I agree with this proposal. Interested to see what the results will be and how much $ from the market.
I can’t find it in the documentation, but does Sablier take a % of each stream?
No, Sablier is free!
I agree with this proposal.
No, we don’t. And we don’t have the power to turn on any fee. The protocol is completely free to use.
Just posting on behalf of _ in support of @HelloShreyas proposal. Currently there are ~4 proposals that have been posted regarding AKITA;
This proposal; outlining a short/medium/long term strategy for how the Gitcoin community can collaborate with the AKITA community as well as use some portion of tokens to continue to drive forward public goods funding.
Proposal from @castall proposing the Gitcoin community use AKITA as part of the next quadratic matching pool. Where ‘A smart contract for distributing Akita will be funded at the end of a round once the multisig owners approve of the contract’s particulars’. AKITA is distributed according to matching pool distributions.
This reply aims to summarize the majority of AKITA proposals from the Gitcoin community, we’re proposing a snapshot vote which will allow the community to compare the current four proposals and ultimately make a decision on what to do with the AKITA held by Gitcoin.
Just to clarify, I’m still trying to decide an appropriate length of time in which Akita could be used as matching funds. I’m not suggesting to blow it all in one round
Vitalik threw out 20 years as a time frame. I’m thinking something shorter than that, but one that still feels long, like 5 years (i.e. 20 rounds). If you have feedback, please add to the post.
I like the idea of using the sablier contract to distribute, but we should do that with the 5% and still burn the 45%. This is the safest way back to normal and instills confidence back into the retail investor.
We will still have a lot of tokens coming to us while making sure that the AKITA community, who are the reason that this is possible, gets back to the original tokenomics of the project.
in trading and investor wise, one of the highest possibility would be that the moment this proposal is approval and accepted, the price of Akita would crashed to near zero as investor pull out their funds. it’s like 1929 where people withdraw their money from banks as soon as they know the situation.
so instead of the few hundreds of millions dollars gitcoin would like to extract when they approach liquidating akita in any form. It is too easy for these meme token to crash. there are similar crash in other tokens when adverts information is released.
Any proposal to liquidate in any form, no matter the duration
current price: $0.000002106
crash price: $0.0000000002 (estimated)
worth at crash price: $2millions
presume gitcoin 50% liquidation take home value : $1million
relic proposal and price goes back to ath
back to ath price: $0.00003346
worth at ath price: $3,346,000,000 ($3.3billions)
relic proposal of burning 45% and keeping 5% : $3.3billions* 5% = $167millions
relic proposal and price goes back to midpoint
back to midpoint price: ($0.00003346 - 0.000002106)/2 + 0.000002106 = 0.000017783
worth at midpoint price: $1,778,300,000 ($1.7billions)
relic proposal of burning 45% and keeping 5% : $1.7billions* 5% = $88millions
I mostly agree with the goal of this proposal. Thanks for putting it together!
- I don’t think it’s ideal to hurt the AKITA community by selling all of the tokens at once given how that will impact price. While we aren’t beholden to AKITA, the idea of negatively impacting a community doesn’t seem in line with the ethos of Gitcoin
- I like the idea of selling 10% of the balance using a reputable market maker (provided that Gitcoin multisig signers are comfortable with the KYC) and the rest with Gnosis Auctions
- I think it makes sense to use Sablier to stream the rest over a period of time (2 years sounds reasonable) but it’s not really clear to me why 45% of the total AKITA balance will accrue to the AKITA treasury since Gitcoin’s mission is to fund open source public goods, not specifically fund the AKITA community. Perhaps if 2 years is too short and selling the rest in 2 years would harm the AKITA community, the time period can be lengthened
Without funding the AKITA community, you would effectively be liquidating the AKITA community to fund Gitcoin grants. The tokens that Vitalik “donated” to gitcoin, were assumed burned by our community (not an actual burn but more of a DE circulation). Those tokens were one half of our supply. What would happen if half of the GTC supply was “donated” to UNICEF and UNICEF decided that world health was more important to fund than “public goods”. Its a sticky situation.
If Gitcoin chooses to proceed in any way toward liquidation without including the AKITA community, then I don’t believe it will be possible to salvage the situation or reach a positive outcome for both parties.
The results would be Gitcoin liquidating the position for minimal value and the rest of the AKITA community following suit, this is not just including retail investors but exchanges as well. This type of mass liquidation event is of no help to anyone and would only result in one outcome.
The Gitcoin community would receive some funding from the initial liquidation, yet would also receive a ton of negative feedback/PR, and NO source of long term funding.
Where as, if we choose to work together on a solution beneficial to both parties, both communities could leverage each others respective “specialties”.
The term “complimentary opposites” comes to mind although in this context it means something a bit different.
Although Gitcoin and the AKITA communities started in much different fashions, I do not think our long term goals are dissimilar (We too want our community empowered through a decentralized internet) and I do whole heartedly believe that these communities can be mutually beneficial to each other short and long term.
Its a delicate situation, trying to extract value efficiently without causing any collateral damage in the process.
I stand by my point that we should take care of the place that this value accrued from in the first place, which is the AKITA community. Thus far we have proven that even without funding, or paid advertising, that building a decentralized community project IS possible.
This actually becomes the classic scenario that is zero-sum. Both entities control half of the supply, both entities have the power to nuke eachother, the only possible solution that doesnt result in nuking,is by cooperation. Funny to think that the fundamental problem with Ethereum at the blockchain level is the same ZERO sum game being played at the social level. Interesting.
I support your proposal, originally the tokens sent to VB was taken as burnt…i think it’s against all good coincidence to dump it back against the Akita Community, I support burning, dumping is against the maxim of equity and natural justice
I agree with the goal of this proposal.
I’m a bit confused by your posts in this thread @relic . @HelloShreyas is clearly trying to sell the tokens in a way which is sustainable for the AKITA community, by assuring that the rate of sale is low. I would’ve even read your comments here as being in support of the proposal if it wasn’t for the occasional zero-sum comment.
If you are unhappy with this proposal, what is it that you would like to see Gitcoin do with their AKITA? I see you write multiple times that it should “benefit the AKITA community”, but that isn’t a concrete plan. I would strongly recommend coming up with a detailed proposal (along with the AKITA community), and writing it up in a new thread. It should include a plan for where whichever amount of AKITA should go where, as @HelloShreyas did here. There are already multiple threads with solutions. We would love to hear what positive-sum games you can come up with!
The more proposals I see about AKITA , the more I get scared to become a holder. Can you guys give it a rest? Gitcoin isn’t going to sell your meme coin. They have their own coin and you guys are acting like babies while their ICO is literally happening. Great timing guys.
I think this is a bad proposal, 2 years is forever in crypto, if the akita project disbands in a month we’ll be kicking ourselves for not acting rationally.
Great timing? How is that our fault? How can you say they aren’t going to sell our token when every single proposal and vote made is how to sell our token…
Shreyas is the only person making strides toward a logical scenario.
Everyone else commenting and making snapshot votes is just kicking the hornets nest.