That’s a great suggestion! I would also like to point out that option 4 here is technically still “100% REVENUE TO THE PEOPLE” because the team/DAO did not receive any share of the revenue in that scenario, so we can still use that statement as a marketing message.
6 Likes
This is solvable. I propose:
- 50% DAO / 50% vePERP holders
- 75% DAO / 25% vePERP holders
- 25% DAO / 75% vePERP holders
- ( new option ) 0% DAO / 100% vePERP holders in the beginning, then change to the 2nd highest option 6 months later
So we can attract as many PERP holders to lock as possible because of higher APR ( it’s not 1%, it double ), but also guarantee to execute the perp buyback plan.
1 Like
91.25% vs. 100% is double!? The fact that you’re still trying to exaggerate the difference makes it difficult to continue having any meaningful conversation with you.
There’re already a 6-month lock in the original Buyback proposal that passed. Also it has already been 2 months since the vote has passed without any execution. And now we’re back to the drawing board discussing about another 6 month delay!? No way! The V1 users won’t tolerate any further delay. Keep dragging on the execution of a proposal that has already passed does not send a good message to the public about Perp and will make the prospective investors that are waiting on the sideline second-guess whether they would want to invest in the Perp team.
Furthermore, your option 3 also cuts down the Buyback % by half. So it won’t work.
I suggest you to be just happy with the 91.25% in my proposal (option 4), it’s already a big boost from 50%. Don’t be too greedy.
2 Likes
I’m comparing the highest-voted option ( 50% ) to the 100%. As I mentioned above, compared to @RDL 's new option ( 50% DAO/ 50% vePERP holders, then allocate 82.5% of DAO income to vePERP ) I’d prefer to vote for 75% to vePERP because it’s too complicated. People prefer simple things even if it means less.
I don’t know what you’re complaining about, I don’t see why anyone has the incentive to “keep dragging the execution”. You can check this dune analytics and see their OI. It never reached to the insurance fund threshold until a few weeks ago ( there’s a significant OI drop ). If this dune analytics is correct then we’re finally ready to distribute the fee
You mentioned this as the main concern so I try to come out with a solution. If you have other concern, maybe we can have some other way around
It’s not my option 3, I just copied from the original post.
I probably won’t reply anymore and leave this to rest of the community. I strongly think distributing 100% revenue to vePERP for 6 or even only 3 months is the best choice for the project.
1 Like
This topic has become way more controversial than I thought it would 
It sounds like there isn’t much support for higher DAO allocations. Maybe we can find a better middle ground with options that reflect this.
E.g.
- 25% DAO / 75% vePERP holders (DAO funds used for buyback as planned)
- 91.25% vePERP / 8.75% v1 Buyback (no funds to DAO)
- 100% vePERP for 3 months, then option 2
- 100% vePERP for 6 months, then option 2
Personally I feel it’s a bit weird having an option that directly contradicts a previous vote (ie. 100% vePERP forever) but it’s up to the community - if there’s legit interest, I would also be against denying it a place on the ballot.
So now you’re saying you want 75% instead of 91.25%? If you’re just interested in the APR for vePERP, why would you now suggest a much lower yield? It’s as if you are trying to do everything possible to minimize the payout for the Buyback plan. You think people cannot see through it? I don’t know what your intention is to keep screwing us v1 users, even in exchange of a lower yield for vePERP? Are you from the team? Is that the team’s opinion?
Then don’t suggest prolong another 6 or even 3 months.
My concern is your dishonesty in this whole conversation. It’s clear your main goal is not to maximize the vePERP yield but rather to minimize the v1 Buyback plan and do away the previous vote. You can deny it all you want, but the fact that you are opting for lower yield for vePERP just so that the v1 users got paid out twice as slow gave it all away your true intention.
With your proposal, 3 out 4 options result in slow down/delay that goes against the Buyback plan, this is really bad press as if you are trying to do away the previous vote result. I would change it to the following if you’re truly simply interested in boosting yield for vePERP holders:
- 75% vePERP / 8.75% Buyback, rest goes to DAO
- 91.25% vePERP / 8.75% Buyback, no funds to DAO (100% revenue to the people!)
- Abstain.
Prolonging the Buyback plan by any duration will set a really bad precedent for the principle of decentralize governance vote, as if you can simply nullify the previous vote result by having another vote. This is especially controversial for topics that are important enough such as the Buyback plan.
I think that users underestimate the effect that the v1 collapse has had.
Some protocols have only a few dozen large users that make up the bulk of the ownership of the protocol token.
There was enough view impressions on twitter about what happened that a handful of such users could easily have been dissuaded from ownership of vePERP. I know that I received several DMs asking me about the issue on Discord from users I’ve never spoken to before.
As a previously large liquidity provider in PERP and also previously an owner of staked PERP tokens, personally I have been waiting to see how the protocol handles this situation before getting involved in Perp again.
