Even if we do 100% to vePERP for only 3-6 months, I think it’s worth it from marketing perspective. It’s all about maximize the impact of protocol growth.
It’s a difference between live and dead.
Let’s say 50% revenue distribute to vePERP → vePERP APR -50% → less effective tokenomic → less people want to stake ( the APR will be even lower than the current vePERP APR ) → bear market token keeps crashing → liquidity mining becomes less attractive → less liquidity → less transaction volume → dead
But if we distribute 100% to the vePERP → attractive APR for vePERP → more vePERP staker → reduce supply side of the market → liquidity mining becomes more attractive → more liquidity → more transaction volume → more reward to vePERP staker → positive feedback loop
Once this growth engine is built and we successfully attract more PERP holder to lock in longer term, I think it’s fine to vote again and change the ratio to either 50% to the DAO or even more. But if it becomes the negative feedback loop at the first place, it’s a lot harder to revert the situation.
I know it looks counterintuitive but please let me know why it’s not the best for the protocol - if we can work together! This is almost like a prisoner’s dilemma. If we cooperate it’s a win-win, if we eat the marshmallow now, all of us lose. I believe this is the shortest path to make the protocol earn $3.59m and complete the perp buyback plan.