remaining Shiba in his possession is certainly interesting. Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan

I think this needs to be weighted in as part of a wider, yet highly relevant context, to the decision making. I’m personally all for seeing Akita playing a role in contributing to open web and a percentage of the supply acting as Gitcoin’s funding machine (as suggested by @relic) ensuring that the value of Akita remains beneficial for current and long standing retail token holders and Gitcoin alike.

[GarrettBlanche]

So Vitalik burned the rest of his SHIB supply and kept 5%. I believe this is similar to one of the proposals on here. This seems like a clear path forward to me.

[sviss]

From owocki’s screenshot of his conversation with VB, and VB’s burning of the Shiba tokens today, VB’s intent for the dog coin communities is undeniably clear. There was a ZERO-PERCENT chance VB was ever going to rug all those fresh entry-level retail investors on his own network. To those who thought this was probable, or even possible – please, get out of investing and finance – your judgement is nonexistent.

Like many others reading this thread, discussing amongst the other hundreds of thousands of members of these dog coin Telegram groups, we were appalled and horrified to read how casually and flippantly the idea of dumping on all of us was tossed around here. “Sanctimonious” is the correct word, as stated by another user in response to Adamscochran’s brutal half-baked proposals which were never an option, and would never have worked.

Adamscochran’s emotionally vacant “fire and brimstone” proposals were beyond “disgustingly sanctimonious”, as stated. They were truly sociopathic (lacking any semblance of actual empathy for the tens of thousands of innocent investors affected by his heinous plans, which he justified to himself through sheer mental gymnastics, stating that the victims were already victims for investing in an “inferior” asset, so why feel bad for going ahead and MAKING VICTIMS OUT OF THEM), hypocritical (“dumping is bad, we’ve all been rugged, but let’s dump $AKITA”), and completely antithetical to Gitcoin’s stated mission and purpose for existing (“we’re so good and great, let’s do something unimaginably evil to others to raise money to carry on with our work being so good and great”).

Indeed, patently disgusting. A textbook example of the ruthlessness of the powerful!

Back to the future of $AKITA and Gitcoin. Half of something worth nothing (and illiquid at that) is worth nothing. But a sizable majority portion of something with widespread popularity, adoption, and enormous value is worth a significant fortune. THIS is and was the only way forward for Gitcoin.

I am extremely relieved VB has finally broken radio silence on the matter, and I trust owocki and others I’ve heard from in the Telegram groups will follow suit disclosing the fantastic plan for Gitcoin’s $AKITA tokens which was communicated to relic, myself, and others.

For those of you who can’t yet see – these dog coins are an entry-portal into the world of DeFi, the systems you’re building, and the future of money. It would be absolutely insane to discourage this in any way. You’ve got lightning in a bottle right now, and with proper INVESTMENT (vs. cashing out for a tiny fraction), you will have a very powerful source of funding for the foreseeable future, as intended by VB, and supported by the $AKITA community 100%.

[Enrique]

I personally believe it’s best to create some sort of participation incentive for the community. 500m worth is plenty and should be divided in ways where community members marketing can be rewarded, as well as community members who’ve never sold a token from their wallets. Whatever the case, we should separate those who only want to short the market, from those who have long vested interests. My reference is ampleforth and how they chose to airdrop their gov token.

[calbear4life]

The way Akita is being framed is as just another meme coin and compared to the other donated coin is tragic to be honest, There is a strong community brewing with lofty goals with solid intentions and work ethic displayed by their team. It is a sad destruction of value, for zero reason. What has been mentioned about the actual project pipeline? How has the community been engaged to spur and create ideas? The communities should be voting together as one.

[Rust]

The events that have unfolded over the past couple of days all feel like one big social experiment that are pushing the limits of the Crypto community. I do not think this was Vitalik’s intention, but regardless this is where we are now.

I think there is only one solution here and that is a solution that wouldn’t benefit Akita directly nor would it benefit the Gitcoin community directly. The solution here would be to not cause any more harm to the Crypto community that has already been done and I believe that Vitalik sending the AKITA to Gitcoin was in line with his trust in the teams here that they would do the right thing with it and not be blinded by personal greed.

