[Proposal - Akita] Proposal to Gitcoin community from AKITA

This is the AKITA communities proposal to the recent decision by Vitalik Buterin to send half of their supply to Gitcoin.

1. Summary - Our proposal is to burn everything that VB sent except for 5%. Leave 5% to stimulate progress between both communities. The reason for 5% is because, prior to the original developer leaving the project they burned 5% of the supply. This gives the token supply a 5% window that can be extracted before starting to mess with the original token metrics of the project. I propose giving 3% to Gitcoin to fund public goods, a finders fee so to speak. Along with giving 2% to the AKITA network team to act as funding for the future of the project. We have been completely self funded thus far, and with funding could make Gitcoin’s portion worth a lot more.

2. Abstract - Implementation would be relatively easy, send the tokens that need to be burned to a burn wallet, leave Gitcoin’s tokens in the multisig, send the AKITA teams tokens to our multisig.

3. Motivation - The motivation behind this proposal is to mitigate collateral damage. The Akita investors invested believing that half of our supply was “burned” to VBs wallet. We did not intentionally send these tokens to VB ourselves, and as such should not be punished for doing so. However our ignorance does not mean we are not subject to consequence. Gitcoin is an excellent source of funding for much needed public goods. By taking this route we can use the opportunity to educate new Ethereum users on the importance of public goods funding while staying within a range that causes as little harm as possible to the community. By holding $AKITA, Gitcoin now has a vested interest in the AKITA network project, and the AKITA network project has a vested interest in Gitcoin. By taking this peaceful approach Gitcoin will avoid any unnecessary backlash, and secure a long term source of funding, pending the AKITA communities success. The AKITA community reached a 1B valuation prior to these events. There is no reason to believe that long term success of this cooperation would not be obtainable for both parties.

4. Specification - I believe that as soon as Gitcoin announces this burn and cooperation that an immediate price action will take effect, the same that happened to SHIBA (+44%) after their burn announcement. Yet, the most important thing that will happen is that it will allow our community to rest on their speculation and move forward with more important topics. For Gitcoin, the implications are that there is now expectation from the Gitcoin community toward the AKITA community. Holding 3% of our supply is roughly equivalent to what some of the big exchanges hold. We would be honored as a community if Gitcoin found the most efficient way of using this capital.

5. Benefits - The benefits of this proposal are many, #1 The AKITA community is able to get back to our original tokenomics. #2 The Gitcoin community is able to secure a source of long term funding. #3 The Gitcoin community is able to introduce themselves to a community of new and eager Ethereum users. #4 The AKITA community is able to be introduced to some of the greatest minds on Ethereum and what they are trying to build. #5 This social experiment plays out in a natural way that benefits both parties tremendously. #6 No unnecessary backlash for either party.

6. Drawbacks - Drawbacks could include radical entities from either side not being satisfied with the decision and intentionally voicing this publicly.

7. Vote- Clearly outline what voting “yes” and “no” entails.
**Voting Yes means that you are voting to agree with my proposal. **
A Yes vote means to agree with Gitcoin burning 45% of the tokens sent from Vitalik’s wallet and splitting the remaining 5% with AKITA network’s team, with 3% going to Gitcoin and 2% going to the AKITA dev team.
Voting No means that you are voting against this proposal in favor of another proposal.


But why would they be dissatisfied? If you know their reasonings, they should be listed as drawbacks.

One issue I have with this proposal, beyond the general burn (which itself has overarching moral considerations that arent being made), is that 2/5 of this is going to Akita.

Every project is self-funded until they get funded. Thats the point of Gitcoin’s matching. To provide funding where it proportionally should be (based on QF).

