Start INDEX bonding on expedited schedule

kiba · 2021-12-15T16:02:03+00:00

Title: Prioritize INDEX tokens for bond approval for widespread DeFi bluechip meta-governance power DEPARTMENT or DAO: Growth Draft Proposal Link: https://...

Fugazi

This is a great oportunity yes! Good call!

Call me to vote when needed

btt

kiba Given the numbers pointed out in this proposal, it is really compelling!

I was a little stuck on the “Voting process”. I thought the MGC would only kick in if the quorum for DAO voting wasn’t hit. But the 2nd point seems to suggest otherwise. Also, the timeline mentioned in the 3rd point is a little fuzzy to me too.

Another thing is what you mentioned here about the “nightmare” in their governance, which feels rather lengthy. Does that also apply to their voting process? We don’t wanna govern a DAO that is innately slow and inflexible.

IceCubeIIIIII @[deleted] Maybe a hangout event can be created to discuss this as soon as possible?

plutusIIIIII

btt I second the motion for a hangout!

kiba

btt
If quorum isn’t met on their meta-gov votes then decision making is delegated to the MGC. No matter if INDEX voters or MGC decides on a vote the MGC is still responsible for executing votes. The MGC proposal I linked should explain everything https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/updated-proposal-to-form-a-metagovernance-committee/1601

By “governance nightmare” i mean actually politicking your way to getting an IIP passed. Since meta-gov is already approved by governance its not an obstacle to LOBI’s objective but trying to get a D2D swap for INDEX from treasury will be a lot of work, especially considering more established DAOs like FEI have already bought sizable positions from the market.

On timeline I’m happy going with normal 3,3,2 process. @GregS mentioned expedited process in my draft proposal so I changed it to that but doesn’t make a difference to me. I do think there is a unique opportunity given current market conditions that could slip away if we take too much time adding the bonds though.

btt

kiba
Aha, all good! I was mixing up some definitions previously. Thanks for the explanation!

kiba

Happy to do a hangout/AMA in the discord. I’m in UTC+9 so something my early morning should work for everyone @IceCubeIIIIII @[deleted]

IceCubeIIIIII

kiba
Thanks a lot for your answer.
Any reason they don’t pass their revenue to users? Is there a plan to do so? (I saw in tokenomics that INDEX holders would benefit from DAO revenues in the future)
Also, if we can vote with SLP, why don’t we rather bond SLPs which generate yield, rather than just INDEX?

kiba

IceCubeIIIIII
I was actually one of the early advocates to not have INDEX staking and pass on revenues haha. I’m not sure what their current reasoning is for that stance is but my argument was that 1) too early to provide dividends instead of reinvesting in growth 2) having a useless governance token instead of one with financial incentives creates stronger community. As far as I know there are no plans to pass on revenues, there is an INDEX staking proposal but thats not finalized and is only for contributors who earn INDEX to receive more INDEX over time which wouldn’t apply to us.

We can definitely bond SLP and because of low liquidity of INDEX that would shine a lot of favor on LOBI when/if we ask for a D2D swap. It does reduce the efficiency of bonding INDEX from $4 of votes per $1 of LOBI expenditure to $2 because we get half ETH but it also makes it easier to bond in pure INDEX later too. We also have to take into account LP rebalancing and that we will lose governance power as the token price increases so if we are operating under the assumption that INDEX is undervalued then holding INDEX/ETH LP instead of INDEX hurts us in the long term.

IceCubeIIIIII

kiba I think there could be a balance in the medium term. We start with Index, and if we see we drive to much slippage, we start bonding INDEX/ETH LP

btt

kiba How big of a difficulty it may be for us to propose and pass a revenue generating model right after we have enough IC voting power? It may look hostile, but also would be a great demonstration of our capability.

IceCubeIIIIII

my main concern is really, what do they do with all this money?

plutusIIIIII

Wen AMA?

IceCubeIIIIII

plutusIIIIII +++

Fugazi

What is our position?

plutusIIIIII

I’m not sure. Especially in light of the proposal up on the Olympus site right now, because there’s clearly a lot of “cross pollination” with that. Was really hoping for the suggested AMA.

https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/816-request-for-comment-debtdao-x-olympus-partnership

kiba

btt i would say unlikely. community seems pretty focused on reinvesting and giving value to active contributors not passive token holders.

111-altrektcrew

well have perused all the comments, i really dont see utilizing our treasury for a “useless” token that brings in no revenue/yield just perhaps some vote and their governance sux to try to get thru, we’ve got alot of other issues on our plate rn and the focus needs be internal..and ofc CVX BONDS not some ic usseless token….bwdik?

IceCubeIIIIII

Let’s push it to snapshot @[deleted] .
3 options IMO:
1/ Start bonding INDEX asap after other pending bonds (namely CVX and gOHM)
2/ Start bonding INDEX at the next round of bonds
3/ Don’t do an INDEX bond for now

111-altrektcrew

IceCubeIIIIII yes asap

mrthedude

IceCubeIIIIII I’m for this

111-altrektcrew

IceCubeIIIIII “1” snapshot bls ser

« Previous Page