We are all in this space for the same reasons at the end of the day, whether you’re from 1 end of the spectrum where you’re gambling on memecoins or whether you’re on the other end where you’re trying to find elegant solutions to real world problems. Now is a time more than any other where we need to stick together and workout how we can leverage this sticky situation to our advantage.

There are already some positive things that have come out of it such as the exposure Gitcoin and Akita have both received. We need to double down on that and show the World that the crypto space, despite all the rug pulls, scams, hacks, and other malicious activities, there are some very reliable people in here with a good hearts and that movement can start with Gitcoin.

At the end of the day the tokens are tokens, whatever is done with them is secondary to the intention of the man controlling what is done to them.

My solution would be for Gitcoin to control these tokens as a sign of good faith but not to sell them. If AKITA can trust Vitalik with them, surely there is more re-assurance in keeping them with Gitcoin in a multisig rather than just keeping them in the hands of 1 man.

How does Akita benefit from this? Holders would sleep well knowing that ~50% of the supply is being held by some of the most trustworthy and informed people in the crypto space. We can leverage this to our advantage by marketing “If Gitcoin is holding, I’m holding”.

How does Gitcoin benefit from this? The exposure as being the de-facto Governance over crypto projects. Hell, I had no idea what Gitcoin even was until this entire thing played out but I’m glad to have now seen that such a community does indeed exist. I can see a future where tokens launch and send tokens to Gitcoin’s address instead of a burn address. Why? Sending a portion of their supply to a burn address is an irreversible action and with the progress that the Crypto industry makes every day there are always elegant solutions around the corner. Sending half your supply to a burn address is a fix today, but not necessarily the best solution in 2 years time.

So why don’t tokens just keep 50% of their supply in their team wallets? Simple, I’d trust the Gitcoin community easily over any project that launches and keeps the tokens with them. Having Gitcoin control 50% of the supply is an investment into the future of Crypto and not just the token in itself.

How does Crypto benefit from this? This one is pretty self explanatory but by seeing these acts of kindness and a show of how different communities can come together as one, it would create a much stronger bond within the space and would make good publicity.

Yes, Akita is a memecoin (Or at least started as one) but that doesn’t mean we can disregard their huge community and hurting them will only be doing damage to the greater sum of this space.

The only caveat I’d have with this solution is that 50% of the supply isn’t necessary for Gitcoin to hold and doesn’t really bring any inherent value over holding 25% of the supply for example. AKITA holders are hurting so a proposal would be to burn 25% and keep the remaining 25% within the Gitcoin multisig until a more elegant solution is minted.

Thank you for listening to my TED talk.

[isaac]

@Rust

The exposure as being the de-facto Governance over crypto projects. Hell, I had no idea what Gitcoin even was until this entire thing played out but I’m glad to have now seen that such a community does indeed exist. I can see a future where tokens launch and send tokens to Gitcoin’s address instead of a burn address.

I dont think we should be encouraging that at all. We do not want more projects started sending half their supply, leaving us with a loaded gun pointed at their head. Its lunacy.

I do worry that if we start legitimising meme projects, especially out of some guilt trip, it could lead to more hurt than selling the tokens now. I can see the “its supported by gitcoin” comments in the PnD telegram chats. We hear a lot about how we’d hurt akita holders, but the damage to gitcoins reputation could be much worse.

being “kind” to the akita holders could have an upside of introducing them to gitcoin, bringing lots of new faces, that could be cool!

But we could also be saying to them that meme tokens are valuable, having no plans can make you rich and happy. We would be saying that buying a token designed with no purpose and with half the distribution sent to one person, was a great idea! and is fully supported by the wider community.
why would we do that? because its funny? is that good enough? what if we end up hurting more people in the long term?

[sviss]

@isaac

what if we end up hurting more people in the long term?

This sort of top-down tyrannical paternalism is always folly.

“Paternalism: the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates’ supposed best interest.”

Is dumping the tokens in ANYONE’S best interest besides Gitcoin’s?
No. So let’s not pretend.

Destroying others in order for you to get ahead is what it has always been: robbery, looting, and pillaging at worst - parasitic vampirism at best.

