I just checked ALD (the one that had the burn) and it’s still 12M FDV
1 Like
I’m confused, I didn’t bring AAVE, 1inch first in the table. But you are comparing our tokenomics with AAVE, and when I use the same project to point out data, you say it’s not correct. 
They were also smart enough to have proper tokenomics. In case you just arrived, AAVE was LEND before, with 1 billion in total supply. But yeah, let’s only take the data we want. 
It’s funny how you are selecting the data, haha. I could also point out 1inch’s FDV, but what’s the point?
The funny thing is that you are pointing out the price and “moonboys,” but you also mention the fact that we could need those tokens. But guess what? It’s a secret: 
the usage of $PSP depends on the price. 
It’s not the main goal of this proposal, but it looks like that’s all you heard, so…
1 Like
Not true at all, you can read the official article released on PSP 1.0 launch; to save you some read time:
Market makers are essential to enable ParaSwap to deliver the best prices to its end-users: a total of 6% of the entire PSP supply is dedicated to reward their involvement .
It says 6%, not 10, not 20%… 6% total.
That’s a valid point. The treasury has 38%; why not burn it all - gas refund budget? The max 2%/y mint should cover the gas refund, we don’t need anything else. Why not burn 35% instead ?
What else do you want ? The very builders of ParaSwap are telling you how you are misunderstanding the system that they invented & built with their own hands. What have you built ?
You keep repeating that, but your proposal’s objectives & success metrics are only about price:
Those are all your words. The foundation of your proposal is only about the price!
I will also vote NO & I hope that the serious ParaSwap investors & stakeholders will come over and help building a professional DAO setup. It’s much needed!
1 Like
But @Xutyr and @enerow were talking about the rewards for BOTH stakers and market makers, not only market makers, like you’re suggesting, which makes a huge difference. 6% were for market makers, but not for stakers. Of course, I’ll let you correct me if I say something stupid.
See:
Another 6% for stakers, the total was 12% for the whole program
2 Likes
Ok. So, it’s double.
And which % were used? How many PSP?
Actualy, only 3.35% of the total supply (70.7M PSP) was used. The budget was reduced through a few proposals as the PSP incentive played a less important role in MMs price discounts the more we went deeper into the bear market.
You can check all transactions on the RewardDistribution Contract.
2 Likes
Lets focus on the discussion and argue about the pros and cons of the proposal. Calling for some investors to build a community for us is an insult to every member of this community not just the ones you are argueing with.
If by now we still believe some “professional” somewhere will build this community, then something is fundamentally wrong.
You have the right to vote in favor or gainst any proposal as a legitimate member of the DAO, so are others.
Lastly, let’s make the discussion an educative debate argued with facts rather than arguments for the sake of winning argument.
1 Like
This is perhaps the most significant proposal after PSP-IP22: PSP 2.0 and as such should be treated with all seriousness.
I support the proposal in it’s entirety at the inception because of the positive outlook I believe it will give the token. But, it is important to look at the point of views of people who are against for a wholistic understanding of the possible impact of the proposal.
To get better clarity and come up with a possible alternative that works for majority of people from both side of the arguments, let us highlight the facts that we all agree on.
Fact 1: This is a big step for the DAO either way.
Fact 2: The numbers involved is significant.
Fact 3: We have no need for the tokens today.
Fact 4: We do not know what to do with the tokens yet.
Fact 5: Burning is permanent and irreversible.
What are the alternatives to burning?
Someone already suggested revesting which is an interesting idea but it still doesn’t define a use for the token and I do not see many people react to that idea apart from Mounir.
The 200M PSP in question is worth $8M at $0.04/PSP. What if we:
i. Revest 50% (100M PSP).
ii. Lock 12.5% (25M PSP) in sePSP2 which will require 69.56ETH at $2300/ETH.
iii. 12.5% (25M PSP) for ecosystem incentives.
iv. 12.5% (25MPSP) Incentives for current stakers.
v. 12.5% (25M PSP) future Incentives for stakers.
Revesting 50% of the token will allow us to reserve the tokens for the future and give investors assurance that the tokens won’t dilute their investment.
Locking 12.5% of the tokens in sePSP2 will serve as a way to build the treasury of the DAO in the long by adding a new stream of income for the DAO in form of stakers incentive and also increase the liquidity depth of PSP. It will also increase our TVL significantly. I understand TVL doesn’t have much effect on a Dex aggregator as compared to Dexes but it is unfortunately one of the key metrics investors use to evaluate a project.
Ecosystem incentive will strenthen the bond of alliance between Paraswap DAO and it’s eco system and strenghten our community through the involvement and participation of other projects in our DAO which will directly lead to stronger propositions and better decision making. Optimism and Arbitrum are good examples.
Incentivising current stakers with a promise of future reward will promote retention and attract new participant. Optimism DAO implimented this strategy perfectly.
Alright, 70.7M PSP out of 240M PSP.
Therefore, this data should lead to at least a 169.3M PSP burn, which is 8.5% of the total supply. Now we can see @Xutyr offer to change the proposal by burning 10% is honest.
