i voted yes and contributed to the furthering of the discussion, people who have real insight are quiet ??? granted, i changed my vote to no now… am tired of the shenanigans
To me this discussion seems to doesn’t make sense, because the largest unknown and hardest predictable variables are the BTC price and the timeline for the Digg distribution and corresponding BTC price at the go-live.
Since the team didn’t communicate a transparent governance-process roadmap or timeline for the digg distribution, the BTC price might have violently crashed until then.
As well the distribution might happen during strong volatility phases in combination with violent digg rebases and market reactions. Since this is a new complex software and economic system, nobody is able to predict the outcome of certain variables when going live.
I’ve seen so many complex theories and systems behaving totally different after going-live, therefore I don’t think any theoretical calculation will improve the decision process.
BIP 20: Define a transparent governance process and timeline for the Digg release
You are probably right. The discussion does not make a lot of sense, but neither the proposal to yet make another change of what was previously agreed on, without strong information to support this change. If we are going to vote again to change a previously voted or agreed decision (even when the snapshot vote has not taken place), we will keep having endless and pointless discussions.
I am aware this is going to pass, because it seems a “good idea” to reduce initial supply even further. But I just don’t like supporting or voting yes to any proposal that doesn’t provide enough data to support why it is better and that encourages, as you say, a discussion that does not make any sense.
Could someone articulate why there should be anymore than one digg coin ? The hard cap is the best thing about bitcoin. Why not really honour the principle with digg ? It would allow digg to become a multi million dollar coin and capture the news on every new high. We could make this THE single most desirable coin in the whole history of crypto currency. Let’s chase the diggoshi’s.
Yes. For me badger is a long term project. Won’t hurt if we can be more patient.
it’s not a matter of patience, it’s a matter of lack of consistent communication from the team
While I understand your point you miss mine. The same reasons that you are arguing against goes both ways. I have faith in the dev team and the decisions that they have made so far. While I may have had different decisions previously, I am trusting more in the community as well. Until you show me that my decision is flawed and is not in the good of the project, then save your assumptions about me and you decide for yourself. Also, for your information, I have almost 20 years of analytical experience. so if you want a lesson, I would be glad to educate you further. Appreciate the feedback though
I voted yes, I see no reason to think that this can somehow damage the project, moreover, as far as I know, supply reduction was good for several DeFi projects .
Uhhh no, not really. I didn’t miss the points you just made because you never posted them. You literally only commented on the absence of evidence that keeping the distribution the same will be better than reducing it. You didn’t say anything about having blind faith in the development team or blindly trusting community proposals. Literally nothing. If you want to blindly trust people, go for it man lol.
But why are you trying to now say that I missed those points? That’s a pretty lazy rhetorical strategy lol - Step 1, make a point. Step 2, when an error is exposed in that point, claim “no, you’re missing my point.” Step 3, make an entirely new point and claim that the other person missed the entirely new point you never made.
Does that strategy ever actually work in your “analytical experience”?
basically team trying to say y’all pushing proposals. see how it feels?
I got to tell you @ygclyde I personally don’t appreciate the way you’re making it seem like we are delaying things and trying to pull a fast one on the community. That’s totally ridiculous.
Nothing was ever voted on with snapshot which means we have things to do as a collective before official decisions are made. There was EXTENSIVE conversations on the forum along with numerous polls.
The models in previous BIPs and general discussions support the financial side although much of the is unknown since there are so many factors at play with launch.
Also we never officially announced anything because it’s not ours to announce. It’s the communities and when they make the decisions it will launch.
With all that noise do you think it makes sense to just push a product out? Ofcourse not we need to further clarify with the community exactly what they want and the parameters.
Overall much of the consistent negative criticism comes from folks that think they are loosing a couple bucks on the airdrop. This is much bigger than that and we only get 1 shot.
