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.
They aren’t selling AKITA. They literally have an ICO going on and the AKITA community wants Gitcoin to stop and focus on a mistake. Why couldn’t 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.
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 that’s 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 that’s the best solution
So that’s 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 don’t even understand that by swapping their akita for gtc they can vote on what to do with the treasury)
Again, I’m not suggesting anything here, just some random ideas, but what I’m saying is that I don’t 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
I just voted on Snapshot in favor of this proposal. Great job ya’ll! 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:
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 Vitalik’s public Ethereum address for publicity reasons. I’ve heard different reasons for why the AKITA team did this: publicity, as a “burn” address, as a gift to Ethereum’s creator. Akita’s creator sent roughly half of their supply (500 million tokens) to Vitalik’s 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 “as joke coin without a team or project” by it’s own admission, that is now trying to find use cases to no longer be a joke coin (see: AKITA | Decentralized social media meets DeFi).
I’ve 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? What’s unique about their token? What if we slowly distribute over 2 years, but the team disappears and the price/liquidity tank? I don’t think the token and team will last 2 years and I don’t 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
Vitalik’s 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 “pragmatic” 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 “sells 10% of its AKITA balance and place 90% of its AKITA balance in a Sablier contract unlocked over 2 years” 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
if the akita project disbands in a month we’ll be kicking ourselves for not acting rationally
I respectfully disagree. While you’re 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. I’ll explain what I mean.
When we look at Gitcoin’s 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 weren’t sustainable). I think we need to realize that the actions around AKITA can possibly affect the “life expectancy” 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 wouldn’t even be for Gitcoin, but rather to support projects now. Even so, if there is resulting damage to Gitcoin’s 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 “rug pull”, 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
It’s a very good initiative since it will help solve the problem at hand