Can you elaborate what you mean here ?
We also found 2 more fake accounts from you. You must have received a suspension notification. Can you explain ?
I quoted what you said the other day, about not discouraging other people from participating, and not questioning legitimacy = in this case “one whale & friends”.
I think it should be relevant for every member.
They are prior to the warning, and remained mute after the warning…
But again, as I suggested several times in discord or telegram, we can talk about this in private, since it’s not about the proposal.
@BeerLover & @Astead are still active. We issued multiple warnings against abuse, including a last one…
My idea was to simplify the job for the signers. Burning year 4 tokens instead of year 3 would require four transactions for year 3, plus two transactions for the revocation and transfer of year 4 to the dead address. Furthermore, with the claim of years 1-2, we will have enough $PSPs. At the end of the next year, we could revisit this process if we estimate that the year 4 tokens are not going to be used.
I have updated the proposal to focus solely on year 3, as it has been confirmed that a significant portion of the vesting amount for this year was primarily designated for the PSP1.0 incentive program.
It also seems that all those wishing to take part in the debate have done so.
This message acts as a ‘temp check’ to inform that this proposal will be put to the vote on Snapshot on Tuesday 2 January 2024. The discussion can of course continue here or on the discord with great pleasure!
Happy end of the year!
2 Likes
Snapshot vote link
You expressed your thoughts and voted accordingly. The fact that the outcome of the vote is not on your side doesn’t mean you should wish the protocol or its token bad.
By the way, what burn are you talking about? The burn is yet to be implimented as far as I know. So whatever is happening to price right now has nothing to so with the proposal.
Now that the vote is over, I think its in the interest of every stake holders, supporters or non-supporters, to come together and milk every ounce of benefits this burn might give. While the primary aim of the proposal is not to manipulate price, having a positive price action as a result of the burn will be beneficial.
I want to suggest that the team sets a burn date and make a daily countdown to the date. That way we can create the needed publicity to make this a win-win situation.
Hey @dseeker
The team doesn’t control the vesting contracts. It’s under control of the DAO multisig with few GovCo members as signers
1 Like
Thanks for the correction. My point is let us put all necessary mechanism in place to make the best out of the proposal. I’m sure members of the GovCo are also following up on this and I have no doubt in their ability to always put the protocol and the DAO first at all times.