Yes, although this would be part of the ‘‘rewards’’ part of the allocation
Amazing work @statelayer! I like this proposal and for me it looks fair for both communities and token holders.
@statelayer thanks for putting these details together!
Do I understand it correctly that all $T tokens would become transferrable at Phase 2? Including the ones that were allocated (merkle root) through KEEP / NU that was still locked.
And regarding the KEEP / NU tokens staked / held and the potential for being burned for T tokens at a later stage. With this do you mean that existing holders of KEEP and NU basically have a reserved amount of T tokens that they could acquire by burning their respective amount of KEEP / NU? So basically you know upfront your min % share of the total allocation of T?
Thanks for the hard work here @statelayer! This proposal works well with the shared staking contract we’ve been working on, and the staking weight idea is to LPs and other stakeholders is interesting.
This is a concern of mine as well. But…
I’ll ruin your day and say that I doubt this is possible with a new token. “All emissions” to staked KEEP and NU holders without a drop doesn’t solve this. It’s also going to be different for every staker’s jurisdiction.
Any thoughts on how you’d want to do this snapshot, and when?
Do we really need a new token? Maybe. But I think that fairly distributing a token is fundamentally hard and we should try to minimize the choices that we can make in the process.
(Ignoring NU’s inflation) Why not just have a 1:1 conversion? You can trade your KEEP or NU for the same amount of token T. That’s it.
We can’t ignore inflation. Both tokens have existing emission schedules how are you suggesting that’s dealt with?
to the last point:
One option could be to have the snapshot be taken 7 days before the T token launch. I don’t think we want too long of a period where KEEP has possibly less value and T is not live yet.
One way to do it would be for an external party submit the content of a snapshot to the DAO, and have it be approved by a governance vote (I imagine the voting would take staking weight into account, as T wouldn’t be live yet )
Whats the rationale behind the WBTC raise? Would that be a private sale to strategic investors?
Given the existing market caps for NU and KEEP that would seem to imply quite a significant raise.
Would the 30M in rewards be for liquidity / partnerships / stakedrop / coverage pool?
Ideally I think it would be good to see T tokens find their way to people who are going to stake and be active capital in the network, rather than farm and dump the token.
But what about the “-40M allocated to users that stake in the staking contract” that seems like alot to lose out on would solo staking count towards that portion?
Refer to this post for the staking contract, I am suggesting almost every KEEP holder could stake in it and partake, including current KEEP stakers. I understand the working is a bit confusing since both are staking actions haha
One of the goals is to make sure there is significant float on the market. The idea to raise wBTC is that we could later convert the wBTC to tBTC and start paying tBTC users with rewards directly in tBTC.
And no, it would be a raise open to everyone, with T being offered by the DAO and wBTC going into the DAO treasury.
Rewards would be generally reserved growing tBTC to the discretion of the new DAO, including all the things you listed above
I applaud the hard work you have done to come up with the proposal.
KEEP planned supply at 1B and NU planned supply at 3.8+B planned and both teams (though not all planned supply is circulating) getting only 50M initially and eventually to 100M sounds bit low. Me personally - would not worry at the 100M number. I would consider it as reverse stock split (50 to 1 or something like that) and I’m completely ok. I know purely from $ price point of view it doesn’t matter but there will be folks who would be concerned by the drastic cut in their token ownership. Just wanted to make that comment.
My 2 questions -
- What do you propose for the inflation rate to be for $T ?
- Selling 20M for WBTC and slowly converting wbtc to tbtc v2 is very interesting and compelling to me. But what I’m not sure is the purpose of this raise and why would the treasury not own any $T tokens and only hold WBTC/TBTC ?
Kudos again for coming up with the proposal !
Also interested in the ideas for the treasury here. One thing that jumps out at me… there’s a liquidity siphon trick here if the DAO can have a bonded party unmint the WBTC and mint TBTC in return…
Thanks for this proposal, @statelayer!
Have a significant portion of the token supply be live when it first starts trading, and the main product (tBTC v2) launch shortly after
+1 after seeing the negative side-effects when this is not the case (e.g. CRV).
-Token sale(s) offering 20M T tokens. The accepted currency is wbtc.
-T tokens rewards accrued by KEEP and NU holders become transferable ( I estimate it to be around 10M from the merkle root and 30M possible to redeem from the staking contract).