That’s definitely not what I meant 
It’s about building a healthy tokenomics and incentive system that will make ParaSwap better (more users, volume…), the community is already very vibrant & engaged, nobody said otherwise 
Check AAVE, as it was brought up few times, the delegates + companies like Gauntlet, BGD, Chaos Labs are the ones that come up with educated research & improvements proposals when it comes to advanced topics that require deep thoughts instead of sentiments. Check for yourself https://governance.aave.com.
What does that mean ? 
Many would argue the exact opposite. There’s nothing wrong with our tokenomics. PSP 2.0 addressed many of the issues associated with the initial tokenomics. PSP price has been fairly stable and it’s performance has been correlated to the performance of Ethereum in recent times. The price moves in the direction of the market which wasn’t the case prior to Social Escrow.
What we are lacking is a robust community. All the examples of successful DAO cited so far have much larger community with many exceeding 100k members.
Then let’s focus on growing the community! The burn won’t help, it could if the community was bigger.
i cant say no to burn as a holder but if we want to make psp$ move burning is not the only answer or maybe not work well… in the crypto space which shitcoins listed on tier1 exchange and psp not how we expect attraction? when an influencer move price with a post and there is no psp chiller in the space!! i think we need to think simple …exactly like other projects…
and hurry we don’t have much time i dont want psp miss this cycle up without price Valhalla
So, updating the proposal to revoke the allocation for year 3, which is 200 million, could make sense as you confirm that this was the amount defined for the PSP1.0 incentive program. However, since nobody reacted to my previous message about an update, I guess it will change nothing.
Fact 1: Agreed.
Fact 2: We could consider revoking only year 3 for now.
Fact 3: Agreed.
Fact 4: Agreed.
Fact 5: I disagree, as the contract includes a mint() function that allows minting 2% of the total supply per year after year 4.
If the mint() function weren’t present, this proposal might be a research post, but that’s not the case here.
Why incentivize stakers more? You have the real yield and the gas refunds, which in my opinion, should be sufficient. Furthermore, the majority of the $PSP redistributed as rewards will likely be dumped by those stakers so it’s a short term strategy imo.
I understand that you’re not in favor of the proposal. I admit that some success metrics depend on the price, but I had to point them out as the only risk points are linked to the token price. The main goal of this proposal is to align the tokenomics with our new model.
However, all the uses of the token are linked to its price (the grants, the gas refunds, new seeds, etc.). The price will move regardless of our actions.
But at the same time, having tens of millions of tokens opens the door to excessive incentives and grants, as we are compelled to utilize them.
3 Likes
For my part, I align with the idea of revoking only 200 million if it can advance this proposal. It is evident that each party must make compromises if we want to continue progressing, although there will always be points of tension.
However, a small note:
Why not revoke year 4 instead of year 3?
Because, following the previous proposal: https://gov.velora.xyz/t/pip-48-dao-wallets-update/1585/21, funds from year 1 & 2 must be claimed by the beginning of the year, and those from year 3 during 2024 to no longer be considered as vested liquidity and to accurately reflect on Coingecko, CoinMarketCap, and other platforms the actual circulating supply of the token.
Therefore, it would be preferable to revoke year 4 to have the real circulating supply value in the metrics as soon as possible.
Some? The whole proposal is based on short term price speculation. Think again my friend
It’s working fine for Optimism, a small $15B protocol
Compromise is when there is some value on a proposal, now we only have short term speculation:
- Burn to increase the price (as demonstrated before)
- Burn to protect against price drop (the real meaning of “tokenomics allignement”, the tokenomics designed by the team that proved how you misunderstood their work…).
Let’s focus on building & community growth instead of value destruction! Having the support of one whale & friends doesn’t make a proposal valid
1 Like
There are several points raised by the proposal, and several members of the DAO explained in many replies why it’s not a “marketing burn” only for the price, even if you’re trying everyday to make it look like a short-term speculation proposal.
That’s not true. And it won’t become true because you keep repeating it.
Misinformation, again.
I think it was clearly precised recently.
- 240M PSP were for MM and stakers
- Only 70M spent
- Which let 170M PSP to be burned, as a first tokenomics alignment
This a “logical burn” to reuse @enerow words.
The second tokenomics alignment is about Paraswap being profitable, DAO having incomes each epoch (and we can see a growth lately), a treasury…
@Lup please, can you do something? I think such comment “is discouraging other people from participating in our forum discussions” and “questioning the legitimacy of members […] to influence the discourse is another kind of abuse.”
I know you care about fairness.
Not to mention how disrespectful it is to sum him up as a whale when we know all the support he has brought and still brings to Paraswap, especially in public, through his communications.
1 Like
Says the guy with fake accounts
I made a clear demonstration on why this proposal is bad & just sentimental.
I’m done talking & my vote is NO.
Yep. But I received a warning for that. I suggest all members are treated equally.
You made no demonstration, and even less a clear one. It’s you opinion, nothing more.
But disagreeing with you doesn’t mean being sentimental. It just means having a different opinion, which is allowed, I think. 