Back to the folly of paternalism: It is not up to any one of us to censor the entire cryptoverse in the way in which we alone see fit. This sort of unilateral action (not supported by anyone but you) is myopic, tyrannical, and stifles innovation - everything Gitcoin is supposed to be against!

The whole reason the cryptosphere is so attractive to many is because it’s a new frontier! It’s freedom!

In a world completely bogged down by overreaching big government and corrupt institutions - you actually propose that what crypto needs is our freedom to be restricted in these various ways you alone see fit?

I am here to tell you, you could not pick a more assured losing strategy if you tried.

And to the point: No one is asking you, Gitcoin, or anyone to “legitimize” meme coins. They are already legitimate! Look at their widespread popularity! You can’t argue with market forces. Supply will rise up to meet demand - period. All we are asking you to do is not destroy $AKITA. That’s it. No straw man fallacy about legitimizing memes or leading the ignorant masses to their doom. That is not what’s on the chopping block here. It’s the future of $AKITA. Will you act as stewards, protecting and nurturing your windfall and our investment - or will you plunder us, at the expense of tens of thousands of innocent people?

No one - absolutely no one - views these sorts of high-volatility meme coins as assured pathways to everlasting wealth and happiness. Notwithstanding the fact that $AKITA has a real, actionable plan to become more than just a meme coin, and an extremely strong and passionate community to help assure that becomes a reality - these sorts of speculative coins are fun. Period. The ups and downs give you exits and entries, allowing newcomers with limited patience and risk tolerance to play the game within a timeframe that is acceptable to them. Without the volatility, the game would not be fun - and no one would be interested. You’d have a fraction of the newcomers you’re seeing coming into crypto right now. And this would be a net-negative for Gitcoin and crypto as a whole.

Do you know how many people are still out there who have no idea that their life savings is being inflated away? And that the permanent, unstoppable upward trend of crypto asset values is as much the debasement of their fiat currency as it is the success of crypto?

These people will open their eyes voluntarily, in their own time, as they are able to see more and more. You need to create as many doorways as possible to let them in. And you need to roll out the red carpet at each of these doorways and present crypto in a way that is appealing to the tastes of whichever individual may be walking by. This means variety. Yes you have your blue chip “investment grade” coins, and your idealistic utopia projects. But you also have fun things, interesting things, promising things, risky (exciting) things, etc.

Take it from a businessman: curb appeal matters. You have to have ways to draw new customers into your store. This is what the meme coins are doing.

If you want people to care about what you’re doing, you need to attract them here in the first place.
You catch flies with honey, guys. Honey! Not vinegar.

Again, as a businessman, I am here to tell you that you can not fight market forces. Customer demand wants what it wants, and supply WILL rise to meet it - whether you’re the supplier or not! Whether you agree with it, approve of it, or not!

If customers want cheeseburgers, it is not up to us to tell them that steaks are superior!
Our job, as businessmen, is to create value for the customer by solving their problem with the most affordable solution (the best cheeseburger for the money).

Meme coins are that. You can not argue with popularity. The market has spoken = the People have spoken. And let us not forget what happens when the people grow unhappy with those in authority.

It is not up to you, me, or anyone to try to steer the whole world of crypto to suit any one of our individual visions. This is no “guilt trip”. The consequences here are as real as it gets. Please, have some reverence for the significant burden of responsibility placed upon you at the moment. The fate of tens of thousands is literally up in the air right now, waiting for your announcement. Look at what happened to $AKITA’s price last night when the news of VB burning the Shiba tokens got out. We are all waiting with bated breath.

Will you act as good stewards, or will you plunder us?
The world wants to know. I hope you’ll choose wisely.

[Vega5]

Akita Inu

This shows that Atika Inu is not just a meme coin - it is this belief that the investors have hit behind

I believe they should be allowed to fail or succeed off their own merits

[isaac]

Is dumping the tokens in ANYONE’S best interest besides Gitcoin’s?

yes, literally hundreds of projects could benefit from these funds in the next gitcoin grants round. Too many to list! Gitcoin | Explorer

Akita devs could participate in a grants round and compete for funding the same as everyone else, based on the quality of their work, that seems fair doesn’t it?

