I like this idea, it combines the two events.
Any plan for these funds has to first and foremost consider GitCoin’s mission of funding public goods, and how best to use these tokens to achieve that. Anything that doesn’t address that is noise.
I disagree with VB in that I don’t think having received these tokens should create any obligation on GitCoin’s part to engage in any kind of long-term alignment with AKITA, such as matching pools specifically for that project, or holding the tokens long-term. There’s a curious symmetry here; VB was given the tokens without his knowledge, with the intention that it would create some kind of obligation on him to steward them in some fashion. He, ironically, has done effectively the same thing to GitCoin - albeit with more warning, and with suggestions rather than demands.
If the GitCoin community decides they want to work with AKITA, great - but I don’t think owning these funds creates an obligation to do so, and there are many other projects and communities that seem like better targets for such a collaboration.
6 Likes
I think its a good idea to do it long term, it will be also healthier for AKITA project and token. And as you said, the aproach on the use to fund the quadratic rounds should also have a big % ok AKITA.
exactly AKITA is popular and more players wanna to collect more tokens ,but ,bircoin will not good in next month,so,I think we should set AKITA DAO for amm and combine more exchange platform to buy and sell ,including otc.
I think you should sell it and fund some potential project on our platform.
Hey Vitalik, we’re all wondering!
Do you want Akita and GitCoin to work together? And if so, is there a reason behind that?
1 Like
The value needs time to be tested, it’s too early to say, just like bitcoin back in the day
you could give some to me i would like to make a game well it will be a boxing game so people could crate there fighter and fight to be the champ of the world and earn crypto for there fights
Hi all, gitcoin user from 2018 here, getting back in involved because I think this is a very interesting problem. What to do here is quite the morally complex question, personally I view AKITA as at best vaporware and at worst a pure scam based on name memeablity. I think the community would be justified in not trying to monetize this transfer and instead sending it back to Vitalik. However, if our goal is to monetize it to support public good funding I think the current proposals are both complex to implement and inefficient in how much value is realized.
- Directly selling will realize at most a few percent of the market cap and any proposal to do this which are not just dumping on uniswap require high admin costs and complex implementations.
- Distributing the coins along side grants also has complex admin and ties the reputations of the projects together in a way that I think is unpalatable for gitcoin.
- Holding the coins and trying to improve the value of the AKITA ecosystem requires the gitcoin community to coordinate around ways to improve a project which is far outside our core competency and imo distracts from our mission and the things we’d all rather be doing.
The simplest proposal to implement which will also maximize the economic value the gitcoin community is able to realize from the gift is to create a GTC staking contract which allows GTC holders to receive a share of the AKITA over a fixed timeframe of say 2-5 years. This will cause is people to GTC in secondary markets in order to be able to attain high staking rates paid in AKITA, because of the relative liquidity in crypto markets this buy presure will translate fairly efficiently into higher GTC market cap. A staking arrangement like this is a way of turning the value of AKITA into market cap of GTC in a reasonably efficient way. Given that the GTC dao is already highly likely to use its 50% allocation of GTC to fund public goods this mechanism that extra value means that each grant will be more valuable with no additional overhead.
Comparing economic outcomes:
- Assume we are able to sell the AKITA for and attain all of the liquidity in uniswap the DAO receives ~5 million in stable value which can be used for grants. At current market rates ~$7 per GTC, this increases the value which the DAO can pay in grants by about 1.4%.
- Assume instead that we distribute the 150 million in value to GTC stakers over 5 years at an APY rate of 50%, this will generate a buy or locking pressure for GTC of ~40 million dollars. At current market prices of $7 ie ~65 million in market cap, the staking pressure is likely to produce very conservatively minimum of a 10% increase in price and a 10% increase in the value of each grant given in GTC.
The primary downside of this mechanism is that it’s sensitive to bear markets since it’s unclear how AKITA value will hold up in those conditions. Given this my proposal for max economic gain/ stable grant funding but disregarding simplicity would be to do both a sale over the course of several months to try to receive at least several million in stable coins for a small portion of the 150 million dollar value we currently hold and a staking program for the large majority of it.
Also to put my money/time where my mouth is, I’m a smart contract engineer with a long track record off an on gitcoin and I believe a staking contract is small and simple enough, so I’m willing to write it for free if the community goes this route.
2 Likes
keep going guys awesome job to the moooooooon
I don’t think Vb indirectly holds any Gitcoin’s shares (or I’m wrong). But generally, Vb wants to keep his influence in crypto world. Now Elon Musk is coming to challenge.
So it’s interesting to see Vb is proposing a 50%-50% split on the funds, which gives Gitcoin (and Vb) control of a dog coin.
The core interest of Vb is to keep maximum influence in crypto world, the philosopher king of crypto.
@owocki wants to be philosopher king of Gitcoin. But @vbuterin is the real philosopher king of Gitcoin.
If AKITA community wants to burn 45%, you are well off with the 5% and you can “fund public goods” for years. However, you do want to extract maximum value from the AKITA holders, with “a good cause” – funding public goods.
I think a mob rule is inevitable. Many philosopher kings in history used mob rules to achieve their goals. I would envision the same thing to happen here.
Vitalik – do keep in mind that Gitcoin has a company with venture capitals. Whatever the DAO story is, the company is controlled by a small group of people, and when you extract value from AKITA community, you are extracting value from thousands of token holders who were not prepared and enriched Gitcoin shareholder’s interests. (and token holder, ultimately the same group of people)
Actually, the damage has been done.
1 Like
Hey @Dai I really don’t appreciate the implication that Gitcoin is some profit seeking entity that is “Using Public Goods” to extract profit from the community.
Anyone that knows the project or the team knows that is not the case, I would ask you to go an do your research before you start making accusations of the people who have put blood and sweat into making Public Goods front and center.
6 Likes
are the devs dedicated enough to that vision to lock up their own tokens in a vesting contract? (We have paid for this out of pocket thus far so , sure.) how about the community, will they lock up in a vesting contract? ( I’m sure they would)
I am glad that you are happy to consider a vesting contract. I think there is room with this alongside your other thread suggesting burning most of the supply.
The combination of burning most to bring some security to the token supply(couldnt be sold anyway due to lack of liquidity), and vesting the rest or streaming it out over time to both gitcoin and akita could be a good way forward imo.
1 Like
+1
Please try to do this! at least we’ll have wider communication about it.
Recently, a lot of such projects have appeared on the wave of doge popularity. The main thing is that the volatility of such coins is low.
Extending the sell-off cycle doesn’t solve the problem
Did the sender say anything about this? Just send it back
It can be made simpler, globalized, and higher. In some regions, the format is a little harder to understand
I highly agree on this one! i would make them know about it.