That’s double sided but I think the vote will fail if we don’t lower the co-invest. I totally agree with trying to be the deepest pool but it’s better to have a slightly smaller pool than none at all. Once the UBT pools gets up and running we can look to increase co-investments when we’ve proved it’s merit.
1 Like
If the last round of voting is any indication, I think that we will still need support from the large holders that have vBNT stake to be able to reach quorum (we have some folks that are inactive voters but we are looking to change that). My suggestion about dropping co-investment was based on what we have seen with similar proposals, if they failed to pass with co-investment the first time then dropping co-investment seems to improve their chances the next time. If the UBT community feels strongly about the co-investment, then feel free to keep it (@mbr will still list it on snapshot for you).
If the whitelisting proposal passes then you have IL protection. The co-investment limit is not a requirement for having IL protection. Just wanted to clarify that in case it wasn’t clear.
3 Likes
Why risk that we are not passing the vote or note having the qurom? I rather do it in smaller steps.
Step 1. Whitelist UBT (IL Protected)
Step 2. Add co investment
This way i feel more comfortable that atleast we make step1 more likely. The most value we can add by having atleast step 1 accomplished. Step 2 is a nice improvement but not a minimal requirment for me.
2 Likes
Whitelisting requires a non-zero co-investment. The default is 20k.
Thanks for the clarification. Allright.
What is the preferences amount you guys suggest in this case?
1 Like
Can you clarify for me if there is something i need to do before the proposal goes live for voting?
1 Like
This part needs to be edited - just say the default 20k co-investment.
For some reason i can’t change the proposal anymore… any idea what i’m doing wrong?
1 Like
More input from last times non voters would be appreciated. So far not much to discuss
1 Like