Brian33 I get your frustrations, I really do. Before I proceed on, the majority of the DAO and their leads were not here for the IDO, including most of policy. This KIP is equally aimed to all participants, and to remain sustainable as we head towards the long term goals.
So what this means is that none of the IDO participants are involved in the governance or administration of the DAO yet they sit with their bags of 10 DAI KLIMA with no demonstrated interest in the running of the DAO just ready to dump when it suits their personal desires. That is probably more dangerous to the ongoing success of the protocol than anything else.
Was there no withholding period for them to be able dump/ sell?
Brian33 I respect all you guys. Without everyone here, we couldn't have gotten to where KlimaDAO is today.
Exactly so please consider our views although coming from a different perspective than the super early investors but still very important to us and our own personal situations.
Just like the planet we have to survive as well.
Brian33 We have posted KIP-3, which shows the framework that we have accepted. This KIP is within the range of that. Additionally, in many office hours and in my informal policy chats, I've been discussing about APY reductions, and we've been shooting for ~ 2 million for the reduction. If this proposal goes through, we will hit that mark if it is voted for. The reduction seems large, but it's because it is projected for a year. The effect is much lower when you look through it at a lower time frame.
So you say this fits within the KIP-3 framework and I guess that is true but very misleading in the way it is laid out in the KIP-3 reward rate infographic. From an average crypto investors viewpoint it would certainly not be unreasonable to believe that the reduction of the APR spread over the specified amounts of KLIMA released be in a linear fashion ESPECIALLY in the absence of any specific indication that the inbuilt design intention was to have the APR literally fall off a cliff and then when we are only less than 2 million KLIMA at that.
That is definitely not TRANSPARENT for investors to consider and make their own judgements and decisions on. Why was this intention not fully disclosed in a timely manner to the wider audience of potential investors or it is a knee jerk reaction to the diabolical situation that the governance division has unfortunately created in less than 3 months.
As it would have been so easy to publish the intention in the infographic of the timing to implement this “off the cliff” adjustment instead of presenting it in the opaque way it was done I am only left to speculate and ask WHY?
Brian33 We could do a slower reduction over months, but with the compounding nature of the protocol, we will reach the 10m supply much faster, with an even lower APY.
Then publish this information instead of keeping it to yourselves. Why is it not included in and forming part of the Proposal above so that we all have the same information as you do to make our decisions.
Once again I say I am in support of reducing the APR but only in a structured linear fashion to minimise disruption and lessen the negative affect on potential and current investors but not this desperate economic ambush!
Unless there is something we don’t yet know about???
If this goes to a snapshot vote where can I see the rules that govern how this is conducted ie are they weighted votes depending on amount of KLIMA held or is it by simple wallet count or other? What majority is required to be reached to be successful etc?