I voted yes to this proposal
2 Likes
I am pleased to present a governance vote proposal for a crucial measure aimed at stabilizing and strengthening our project. Currently, we have distributed 20% of the 200 million tokens allocated to our ecosystem and R&D investors. However, to ensure sustainable growth and protect the value of our Dym token, I propose a modification to the daily token distribution.
Proposal for Reducing Daily Distribution:
Objective: Reduce the daily distribution of 124,000 Dym per day while providing a balanced and sustainable reward structure for our investors.
Reduction of Daily Distribution:
- New daily distribution = 124,000 Dym / 3 ā 41,333 Dym per day.
Allocation of Savings:
- Staking: Half of the savings (approximately 41,333 Dym per day) will be put into staking. These tokens will be locked for a period of 1 year starting from June 2024, meaning they can be unlocked in June 2025.
- Future Redistribution: The other half of the savings (approximately 41,333 Dym per day) will be pooled and redistributed in three equal parts in 2025.
Redistribution Schedule:
- February 2025: Redistribution of 6,200,000 Dym.
- April 2025: Redistribution of 6,200,000 Dym.
- June 2025: Redistribution of 6,200,000 Dym.
Details of the Proposal:
- Daily Reduction: The daily distribution will be reduced from 124,000 Dym to approximately 41,333 Dym, significantly reducing the selling pressure.
- Staking: Approximately 41,333 Dym will be put into staking each day, providing additional incentives for investors. These tokens will be locked for one year and will be unlocked in June 2025.
- Redistribution in 2025: The savings will be redistributed in three equal parts in February, April, and June 2025, ensuring fair compensation and supporting long-term stability.
2 Likes
See:
-
response from Stratos (one of the biggest investors in Dymension).
As for me, I see the team is up for the task and I personally believe it has some merit. Tokens are not being confiscated. The only change made is getting locked tokens to be completely locked. Currently the cosmos sdk has a loop hole that enables holders of locked tokens to sell (sell rewards). Addressing this issue is a solution to this problem. Iām sure if we had more time and/ or resources we would have addressed this problem before TGE.
I donāt think this specific selling pressure has a significant effect on the price, but it will make things right: locked tokens will be locked. Having seen Startos response here and knowing that other VCs involved like Big Brain want to see the protocol succeed, I do not think they are against and see them holding long term conviction. Solving this issue at this point, will reduce some selling pressure, but most of all will empower the community by making things right.
Iām for.
(Obviously implementation details are important here and lacking. This comment only regards the general direction of applying a change assuming itās solid and the community supports it)
15 Likes
i agree with the ideal of this proposal. Even i came late, but itās neccessary. Voted Yes.
2 Likes
For future reference all proposals should attempt to list out at least what voting yes and no means in context. I know Dymension is worldwide and the meaning can be lost. yes can mean to uphold current law, no would be to appeal the law, and vice versa. This would make NWV a bit more confusing but the guidelines for casting a vote could be done by the proposer as they have the burden of proof.
2 Likes
I believe the most logical decision would be to ensure that the tokens, which are locked for 1 year according to the legal agreements made, remain completely locked. Staking rewards can accumulate, but these accumulated tokens should not be transferable or sellable until the unlocking period.
In all Cosmos based chains, VCs setting up validators and selling staking rewards or having high VP due to their validators limit decentralization in the network. I fully support changing this. Additionally, this means that smaller validator teams would lose their delegations if they sell any tokens before reaching 50,000 tokens (i.e., they will not be active). Preventing VCs from selling during this period would be the fairest decision.
3 Likes
We are voting No with Veto because the proposal does not follow the proper procedural rules. We believe that a detailed proposal, discussed thoroughly before being put on-chain, will help the community understand it better, foster meaningful discussions and lead to suitable solutions for the long-term grow of the Dymension ecosystem.
3 Likes
I would like to state that I am neutral about this proposal, which was put forward without any details. Because this situation includes Vc, testnet rewards and team delegation. It is not clear to whom and in what way it will be applied. So I will follow news and make my decision accordingly. Thanks.
3 Likes
The points presented here are very valuable.
But they have no value because:
each proposal that has been presented to make changes, are not explained in details
and if these changes are negative for a group, whether younger or older, they are not explained
Nor have they shown to have a strong basis that would explain the change.
It just needs to be published and then they vote YES for it with their millions of DYM.
the dao are a game, they are not real.
2 Likes
YES 126.771.000 DYM
NO + Veto 160.699.600 DYM
The whales came together to download a proposal that the community approves.
If we review other proposals, NONE has had as many NO & Veto votes.
The community wants this to be valid, the whales want to continue winning at our expense.
The unfortunate thing is that whales fill this forum today.
Before they never participated, because the proposals were only drafts that always gave them privileges.
The times I asked in the proposals, how it affected DYM stakers and what the solution was, I never had an answer.
interesting.
1 Like
I voted No on this proposal because it lack of discussion, as many way to dump the market but proposer not yet having any analyze.
After reading comments from the other governors, thereāre still something and questions bumped up on my head.
Props:
- Less sold, less dump.
- I think this will put a good sign to the market as less token sold, affects token buy that will positively impact the growth of the market.
- Help Dymension market has more time to growth and expand the position.
- Locked tokens still unlocked at end of vesting periods.
Cons:
- VC invested $ in very early stage, this seems a minus point to their investment as they can not sell it asap. How to make it balance?
- What happens when the big holders when his/her tokens got unlocked? Will there some big dumps?
- Will something happens before the feature going Mainnet?
- How validators and the other service providers can have funds to operate infra?
2 Likes
I want to clarify that I meant all future text proposals have a basis format. Doing this voting can contain more nuance if desired. parameter changes are alike but mutually exclusive in affect to text proposals.
1 Like
None of the proposals submitted to make changes to DYM by the team.
None have had a detailed explanation of the pros and cons.
They are only explained in basic and nothing more.
Why is a proposal that is presented in a similar way being attacked now?
because it attacks the pockets of DYM whales.
Thatās the real answer.
1 Like
It would be a great step if you could explain.
because this proposal is questioned because it is presented as a draft.
But other proposals from the team that are presented as a draft have never been questioned.
I want to believe that this DAO is useful for something
and not only to sustain the DYM that we retailers have.
thank you.
1 Like