I changed my vote to Yes and will delete previous made poll.
My emotions got me in regards to the reduction in airdrop.
I have now come to my logical side of my brain.
Must go eat some food.
I suggest everyone do the same - it’s for the best for BADGER’s longevity.
Yes I know it hurts to have a lower amount airdropped.
Yes I know we’ve discussed the initial supply numerous times.
NO PAIN - NO GAIN.
this is also important to think about, and it sort of feels logical for $btc to retrace next week with this u.s. regulatory fud. $btc could also skyrocket in the face of it, so any decision needs to be made rather quickly and fluidly by the community. thank you everyone for participating in voting and sharing your voice in the forum
I voted no. Two reasons:
1.) it was the initial vote, stay the course
2.) tbh I sold some badger after the airdrop because I didn’t fully understand the project. I got back into after learning more about it. From a selfish perspective and maybe others are in the same boat, if some mistakenly dumped and got back in this is a way to give them a second chance.
Just a different perspective kind of in the middle from someone who wasn’t a die hard badger fan from day 1 and also not someone who just chases airdrops to dump.
thank you for sharing your voice honestly. we need honest participants here
If 4,000 does that mean total supply prior to rebasing is now 26,666?
If lowering supply, root should be changed to 1.5
Sybil resistant multiplier should go down from 50 badger to 32 (math checks out)
Cool - usually a really chill thing to do, if the issue is this obvious, is to tell people about it when you initially put it out to a governance vote ffs. Most people would be really embarrassed in their own professional roles if they knew something was an issue when promoting a big feature of a new project, they let people decide on the project direction, didn’t tell anyone about the issue, then announced the issue in a re-vote on project direction. That would be really embarrassing for me professionally, and I certainly wouldn’t act like it was new information when I put the project direction to a re-vote. It kind of sucks that we are subject to you guys doing that, and you’re just pretending that this was the sensible thing to do all along, when you could have provided this minimal level of guidance initially.
we need to see models. community members who do well at this please create models @UnlimitedPower @Mr_Po @Spadaboom
everyone is talking past each other and talking blind. and why was a poll posted by a core team member with votes hidden when previously a community member was chastised by @DeFiFrog for the same thing?
What’s the implication of changing root down due to reduction in initial supply as @bajja stated?
Does this make the reduction more feasible?
I voted yes, but guys, people who want to dump their airdrops have the right to do so. Also, they should feel comfortable to raise their voice. I think we should avoid using judgemental and pejorative language.
However, if one supports not dumping, then they should explain why keeping and staking the airdrops would benefit them and the community in a respectful manner.
Otherwise, there is no meaning in voting.
i share in your frustration @tylerpol
I voted yes.
If you are going to hold DIGG, the dollar value of your airdrop is correlated with mcap not DIGG price
Rebases has a psychological effect therefore it makes more sense to start with lower supply
I completely agree with everything PO said. I can see why people who want to dump their airdrops quickly want 6250. But for those who want to stay with DIGG for at least mid term I would like to give an example and explain why you should chose a lower supply.
Lets say the fair fully diluted mcap of DIGG is 150M. So after the launch, the fully diluted mcap will go towards 150M$ in the mid term (say in a couple of weeks). This means that with supply 6250 you will get negative rebases and with supply 4000 DIGG you will get positive rebases.
In terms of dollar value of the airdrop, both will be the same since the market cap is 150M ( thats all that matters in terms of how much money you have) so why bother?
Well, as humans we are not rational decision makers. Even if the dollar value is the same, holding DIGG and getting positive rebases makes us much happier than holding DIGG and seeing negative rebases and having less DIGG over time. so after the airdrop you are more likely to get panicked and sell if DIGG sees negative rebases. Also, my observation is that positive rebases attracts more people because of the psychological reason that I mentioned above. It gives the illusion of compounding.
I am voting yes and I support reducing the supply even more if that option is still on the table.
prove it man. show us the numbers
it should be even lower in my opinion after researching about rebase tokens in the last month.
@arkgenesis please undelete this
Sure why not. Let’s see what some people think I’ve undeleted.
Please @everyone vote on that again.
I voted no.
If the btc is keep raising, are we keep changing the number here?
Voted yes. Better to start from smaller mc then make the room for market to take part in
I think that would be the logical thing to do yes. Probably a better solution is fixing the marketcap rather than supply as this is a rebase token.
man idk i think fair fully diluted mcap of $digg could be like $25 million, maybe less. like how many people are really going to engage with this other than badgerDAO users who are creating $digg as a product to drive revenue for the dao?
Seems like a steep BTC correction down the line would actually be a boon for DIGG holders assuming the token can re-align with BTC after the rebase adjustments and rise back up with the spot price of BTC.