Why do you think this should happen concurrently? Why not keep the T allocated via a merkle/staking non-transferable until after the sale to avoid weird market dynamics?
The $T token… will eventually be the only token usable to stake within the network
Should the end-goal be to replace NU and KEEP with T? Or to have all three be stakeable tokens in the system in perpetuity?
it would give NU and KEEP stakers staking weight in the staking contract, which can optionally be burned for T tokens at a later point as discretion to the users if they want.
What happens to the staked NU/KEEP when a staker burns staking weight for T?
If the goal is indeed to replace NU and KEEP with T, it would feel odd for those tokens to continue to exist. People buying them after the merkle and 45 day staking period would essentially be purchasing a zombie asset, no?
I guess they can still be added to the coverage pool, but I don’t know if that’s sufficient.
The idea to raise wBTC is that we could later convert the wBTC to tBTC and start paying tBTC users with rewards directly in tBTC.
What do you think about re-ordering the phases so that the v2 launch comes before any sale? So that instead of wBTC, a sale could be done in tBTC? Or a combination of wBTC/tBTC?
why would the treasury not own any $T tokens and only hold WBTC/TBTC ?
@chandru I think the
30M in rewards as decided by tokens holders and stakers falls under this category
I am not proposing any schedule after 1 year on purpose, I believe this should be up to the DAO at that point to decide.
The DAO can at any point mint $T and put it in its treasury, it would have control over the token. I imagine the 30M in rewards would also initially be done this way and be in the treasury while it’s not actively being rewarded
I think you’re probably right here, this would be a cleaner way of doing it. Will think about it a bit more and come back to you.
I personally think this should ultimately be the case, but I do see how it being more flexible could have its advantages. But I would let that to be decided by the future DAO, and I will remove this sentence from the proposal when I do a final proposal to the community because that’s something that should decided by the future DAO IMO.
Staking KEEP and NU stakers could still accrue some staking weight, but would accrue less and less staking weight after a while.
They would lose their staking weight but they would still slowly accrue staking weight with their KEEP and NU. Although I think the plan should be to phase out KEEP and NU where KEEP and NU get allocated less and less staking weight. At some point I imagine staking KEEP or NU would accrue almost no staking weight and one would need either staking weight or T to accrue power in the DAO.
I am not sure how people would value KEEP and NU once it’s not accruing much staking weight in the new DAO anymore. After the 45 days there would still be quite some staking weight to accrue left during the year, so I don’t think they would be ‘‘zombie’’ assets just yet. Maybe one day when everything is migrated on the network that will be true though.
That’s an interesting alternative for sure. Will think about it a bit more and come back.
With your proposal I specially like the idea of the sale and bringing in those wbtc to get them changed eventually (gradually or immediately !) for tbtc.
And I’m also very fond of the 10M merkle drop vs 40M stake T token delivery scheme. IMO this implies and forces higher commitment for token holders.
And really really important is the timing about the phases. That is something you specified and should be outlined again. We shouldn’t launch any new token if we haven’t v2 around the corner !
Some questions I have :
30M rewards is e.g. for stakedrop, grants, etc ? Maybe we should outline an v2 stakedrop plan for 1.5 - 2 yrs, like there was for v1 ?
Despite some T tokens would get merkle dropped, everybody should stake their original tokens asap in order to get T tokens. The longer you don’t do that, the less value you will have left, right ?
Isn’t that attempting against an organized transition from v1 ?
How/when can we draft a transition plan for node operators ? And what happens with the bonded/unbonded Eth ?
Shouldn’t be an inflation hardcoded right now ? Nu did it. And Ben’s proposing 2 % which sounds reasonable.
Ben proposed to assign some capital to compensate for past slashing/liquidations/excessive heartbeat costs on Nu and some for coverage pool. These seams some interesting additions for this proposal as well.
Finally I think there should be clearness and lack of ambiguity about what is the outcome for founding tokens.
Calling out that anyone staked in tBTC v1 and the beacon can remain staked, and authorize an additional contract to stake in v2.
Can i do anything with the airdrop token? How do i buy the token now?
There is no airdrop. The way to get T initially will be to wrap KEEP or NU into the upgraded token. The exact date for this to occur has not been set so stay connected with us here on on Discord for more detail.