Just to clarify, Iām still trying to decide an appropriate length of time in which Akita could be used as matching funds. Iām not suggesting to blow it all in one round
Vitalik threw out 20 years as a time frame. Iām 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.
å°ē”¬åøę¾å „Sablieråēŗ¦äøļ¼čÆ„åēŗ¦ä¼åØå¾éæäøꮵę¶é“ļ¼ä¾å¦20幓ļ¼å å°å ¶č§£é
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. itās 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!
Without funding the AKITA community, you would effectively be liquidating the AKITA community to fund Gitcoin grants. The tokens that Vitalik ādonatedā 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 ādonatedā to UNICEF and UNICEF decided that world health was more important to fund than āpublic goodsā. Its a sticky situation.
If Gitcoin chooses to proceed in any way toward liquidation without including the AKITA community, then I donāt 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 āspecialtiesā.
The term ācomplimentary oppositesā 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 burntā¦i think itās 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.
Iām 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 wouldāve even read your comments here as being in support of the proposal if it wasnāt 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 ābenefit the AKITA communityā, but that isnāt 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 isnāt 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 weāll be kicking ourselves for not acting rationally.
Great timing? How is that our fault? How can you say they arenāt going to sell our token when every single proposal and vote made is how to sell our tokenā¦
Shreyas is the only person making strides toward a logical scenario.
Everyone else commenting and making snapshot votes is just kicking the hornets nest.
They arenāt selling AKITA. They literally have an ICO going on and the AKITA community wants Gitcoin to stop and focus on a mistake. Why couldnāt this wait till after $GTC is well distributed ? These proposals seem like you guys are trying to sabotage Gitcoin when Gitcoin can have so much potential to grow right now. Just put it behind yall and let Gitcoin carry on doing something great this week.
hello guys,
imho I have no idea why everyone is so worried about committing to singleish strategy of getting rude of entire $AKITA holdings in one swift move, whether thatās a liquidation, burn, sending back to VB, airdropping to GTC holders proportionally to GTC drop, whatever you can come up with
I mean, I understand the reasoning behind getting hands clean asap, but not sure whether thatās the best solution
So thatās said I was thinking of maybe suggesting to diverge discussion into a different stream, not stop keep coming up with the proposals on what to do with entire $AKITA in our treasury and trying to execute it asap, but rather how we in long term and in a sustainable fashion can actually use those funds to do public good.
For example if there is need for additional liquidity to be raised for next matching grants round we can vote to liquidate whatever about of akita (e.g 3%) to fund it, maybe use some of those funds to educate $AKITA people on how our governance works (because from what I see, many donāt even understand that by swapping their akita for gtc they can vote on what to do with the treasury)
Again, Iām not suggesting anything here, just some random ideas, but what Iām saying is that I donāt see a real urge to rush into getting rude of all $AKITA straight, since it causes so much division and solving one problem at time makes a lot more sense to me
In the end we are all here kinda together
wijuwiju.eth
I just voted on Snapshot in favor of this proposal. Great job yaāll! Here are my thoughts I put on Twitter (https://twitter.com/hudsonjameson/status/1399868787579625480?s=20).
I have been reading forum posts on https://gov.gitcoin.co/ regarding what to do about the AKITA tokens Vitalik donated:
Announcement: Gitcoin Community Receives Generous Gift From Vitalik Buterin | Gitcoin Blog
I just voted for the proposal that sells 10% AKITA & places 90% AKITA in a 2-year Sablier Contract
Thread on my thinking
It is a common tactic for a projects to send a portion of their token supply to Vitalikās public Ethereum address for publicity reasons. Iāve heard different reasons for why the AKITA team did this: publicity, as a āburnā address, as a gift to Ethereumās creator. Akitaās creator sent roughly half of their supply (500 million tokens) to Vitalikās address. Now that Vitalik has donated much of the 500 million to the Gitcoin community multi-sig we all need to decide what to do with those tokens. To me this decision hinges on the collective opinion of the viability of the AKITA community. The AKITA coin started āas joke coin without a team or projectā by itās own admission, that is now trying to find use cases to no longer be a joke coin (see: https://akita.network/faq).
Iāve seen a proposals that distributes or locks in other ways the token over a period of 2 years. What are the chances that the AKITA team, community, and token are viable in that time? Whatās unique about their token? What if we slowly distribute over 2 years, but the team disappears and the price/liquidity tank? I donāt think the token and team will last 2 years and I donāt see any evidence on their site (plans, etc.) to convince me otherwise. So does that mean we should liquidate all of the tokens and get it over with?
As much as I would like to think positively about AKITA, I was starting to lean towards a more pragmatic approach of selling all of the tokens for maximum profit and avoid the risks and overhead of dealing with the tokens any longer. That was my thinking until I read this: Discussion: What should the gitcoin community multisig do with the donated AKITA - #126 by vbuterin
Vitalikās reply seems to indicate he believes there are better ways to handle this than pure liquidation of all of the tokens. His words should hold some weight as he is the donor of the tokens and generally a smart dude. Thinking/reading on the forum more brought up a few other points. A point that resonated most with me is that it is bad optics/not in the ethos of Gitcoin to wreck a token/community, even if the origins of the project or viability of the project are in question. If we can help both AKITA and Gitcoin that is the best. So my āpragmaticā approach of liquidating the token completely is now in the trash can somewhat. However, I can be convinced to support a proposal that liquidates some of the tokens so Gitcoin can benefit now.
Specifically, the proposal that āsells 10% of its AKITA balance and place 90% of its AKITA balance in a Sablier contract unlocked over 2 yearsā is intriguing. [Proposal - Akita] Sell 10% AKITA & Place 90% AKITA in 2-year Sablier Contract
I will be voting on this proposal since it seems to be balanced and looking out for both communities to maximize value.
If you have GTC and want to delegate your coins to me check out this thread! I appreciate everyone who has delegated so far
https://twitter.com/hudsonjameson/status/1399853366847717379?s=20
if the akita project disbands in a month weāll be kicking ourselves for not acting rationally
I respectfully disagree. While youāre right that deliberation may cause de-optimization of the amount of financial value Gitcoin can extract, I think there are things even more important than the finances at stake here. Iāll explain what I mean.
When we look at Gitcoinās mission of supporting public goods, I personally (this is an opinion) see it as a mission that should last long into the future. i think everyone here would see Gitcoin as a success if it is still supporting public goods a hundred years in the future. I think many would see it as a failure of sorts if it fails within the next couple of years (there have been many successes, but alas, they werenāt sustainable). I think we need to realize that the actions around AKITA can possibly affect the ālife expectancyā of Gitcoin. Gitcoin does also succeed based on reputation, and has moral legitimacy to contemplate. As strange as this may sound, this could be worth more than the instant millions in the long run.
It is true that this money wouldnāt even be for Gitcoin, but rather to support projects now. Even so, if there is resulting damage to Gitcoinās reputation or worse, I do not think the burst of funding in the short term will be worth it. I think we need to be very careful with overly economics-based definitions of rationality here.
I fully agree with this proposal, which is conducive to the better development of gitcoin. I wish you all the best
um, I think you might want to read that again - I was the one arguing not to do the ārug pullā, for pretty much the same reason you mentioned 
update: this was originally written as a reply to a post which argued against my previous post, that post has either been updated or removed now