When I thought they (the devs) were trying to pull a fast one regarding the airdrop allocation being dropped from 14.5% to 9.5% of initial supply (5% going to "early contributors), I was the first to point that out with a post saying “@EVERYONE PLEASE READ BEFORE 2nd VOTE, Where does the 5% of the airdrop go to? Who are these early contributors and how is that 5% being divided amongst them in what manner for what contribution?”. I made a post on that BIP to get everyone’s attention. They (the devs) responded rapidly and amended their mistake on the edit of the airdrop % and said that they’ve gone away from the “early contributor” model as it it doesn’t allow for a fair distribution since the DAO has grown much larger. This is PROOF that they are thinking about the greater good of the DAO. They could’ve just said “NO, we’re keeping 5% for the “early contributors” of the 14.5% of the airdrop as that what was posted on the original medium articles.” But they didn’t.
My point is, I’d be the first to voice out something if I thought they were trying to pull a fast one on us. I don’t think this is the case with BIP 19. They have nothing to gain from a decreased initial supply.
I was there with you @ygclyde saying “NO” to this at first, but realized that “YES” is much better for the productivity of the DAO and overall long-term success for us as an organization.
We have to support each other and yes - discussions are nice - but please lets not accuse the devs of trying something tricky on us with this BIP.
The only things I see people are complaining about (because I’ve been there) is a reduction in airdrop which means less $$. Overall, this decision is more in line with the previous BIP with votes on the initial supply. BTC price has been up since then as well per Mr Po’s reply on this thread. 4000 initial supply is very reasonable.
Let’s collaborate, support, and harness positivity which will make this DAO - and ultimately ALL OF US - thrive.
PROOF (personal message to me from @Spadaboom) :
Let’s put this in a SNAPSHOT vote and delay no longer. The community has voted.
…then can you clarify the impact of this proposal for us using data and models for a few different market scenarios? Or can you at least advocate for the person who proposed it (and who it seems like you’re endorsing) to provide models of the impact of this? Without that information, no one really knows if the only impact is that early adopters just end up with less DIGG and the impact of 6250 and 4000 is meaningless in the long-run due to rebasing.
No one has provided substantive models of the impact of this change so it’s kind of unsettling that folks, including yourself, seem quite keen to endorse it despite this lack of evidence. It’s hilarious that you’re so incredulous about people raising some eyebrows on how this seems kind of like a shady proposal - we literally already voted on this and no one has provided compelling evidence other than their own personal sentiments. You’re advocating that we change it now on literally nothing but suspicion and your intuition about market outcomes. In what world is that ever an acceptable way to tell people to make decisions?
Not at all. I’m advocating for change based on community feedback on previous polls and BIPS. It wasn’t cut and dry around the exact direction of the supply and that’s why A compromise is being proposed here.
Specific models are very hard to create because of all the unknown scenarios.
Regardless models or not. My view is give DIGG the ability to expand to 6250 and well beyond which gives early participants more upside since they’ll have a piece of a bigger pie
I’ve been ignoring anyone that screams ‘wen digg’
The real question should be ‘are we ready with Digg vaults if Digg is released now?’
I believe that many here are interested in this project mid/long term and are probably a great source of reasonable disscussion. Those that are loudest, likely won’t be around for long and never intended to be in the first place.
My opinion is that we should consider delaying Digg until the new UI is released and the Setts are 100% ready. Show the airdrop on the dashboard but have it remain unclaimable, that will shut most people up.
New UI first
Digg launch along with airdrop and 3 vaults is what I think
I like that order of business.
Any ideas on timeline for lending/borrowing products?
Just something to look forward to. Excited for that part of the DAO.
I would love to see Badger Dollars (rough name) live before end of month but I’m usually a bit ahead of myself when it comes to timelines lol
It’s obvious that majority of the community sentiment wants Digg to launch. Will BIP-19 move to snapshot or this is just for discussion? might as well move this to General Discussion?
Ofcourse not we need to further clarify with the community exactly what they want and the parameters.
this is a repeat vote already…
Oooh, $BADGER dollars hahaha.
at least I know it’s in the works - thanks!
Yea, I think Lending/borrowing will be a huge revenue source for us