Proposal: Whitelist BBS with External IL Protection
I will vote FOR this proposal. Though the project doesn’t even have a pool yet, it’s very interesting, has much potential, and (so far as I am aware) uniquely (to date), the project maintainer has offered to bear the brunt of impermanent loss themselves (via some TKN held for exiting LPs) until the project matures. This way of doing it not only makes it a better deal for us, but as the submitter points out, it could “become a new token launch best practice” if this goes our way, and I agree. Given that the submitter is willingly putting themselves in the fire instead of expecting us to do it entirely ourselves, I’m willing to put a little faith in them.
Guidelines for Vote Delegation on Snapshot (BIP12 Addendum #2)
I will for FOR this proposal, as I made clear in my post in its thread.
Proposal: 350k Co-investment / 1% Trading Fee on ICHI Pool
I will vote AGAINST this proposal. I expressed my concerns in my first post in the thread. While I don’t necessarily see an issue with bringing the fee up to 1% on an experimental basis, it’s probably a bit steep and others in the discussion pointed this out too. I would rather we wait until we have more liquidity depth in the pool before playing with the fees too much and I feel that liquidity mining rewards are a better tool for that. I fully support the co-investment increase, but as they are bundled together I cannot support the proposal as a whole.
Proposal : Whitelist Gitcoin (GTC) / 250K BNT Co-Investment
I will vote FOR this proposal. GitCoin isn’t a terribly new project, I’ve heard it buzzing around for a while. It will enable us a way to pay our developers and offer bounties, the tokenomics seem sound to me. I see no reason not to bring it onboard, despite the complete lack of a pool for it.
Proposal: Increase Co-investment Limit to 250K BNT on Rarible (RARI) Pool
I will vote FOR this proposal. Initially, the proposal also included a whitelist and I did not support it mainly because we have a pool and (at the time) it had a depth of zero. Now it seems someone has added ~$10k of depth. It turns out it was already whitelisted (which it didn’t appear to be in the screenshot I posted, notably
) and is in need of a co-investment increase only. Seeing as it’s already whitelisted, it seems prudent to try to rescue it. I do think it should be followed up with LMR proposal, however.
Proposal: Update whitelisting and co-investment increase quorum and supermajority requirements
I will vote FOR this proposal. When I first started reading, I was vehemently against primarily because it looked like they were going to propose something that was brought up in another thread, and I spoke against that and made it very clear why I thought it was a terrible idea.
However, the actual proposal laid out here (by none other than the excellent @mbr and @tfns) is fairly sound and it seems that it seeks to protect the DAO and the protocol strictly without silencing others, so it has my support.
Update: This proposal has recently been updated with different parameters. However, I find the new parameters agreeable, so my vote hasn’t changed.
Proposal: Whitelist DAPP Network (DAPP) w/ 500k Co-Investment and External IL Protection
I will vote FOR this proposal. DAPP is a very interesting project with a sizable userbase, and we would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to become the liquidity hub for this network. Their EdgeOS project–they might wanna rename it before Micro$oft gets a sniff of it–is an especially interesting premise.
(BIP) Reallocate 50% of Vortex Burner vBNT for Bancor Brand Awareness Campaigns
I will vote AGAINST this proposal. I don’t think we should be using the Vortex Burner for this–as pointed out in the thread, it’s a liquidity locking device. And by my understanding, it’s not modular and is in fact part of our security system; it is purpose-built, and that purpose doesn’t include marketing. Even if we were to do this, I think 50% is absurd portion. I don’t deny that we have a problem with public awareness, but frankly I think this is a poor way to solve it.