This idea is sexy . I have been involved in several algo stablecoin like $OHM , $Float and $Rai . In my opinion , in addition to the mechanism, the usage scenario is also very important . I think we should discuss how to use $OneGTC . Of course , i think we can refer $Luna and $UST . In Luna’s economic system , people can mint $UST by mortgage $LUNA and can use $UST buy mirror’s synthetic assets.
As of now there are over 700+ people voting YES for launching $oneGTC , with 99%+ support !
It is super exciting to get such a huge support from the Gitcoin community and we at ICHI are grateful to partner with this amazing & engaged community!
We will put all of our efforts now to get ready for launch, with the following next steps:
- ICHI community vote to launch $oneGTC goes live - Aug 2nd
- Gitcoin voting ends - Aug 4th.
- ICHI voting ends- Aug 5th
- $oneGTC launch - Aug 6th
We will keep this thread updated with news
Thanks for putting together the proposal. I really appreciate the sharing of ideas and ways to make Gitcoin better. I shared my thoughts on this in the prior proposal discussion but wanted to follow up here too.
I spent a lot more time thinking about this proposal given how many great people are involved and supporting this but I still don’t think it makes sense to create a separate stablecoin for Gitcoin at this stage. There are many other stablecoins that the community can use right now and it can become a potentially complicated, distracting process to make sure this is successful. If one of the objectives is to reduce market selling of GTC, then it might be worth also thinking through if there are other ways to achieve the same objective like staking. While I’m voting no on this proposal, I am fully supportive of experimentation if the community votes otherwise.
Thank you @linda for taking the time to review the proposal and participate in voting!
As you wrote - it’s an experimentation, and the ICHI community is committed to support Gitcoin community in making this work and add value. We appreciate your inputs and welcome more of your experience and insights going forward as we (hopefully) launch!
you are right. onegtc will make a lot of sense.
In my understanding it is just one of the ways to create collateral, I think it will be hard to maintain the stability, but we can do it as a pilot project, therefore as long as the total liquidity is carefully planned, we can start ‘test in prod’
GTC is officially a governance token with no economic value as declared by the DAO on issuance and I believe it’s important from a legal perspective that that continues to be the stance. Sure it does trade on Uniswap, but this community can’t control that. I worry that formally creating a stablecoin that relies on the premise of a valuable GTC token could create regulatory complexity. Has this been evaluated by anyone? I haven’t seen anything in the post or comments addressing regulatory concerns.
I also haven’t seen alternatives discussed (e.g., Uniswaps KPI token idea).
Taking a step back, it may be better next step to firm up how this DAO conducts analysis (e.g., with something like yTeams at Yearn) on operational, legal, tax, technical, and other considerations before fairly specific proposals go to vote.
Do you have some alternatives that you’d like to propose ? That’s what this thread is for by all means. The community can make the decision on the best path to choose, but at the end of the day ICHI has stepped up to deliver this proposal as a collaboration with GitcoinDAO & offering $100k of incentive rewards to build the stability of the treasury.
One thing I think that’s very important to differentiate is Gitcoin the company takes a certain stance on the value of the token, that’s all good an fine but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Gitcoin community has to take the same stance. The tokens an ERC-20 that is openly traded on Ethereum, we can do whatever we want with it and because the DAO is a non-legal entity.
I know the people who are relying on workstream payouts certainly won’t take the same stance around value.
In my opinion we need stable budgets for contributors to feel confident about their runway and how much time they can devote to working on fulfilling the DAO’s missions. This proposal moves us closer to that reality and so I stand by it.
@Yalor I’m adding this as discussion item for August Stewards call happening today - August 2nd at 4pm UTC
Gitcoin the company takes a certain stance on the value of the token, that’s all good an fine but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Gitcoin community has to take the same stance
This is a great point and may be ultimately what matters for this proposal. I’d still feel better if there was some small analysis done to make sure that regulators would likely see this similarly and that Gitcoin the company wouldn’t have issues further down the chain (e.g., if they need to approve the sending of $oneGTC from a multisig).
In terms of alternatives, have you seen the Uniswap KPI token idea? gov (dot) uniswap (dot) org/t/consensus-check-create-uniswap-volume-kpi-options-to-help-divest-uniswap-s-community-treasury-into-stablecoins/13533
The bigger point I was raising was on how the Gitcoin community organizes itself. I found the yearn model, with their use of yTeams and delegated authority for specific domains, impressive. gov (dot) yearn (dot) finance/t/yip-61-governance-2-0/10460
I wish I could expand more in this post, but I wanted to reply quickly before going into meetings. I’ll certainly be more active in the future in these forums.
Thanks for all who participated in the conversation we just had on the Gitcoin Stewards call !
We deeply appreciate your engagement, challenges and questions.
I’d like to emphasize here for the wider voters community that might be concerned of focus / complexity / right timing - The ask to launch this experiment sum up to - Pay a round of workstream rewards in $oneGTC.
That is why together with the steward we spent time deep diving into all the details, we think the potential value of a success is far greater than the risk taken.
Recipients will be able to decide if they want to hold $oneGTC and save with it, redeem it to $USDC or exchange it to $GTC.
Then and with analysis of the experiment, the DAO can decide how to take it from there - proceed with more payments, expand for more use cases or wait.