The way the v1 vote was handled wasn’t ideal. The resolution so far has been an improvement. If there was an effective reversal through what may be perceived as essentially a loophole, I think that group of smart large investors (whales) will not be persuaded to own vePERP.
3 Likes
Consider this:
When I see a 16% APR in the current market, I am actually much more skeptical, as a high yield implies high risk.
A high yield might not be the incentive you think it is. I care about investing in sustainable protocols. Especially in a bear market.
GMX token only gives 30% of trade fees to it’s holders.
100% to vePERP with a 16% yield looks like a risky asset in this market. If it’s a temporary 3 month yield, this is even worse as I dislike investing in tokens that have temporary gimmicks which I then have to move money around later when I re-evaluate the opportunity.
A temporary yield also would imply that the token price may drop when the 3 month yield ends. I wouldn’t like that situation as an investor either.
A reasonable yield in a sustainable protocol that changes minimally and stands the test of time is what large investors like me are looking for in any market, but especially in a bear market.
3 Likes
Completely agree. There is really no point of having a 1% boost of APR (16% vs. 15%) for only 3 months or even 6 months. It has minimal benefit to the vePERP holders, but the damage it causes to the protocol is much more.
We shouldn’t even consider putting the 3-month /6-month as vote options as they are only one guy’s opinion that clearly didn’t earn enough support from the community.
1 Like
One person’s strong opinion doesn’t represent the opinion from the whole community. I strongly disagree to include the option that directly contradicts the previous vote. The team should show their honesty and execute the previous vote result.
2 Likes
Regarding the buyback proposal, there has already been discussion and a governance vote suggesting that we use a portion of the fees for the compensation. It would be a complete mockery of the governance process if we allowed a new proposal which opposed the previous vote.
I think we need to take a pragmatic approach here on the allocation between vePERP and DAO. It is likely that the bear market will continue, and it is important to consider the state of the DAO treasury. Having a healthy stream of funds into the DAO can allow for further integrations and partnerships; the funding of additional grant programs; community initiatives; etc.
All these factors contribute to the growth of the protocol, which ultimately increases the trading volume and therefore fees generated.
My belief is that prioritising the vePERP rewards will indeed increase the real yield associated with locking PERP - but does very little to improve the underlying protocol fundamentals.
Finally - I don’t think any of the options should have a time component added to them like you mentioned @LeeKB. It makes the voting process very awkward as voters may agree on the percentages, but disagree on the duration. I think it makes most sense to implement the chosen percentages; build something like a dune dashboard so we can analyse the fees; and then for the community to make another proposal at a later date to adjust the percentages based on the observed data.
To summarise - I think we should proceed with the initial options that @hanamizuki has proposed, with the appropriate % allocated to buyback. And I strongly oppose to having the “100%vePERP / 0% DAO” option.
3 Likes
Abdulla, thanks for defending for the v1 Buyback. You have an interesting idea, so if understand your suggestion correctly, you are advocating for a fixed % for v1 Buyback, then the remaining is divided between vePERP and DAO according to the vote?
Such as:
- 8.75% Buyback, 75/25 DAO/vePERP for the remainder.
- 8.75% Buyback, 50/50 DAO/vePERP for the remainder.
- 8.75% Buyback, 25/75 DAO/vePERP for the remainder.
I already spent too much energy on this so I will make it short:
If it’s @LeeKB option 2 (quoted below) then it’s better, though it seems to violate the previous vote so I don’t know if it’s doable. If @RDL can make it happen I’m more than happy to vote for it! My point is I don’t think the DAO can make too much work from this tiny budget, but it can create a lot more impact on vePERP and token price. I don’t mind v1 users getting more.
However, I’m against @RDL 's option 4 (quoted below). To me, it’s completely different compared to the option above.
How can you explain this to the vePERP holder? I hate this complexity
Although I have a different opinion on what’s more important and what’s not, but your point also makes sense. I agree it’s a bit awkward to add a time component to the options. It’s a trade-off to work with v1 users to maximize the impact on the fee distribution. If they don’t buy in then let’s forget about this.
To summarize: I believe the higher the vePERP reward the better for the protocol, but our discussion can’t be the bottleneck and we should launch fee distribution as soon as possible.
1 Like
I’m glad that you’ve finally come around to meet us in the middle ground. Both of the options you listed (Lee’s option 2 vs. my previous option 4) achieved the exact same percentages:
91.25% vePERP / 8.75% Buyback
This would not be contradictory to the previous vote because the v1 Buyback plan is still funded with the same percentage of fee sharing intended from previous vote (50%*17.5%=8.75%) which is what the v1 users cared the most anyway.
So we will have no problem with adding Lee’s option 2 as a vote option:
Combining Abdulla and 0xstarscourge’s idea we have:
- 8.75% Buyback, 75/25 DAO/vePERP for the remainder.
- 8.75% Buyback, 50/50 DAO/vePERP for the remainder.
- 8.75% Buyback, 25/75 DAO/vePERP for the remainder.