The whole reason the cryptosphere is so attractive to many is because it’s a new frontier! It’s freedom!
In a world completely bogged down by overreaching big government and corrupt institutions - you actually propose that what crypto needs is our freedom to be restricted in these various ways you alone see fit?

freedom to send half your supply to a single person. freedom to donate them towards a community funding public goods. freedom for that community to sell them, or do whatever it determines is the best use of those funds for itself. freedom to collaborate on ideas too, if anyone has any creative and novel suggestions.

Notwithstanding the fact that $AKITA has a real, actionable plan to become more than just a meme coin

This is very important. What is that plan? Can anyone show anything to us? code? design documents? if we consider this an investment in a roadmap, then where is it? can we review it, critique it, improve it? are the devs dedicated enough to that vision to lock up their own tokens in a vesting contract? how about the community, will they lock up in a vesting contract? you seem dedicated, will you lockup your funds like you are asking gitcoin to do? are we assured devs are capable of managing a project with many millions of $ of gitcoins funds on the line? what is their track record like, can we trust them? Do they share the same values?

Vega5 posted a link whilst i was writing. Seems like they are making a dex on avalance? and one sentence about decentralized social media?
Details would be great… Looks like another uniswap fork? why is it called polarfox? Why is there a separate $fox token for governance, and how does it relate to akita? why is the git repo empty? why did you choose avalanche over other chains?
I joined the discord but it seems people are only talking about the token price and exchange listings, as i kind of expected. I am surprised how little conversation there is about gitcoin being sent 50% of the supply… why hasn’t an announcement been made to the community? honestly, it looks like the usual pnd token, like the hundreds of other cloned tokens. I really don’t get why we should be supporting this.

But you also have fun things, interesting things, promising things, risky (exciting) things, etc.

We can fund hundreds of projects, toys, hackathons, using the tokens that have been donated to us. Or we could fund akita?
Just asking questions before we give up a lot of money for a meme.

It is not up to you, me, or anyone to try to steer the whole world of crypto to suit any one of our individual visions.

Yes that is why we debate, and develop funding methods like QF to ensure that public funds are distributed in the way the public want. Maybe it would be best if we made use of the mechanisms we have available to distribute these funds, and the people can decide who should get them.

Let us not forget what happens when the people grow unhappy with those in authority.

There is no authority but yourself

[OliverS]

It’s clear, based on the telegram chat, that most $AKITA holders have no idea what’s going on in the background. They see meme coins as an opportunity to make a quick buck and are more focused on getting the next listing than the real issue at hand. This is a shame but Isaac I think you’ve been in the space for too long and forgotten what it’s like to be the average person venturing into the unknown. Let me explain.

I started in a very similar way, not with a meme coin but with others. I made my first investment on Revolut and soon after on Binance without understanding the technology or knowing the fundamental drivers of each project. I’ve made some money along the way which I am very grateful for but 6 months later I have started to understand the potential and the real word applications. It is exciting and happy to be an early(ish) adopter.

Upon reflection I believe that most ‘normal’ people enter the market for the same reasons, they see it as an investment opportunity. This may not be the right reason, but it is a reason nonetheless, and it is one step closer to mainstream use. You’ve made it clear that you do not support meme coins and anyone who has been in a while knows the danger of the but before long I have no doubt new investors will have the same outlook at myself.

It seems pointless to ask the plan for $AKITA when it’s clear it was not created to change the world. Ironically it is making changes in that the majority of holders appear to be new. Collapsing a coin with tens of thousands of new and small investors will not solve the issue.

The team at Gitcoin have a far better understanding than I and I’m sure will make the right decision, I just hope not at the expense of early investors who will not only loose money but also faith in crypto.

Just to clarify I am not an $AKITA holder, I’m just interested to see how events will unfold and what can be learned along the way. A key lesson is to not give away 50% of all supply!

[cryptowanderer]

fwiw, I am with my good friend @tjayrush - burn it all and let us get back to better uses of our time than debating idiots, who will just bring the conversation down to their level and beat us with experience.

We do not currently have the tools or coordination here to handle elegantly any of the other options presented.