Happy to answer here remaining questions we didn’t have the time to take on the call
I guess I dont really understand the negatives of this proposal. It really seems like a win win. Making more stable income stream for developers while ensuring more money gets trapped in the gitcoin community. I mean maybe the regulatory concerns mentioned above hold merit. I would like to know if this has ever been an issue with any other projects ichi worked on.
Sorry to double post but I also feel that sometimes the more developer minded among us which I am for full disclosure still in the process of learning to become look down on the importance of price movement. I agree that this technology is revolutionary and groundbreaking and am personally working hard to learn more on the technical and theoretical side but lets be honest. We would as an entire crypto community be a lot less well off without the uneducated retail traders throwing millions of dollars at all the most recent hyped project. I think it would be silly to not put some emphasis on making a token people want to fomo into to as if we don’t we may be leaving a stream of revenue that could go toward the funding of public goods off the table. And almost more importantly be missing out on any future developers who would learn about gitcoin through such a hype cycle.
In conclusion dont let the principled stance of a technology first agenda get in the way of what will be best for the long term goal of funding public goods and paying developers
Thanks everyone who has been presenting info related to this proposal. A few points after considering for a couple days:
- won’t workstream contributors eventually redeem / sell the oneGTC for their various reasons? this seems counter to the claim i’ve seen that oneGTC will prevent market selling. further, are workstreams actually interested in being paid in a token like this?
- I haven’t seen any mention of the 2 & 20 fee structure I see in this Loopring AMA from May. Is this not going to be applied to oneGTC? if not, will it be applied in the future? do other oneTokens have these fees applied?
- I think the Gitcoin community would be better served tapping into a larger, more established stablecoin (eg. DAI) for now, and potentially revisit this project at another time.
Hi Trent, thanks for sharing your question here!
People use money to either spend or save it - those who plan to spend it, would do so in both cases, but those who save, will now hold an asset that:
- Locks $GTC in it’s treasury
- Generate yield for the Gitcoin community.
The vision is that at scale, people can do more stuff with $oneGTC - they can pay for contributors in the Gitcoin platform, donate to projects, create income service agreements bonds etc…
the more utility —> the less people immediately sell it cause they can use it and get benefits for prefering the protocol native stablecoin over others
In turn - the protocol can encourage people prefer it’s stable medium of exchange to pay for these kind of protocol service, cause it has the collateral generating yield that can potentially fund those rewards
ICHI was build with the oneToken communities in mind. The 2/20 model serve this purpose by aligning the interests of the ICHI community and the oneToken community:
- The ICHI community will vote to launch only vetted projects with clear potential for a sustainable economy around their oneToken.
- Whitelist strategies that has been vetted to be safe for deploying the collateral to work.
- ICHI community has interest to ensure a responsible treasury management guidelines are followed, increase confidence in the oneToken, and supporting it’s growth
If those are kept - ICHI token holders share the fruits in the form of shared profits
With that said, we are at a very early stage. While all oneTokens have this structure built in, since v2 launch, this hasn’t been applied since the focus is on growth and adoption.
This is one of the most common responses we get   - it’s true other stablecoins are more common at this point of time - the point is none of them is serving the Gitcoin community and governed by it - which we believe has lots of merits and value.
Hey fellow gitcoin community members.
After the call yesterday and after careful consideration I am going to vote No for this paritcular proposal.
The reasons are similar to what was mentioned in the call and above in the post by other stewards. I believe it’s too early in the process to consider creating a gitcoin specific stablecoin while a normal and more established stablecoin would probably serve us better.
Even though I appreciate all the work the ICHI community put in the proposal, before looking at this proposal I had not heard of them and I am not really convinced our goals would, at this point be completely aligned. Especially considering the fact that they have their own community to consider first and they have the ability to have a management and a performance fee on top. The 2/20 mentioned above.
I think perhaps we can reconsider in the future with a proposal to do this as an experiment. Such a proposal would be to not just mint oneGTC but also to fund a specific project that wants to be funded with oneGTC as opposed to GTC. With such a proposal the whole work of deciding who to fund with oneGTC and who with GTC would be taken off our hands which is good as that would mean less work. And any proposal should mention and have a commitment from the ICHI team to disable/not enable any fees on top.
Thanks for all the great questions. To reiterate Lior’s comment: the idea behind the fee model is to align the incentives in the system. The fees are designed to reflect a share of yield, and would not impact a loan to treasury from the Gitcoin community. These fees would also not put the stability of the stablecoins at risk.
Hi @lefterisjp , sorry to read that is your vote, but I do want to emphasize one point as I see it gained some people’s concern -
My personal believe is that in DeFi and crypto in general, there cannot be rent seeking fees as a general rule, as it’s always possible to fork and reduce the fee to the minimum.
That is why the way I look at it is that the purpose in the fee model is to ensure alignment of interests between the projects - if Gitcoin won’t gain value from $oneGTC - neither does ICHI , and as such the goal is to get to an equilibrium of value add and fair split. This was one of the things I like about ICHI and what made me propose it to the Gitcoin community in the first place.
I’m Looking forward continue this conversation in the future!
Thanks for the feedback on this everyone, your time and attention is greatly appreciated.
Regardless of the outcome I think discourse and engagement on these proposals is major + for the health of the community.
So for now I’ll be closing this topic, perhaps to revisit at a later date