- 91.25% vePerp / 8.75% Buyback, no fund to DAO (100% revenue to the people)
3 Likes
Can we still have an option for 100% vePerp - this is where I’d like to vote.
I assume there are many other perp holders who follow this sentiment.
I don’t think this small amount of revenue for the DAO will do much good. I also don’t think providing v1 users with such a small amount will make them happy in the short term.
If the protocol can’t survive the short term, what’s the point.
Protocol usage is at an all time low. Getting the protocol back to high growth is about building a better product. I don’t see how paying v1 users such a small amount makes anyone happy.
v1 winning the last vote had 0 impact on key protocol metrics vs the other perpetual products like GMX who had huge growth due to product related reasons.
Building a better product should come first, otherwise we all lose.
You can talk about reputation all you want. But what’s the point on reputable product with no usage lmao.
1 Like
Regarding the buyback proposal, there has already been discussion and a governance vote suggesting that we use a portion of the fees for the compensation. It would be a complete mockery of the governance process if we allowed a new proposal which opposed the previous vote.
No, the proposal was to use the DAO’s income to repay the users. If the DAO receives 0%, then nothing changes.
Also, I disagree with this point anyway. Circumstances change. Opinions change based on the circumstances.
You’re simply reiterating the earlier point of life vs. death of the protocol due to the v1 Buyback plan’s tiny percentage. This has been fully debated. 91.25% vs. 100% to make protocol’s life and death!? Stop being too greedy and miss the bigger price.
It’s low because of FTX’s collapse and the further lack of user confidence in anything crypto related, which is why now is more important than ever to rebuild user confidence rather than simply aiming for high yield. No investor will go for 16% APR if they know the protocol doesn’t even care about its users or it’s reputation, (aka a scam exchange that you could lose all your deposit including your free collateral overnight.) this is just so common sense that even a 10 year old would know. It’s basic human decency.
Honestly all your comments here against the Buyback plan is really hurting the protocol. This forum is public and everyone including the prospective investors will see the type of people in this community. I would really be worried if you’re someone from the team and that’s the team’s opinion.
Let’s not further ruin the opportunity of keeping the Perp anniversary on a positive note. As many have already pointed out, doing a reversal of the Buyback will bring mockery and spoil the entire mood for an otherwise positive news for the protocol.
2 Likes
The APR is the same, the only difference is where it’s going. The 16% is a scam has 0 foundation lol.
You can have your opinion and I have mine. Governance is not creating an echo chamber where 3 people who agree with each other debate points and every other opinion is slammed.
Judging by the numbers from the buyback plan, whatever you’re arguing for will likely win. But let’s take it to a vote.
Anyway, keeping up with this thread is quite difficult. I’m just voicing my opinion on how I’d like to vote with the little perp I hold. This is just my view on what will be best for the project and token holders.
1 Like
I also wished that there’s 0 foundation. Unfortunately, given how the whole v1 situation was handled as well as this subsequent appearance of users like you and 0xstarscourge who tried so hard to just slam the v1 Buyback plan, doing everything they can to minimize the v1 payout in attempt to reverse a vote that has passed!? It’s evident that you guys are not just to maximize the vePERP yield for yourself but have some sort of agenda to slam us down. It’s infuriating! This vote is about increase fee sharing for vePerp holders, which can be easily accomplished by reallocating some addition fund from DAO income to vePERP, why do you need to push us off the cliff!?
To be honest, we had a moment that we thought finally Perp was doing something right to pass the Buyback and at times we even consider invest further into the protocol. Now our confidence have shaken because of users like you who doesn’t appear to be normal. A normal person would be happy with an increase from 50% to 91.25% and have sympathy towards previously affected users. I don’t sense any of that in you. The only conclusion is that you’re somehow related to the team and the team is doing everything they can to bypass the vote and deny this liability. It’s really a chilling thought that I really hope is not true.
You guys are relentless in slamming us down, reverting v1 Buyback is life and death for us, what do you expect us to do, sit quietly and suck it up!? Rather, 91.25% vs. 100% is NOT life and death for you or the protocol. There’re enough v1 users who were gravely affected by it, you had no idea how much we have fought to get to this point.
That’s a false assumption, the last vote was very close. Even one of the larger holders could have single handedly changed the result. We fought a tough battle and we won. There’s no way for us to give it up.
I strongly oppose to include any vote options that will put Buyback plan below 8.75% and/or with delay start. This is a slam to the face of the previous Buyback plan. As mentioned countless time, it’s a mockery to the team and the protocol to even consider putting such a preposterous option up as a vote option!
I would advise you to be happy with the 91.25% and let’s not open up any more wound of the v1 users as well as the protocol. We need to open a new chapter for Perp and move on with positive news! Stop screwing the v1 users to bring back the dark history of Perp, move on with the good news to increase yield for vePERP. Simple! The protocol will survive and thrive without taking the portion from v1 Buyback. Leave us alone!
3 Likes