It seems strange to insist these funds be burnt because “speculators made mistakes buying a token, we should try to help them by removing the funds from circulation”, and then come around and say “but we deserve the funds”. The two positions seem to oppose one another.
(Paraphrasing obviously)


Guzel haber tesekkurler gitcoin


It’s supposed to be a cooperative effort. If we have funds to develop, we can develop more efficiently. This means your 3%, which you could dump now for scraps, becomes a long term source of funding. I’m pretty sure you’re just playing devils advocate at this point. It’s glaringly obvious that this proposal is the most beneficial and least damaging scenario. Our 2% allows us to work on the project full time, which ensures that your 3% (which is a lot ) can fund (even more) projects over time than you could by liquidating the tokens in the short term.


BURN THEM ALL!!! THANK YOU :slightly_smiling_face:
:point_right: :point_left:


We should burn all akita for go up


Of course this 45% must be burn. :rage:


It must be done a long time ago


200 votes is not enough, we need 5000vote guys let’s Goooooooo to the MOON :rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket::rocket:


işbirlik için teşekkürler gitcoin. Akita ile devam


together to the top. thank you gitcoin


Lets voting guys. AKITA ITS CHAMPION ! :heart_eyes:


Akita to the moon////////// :ok_hand:


Нужно сжечь эти лишние токены обязательно.


Together we are power. TOKENBURN !!!


I think it might be a good idea to revisit the origin of all this and it all started with Vitalik sending Akita coins to Gitcoin. (And yes I am talking from an investor’s perspective and yes i have read the whole discussion thread on this topic) and before this incident I have never heard about Gitcoin before. The question is should I as an investor? If yes, i apologize for my ignorance. Out of curiosity, I had a brief look at the quadratic funding schema, which is an interesting idea ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656 ), and the last sentence of the abstract is probably relevant: …“this solution to the public goods problem may furnish neutral and non-authoritarian rules for society that nonetheless support collective organization” but what is not clear is the form of contribution to fund public goods. So, does vitalik wanted to “contribute” this token, so that Gitcoin sell it and conduct quadratic funding matching for funding? Then I would say, hmm okay, then I am not sure what “neutral” and “non-authoritarian” rules is based on.

You are also right in saying that it was purely speculative in nature to invest in something which started of as a meme with all this dog hype (and also sorry I am one of these ignorant investors). However, over time, the Akita team are eager to build something, going beyond of what it was, the narrative changed. And I trust them, all of them. Why not give them a chance to build something and proof themselves of what they want to achieve? I think every project deserves a chance to develop, build and gain trust as long as they do not scam or rugpull. Unfortunately, under the current circumstances, the future of the project is in Gitcoins’ hand and the project itself depends on Gitcoin’s decision. Sure, these days, the lifecycle of a project might be rather short and not long-lasting and noone knows what the future will bring. So everything is pure speculation in itself. However, I still believe in these guys.

And let’s think about the chain of events that is triggered if the “sale scheme” you have mentioned in the other discussion thread is implemented. Will Gitcoin be happy over time to use “these funds” (is this what Vitalik wanted?) for different public goods? Is this contribution morally, ethically and socially acceptable? If yes, well then I would think in several years later: “Ah yes, this was Gitcoin”. 1) They are awesome or 2) They dumped a community". it is just how people might remember. I am not saying you are doing something bad with this (if you believe this is the right way), it is just a decision that is easier to be made on Gitcoins site compared to the Akita’s site. As such, i dont think it is a neutral one here because the source of contribution is based on a community project (Akita) and not solely by individuals (or “citizens” as it is mentioned in the paper) that agree on the contribution (or Vitalik thought that it is okay like this but that would be a “powerful” citizen :)).

All in all, I think Relic’s proposal is great. Gitcoin would have a steady increase to fund public goods (more than having a momentary effect of selling) and the akita team can fund themselves to develop their team and deliver.

Just my thoughts…


Team Must burn VB tokens


Let’s burn the Akitas sent by Vitalik B. . They will be more valuable. Let’s be stronger! :rocket: :love_you_gesture:


Давно пора было сжечь эти токены. Это как лишний балласт висит и не дает монете нормально расти в цене. Если есть возможность сжечь их конечно надо ею воспользоваться , потому что с этим грузом на ногах никак не получится выстрелить.


Please help us to burn, we are conscious that everything will be better