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.
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:
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 âmeme tokenâ 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 âprofessionalâ 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:
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 
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. Thereâs 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 communityâs 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?
Hereâs an example simple proposal:
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% âissuanceâ 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!
Hello âVBâ 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.
âVitalik 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 donât think this AKITA project could have served a better purpose.â
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 Relicâs proposal a bit more, I think your proposal is pretty damn good as well, for both parties. Iâd be very happy if this was voted, and I think GitCoinâs team would be as well.
Have a great day!
This proposal even if it sounds cool, would give distrust to the Akita community. There are too many people that donât trust to keep coins in vaults anymore due to the recent rugs. Itâs 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 Iâd 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.
Yakim news for akita shows how big and fair gitcoin is
In my opinion this is a great idea which everyone would benefit from. Totally agreed.
Hello Mr.Buterin
Regardless if you are the real one or not (i do hope you are) , your comment could change alotâŚ
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 pickâŚ
Giving out the AKITA tokens over 20 years sound way better to me than some of the Brutal âdump fast quick or sell to a market maker keep it inter so no one knows we are slaughtering a communityâ methods iâve 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
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.
I should clarify, I donât 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.
Probably it is what would happen, but thatâs 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.
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 âOwn 1 BTC (before flipping back to ETH)â was âOwn more than a billion tokens of SOMETHINGâ. But why be billionaire of just anything? Thatâs 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 itâs a shame that they did so and didnât 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 donât 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 wonât find that here, friend, but stick around and maybe we can convince you why hodling is just the beginning.
Relicâs 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 âNot your keys, Not your coins.â 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. Iâm really looking forward to seeing the result of the Gitcoin foundersâ 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.
Disagree on two accounts.
Iâve seen at least 1 member from the Gitcoin community with a genuine Philosopher King outlook. We donât 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 Gitcoinâs mission, and its public presentation of it, is enmeshed so intensely with ethics.
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? Iâm sure this issue will come up again, and could continually be solved in the same way. Or, if youâre concerned that no project would want these tokens, add it as a âbonusâ until the supply is done.
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.
Please burn them all.
Why not sell it via a Gnosis auction? This is transparent and gives people warning (nobody is getting rugged) and allows the market to set a clearing price.
The contribution of the community is important