[JTraversa]

“the fate of our project has been put into your hands.”

I don’t think thats really a rational way to put things, especially with no governance in place. Without governance, its just market capitalization that is in Gitcoin’s hands, the path of the project can be independent from the token’s price. Theres really no onus on Gitcoin here.

However on a separate topic, assuming funds are effectively liquidated, I think that there should be some consideration made towards establishing a MetaCartel style venture DAO that participates in the early funding of open-source projects coming out of Gitcoin Kernel.

Gitcoin has unique access to the best new talent and projects in web3, the previous two cohorts each with ~10-25 projects eventually funded. If the concern is the perpetual funding of open-source community goods, significant returns are required for this funding to mean anything on a long term basis.

With a venture DAO, Gitcoin’s community multisig (or whatever it becomes) would then have access to these potentially high r/r opportunities, have projects coming out of Kernel with aligned incentives, and without LP’s to pay out, have the ability to sustain this funding perpetually.

There would definitely be questions as to selection processes, etc., so I’m unsure how realistic this is in comparison to just throwing the funds into some protocol, however its clearly a step that would lead to growth across all of the web3 community, and leaves a clear route for open-source funding beyond hope for continued Gitcoin Round matching.

Edit: This took awhile to get approved/posted so apologies, conversation may have moved past it.

Edit 2: It had in fact moved past it, with the context of vitalik specifically saying this is meant to fund gitcoin grants rather than gitcoin’s overall mission statement, I’d likely put my vote into throwing funds into yearn and perpetually funding grants that way.

Edit 3:
If we go the yearn direction, I would STRONGLY add the suggestion that profit be calculated on an adjusted basis. If the funds yield 15% APY, one should only be able to withdraw and contribute 10% of that 15% to gitcoin grants in order to ensure the value of funds are retained over time and not lost to inflation.

[ceresstation]

There are some super interesting ideas in this thread so far, thank you all for helping guide us here.

Like @owocki I’ve been listening + digesting the conversation and trying to get a sense of all the options the community has in mind. I truly believe there’s potential for a positive-sum outcome here as in all things crypto, and we should strive towards that.

So far from the discussion, I’m noticing a few key options that I want to try to distill down:

1) Sell a fixed percentage of tokens and burn/hold the rest

This option seems to be the most popular, but it seems like there’s a lot of variance in how much people want to sell. Some folks like @cupOjoseph think we should sell everything while others like @relic want to keep the number closer to 5%.

On average, it seems like most people in the thread are on board with somewhere around 10-20%. As I think most people in the thread know by now, Vitalik ended up burning around 80% of his SHIB so there’s some interesting precedent here but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the right decision.

In terms of how to sell, @HelloShreyas mentioned a few strong options above, for example finding an OTC provider, drip selling into the market, or setting up a Gnosis auction. Other folks like @Crisgarner have even suggested some kind of buyback program.

2) Hold the tokens and use them in collaboration with the AKITA ecosystem

@omnianalytics and @Enrique have both suggested that we simply keep the funds but dedicate them to bounties, and specific quadratic funding rounds that benefit the AKITA ecosystem, the idea being that the most valuable thing here isn’t the money but the community. Others like @papa_raw and @castall have suggested that we could hold the tokens but distribute them as part of the matching amount to grantees.

All of this feels very positive sum, but as @isaac and others mentioned there are opportunity costs and maybe even potential risks to putting our energy behind AKITA.

3) Do nothing, send the funds back to Vitalik

As always the empty set is a subset of every set. As @tjayrush and @cryptowanderer have suggested, we could simply send the funds back to Vitalik or burn them entirely to move on to other things. This would allow us to avoid taking a side, and minimize opportunity costs, but at the cost of funds that could go towards Ethereum public goods.

A Suggestion on how to move forward

I noticed that @coopahtroopa put together a great template. No matter which of the options above (or others) we want to move forward with, I think we need to really clearly articulate the reasons why and consider both the potential, the downside risk, the second order effects, and so on.

Do we have any folks that would be willing to take a shot at drafting some proposals and posting the final drafts here for the community to review?

[scco]

agree 100% on it isaac .