No matter how much I look I can’t find where this was voted on. Please link a source.
The vote is merely 17.5% of revenue from everywhere I have looked?
1 Like
This should be it:
https://snapshot.org/#/vote-perp.eth/proposal/0x82eeed00c3912f2537c3479e365da207a4e9e3d92fcab265a0cab1148af25d28
Option A: Use 17.5% monthly treasury fee income
This present proposal will affect the amount of treasury fee income, hence the er … vigorous debate.
1 Like
So the 50% part of this statement has no basis…
1 Like
I don’t see any problem here. We’ll decide separately on time period or any other KPIs reached when DAO will get some share of fee income. At this is point it’s important to create positive feedback and make maximum return for vePERP possible.
As soon as DAO starts receiving its share v1 users will receive their share as agreed. Ready to participate in voting on this if community votes for 100%.
Let the community decide. I don’t see any reasons to drop off this option. If voters won’t support it then no reason to discuss further. And it’s not contradicting v1 proposal with treasury share compensation.
1 Like
Happy seeing this is warpping up soon, but I see a concerning trend that it looks like a very vocal minority with a proven record of
- bullying
- threats
- misrepresentation of events
- trash talking the project all across the web
- trash talking the team that at the least seems willing to listen and help them
- no concept of votes, democracy etc…
is gaining a lot of traction in the gov forum.
Are these really the users we want to have influence in our governance process?
I can sympathize with any user that loses money, no matter the circumstances, but if they are toxic and harrassing then it’s very hard to sympathize …
1 Like
50% was used as the calculation to give estimates of the payout time. You can use the same logic to justify 0% DAO. It was a loop hole in the previous vote. It’s really up to the team whether they actually want to take advantage of this loop hole or spend sincere effort working around it to make things right for the v1 users.
But as you can see from all these insensitive comments, the team would rather use “out of scope”, “technical difficulty” (in the last minute) to stop any solution that would solve this issue. Instead of working with the v1 users, they try to minimize them. It’s not surprising given the history. We fought our way through so many of these people already, so nothing new here.
I remember arguing with someone who was very likely from within Alameda, and I warned him be careful of Karma. What goes around, comes around. Now Alameda and FTX’s collapse is a testament of that. The way you decide to treat your users determines your future outcome. Good luck.
Same argument as above, how can you say it’s not contradicting when the Buyback is all about compensating, and 0% DAO will render result in no compensation for those users!?
Who is the bully here? You guys have all the control, you guys didn’t lose anything, you guys misrepresented events until we found the proof of Alameda being the top address that you finally shut up and admit.
You didn’t need to spend a penny to compensate v1, while our funds are emptied to so that you can fully compensate the 99% (and 99% is not true because the 1% include a lot of users combined together).
We lost life-changing amount of money on your platform while you continue to try to demonize/minimize us to this day. The whole world is watching how you’re treating your users right now, and they will decide if that’s the team they would trust to invest their money in.
V1 affected users voting didn’t encompass DAO absolute figures, share of total fees allocated to DAO or timing when DAO is supposed to start receive funding. It only guarantees share in case DAO starts geeting fees.
Once again I think you totally underestimate the situation project is in, it would be way better for you if perp price restores at first.
Thus the loophole,
How do you know that if you’re not from the team? Do you have connection to the core team?
If you consider this direct outcome of voting results as loophole it’s ur personal opnion and shouldn’t affect voting options, it’s completely legit option.
I’m holding PERP and trading and see perfomance degrading on both sides.
What a big lie. You’ve been against the v1 users since day one along with Ryan.
Normal businesses will take 1-star review very seriously, they will make sure the users who gave the bad review had their issues resolved. The Perp team however, decides to dump shits onto those angry users and expect that they will quiet down?
A lot more users/investors have expressed the same opinion. Many have already expressed strong disapproval for it to be included in the vote option. Re-read the forum for yourself.
If you’re not connected to he internal team, then you don’t know anything about their finance. So your previous argument was invalid. Even if Perp is struggling, the argument of using small percentage of an already small revenue to try to save the protocol was ridiculous.
You have been arguing against v1 since the very beginning. So it’s obvious you will keep pushing your positions. Most of them have been debated before. You should accept the Buyback plan that has passed, and honor the spirit of that proposal to compensating rather than looking through these “legitimate” loopholes that flies against common sense.
If you feel that “a lot” of investors expressed this opinion I see no problem in adding this option, it won’t collect votes in this scenario. I see no reason not including this option, I’m a PERP holder and I want to vote for it - I don’t understand why voting happening here by anonymous members and not by real holders.
@hanamizuki you proposed this to be in the final vote, then now you regret it and say it’s infeasible? This is the whole point of this proposal, to utilized unused fund from DAO. And now you’re saying it’s "technically infeasible? What a lame excuse. How can you deny the possibility to higher yields for vePERP? You’re forcing them now to pick an option (option3) that will negatively impact v1 users, which is not fair to them, because most have expressed that they don’t want to infringe on v1 users.
Then start your own proposal that says “Do not compensate v1 users” and vote all you want. Don’t mix it in this vote that’s meant to be good news for the protocol!
Your vote options infringed on the spirit of a proposal that was passed to compensate v1 users. You shouldn’t sneak in your hidden agenda through this proposal.
Crafting vote options that on the surface sound attractive to the mass, but severely impacted certain users as a collateral damage was the mistake made during the v1 sunset vote. The team should not make the same mistake again!
I think it’s just too many emotions coming from your side. And it’s not helping.
Once again let’s see what holders decide at voting, not here.
1 Like
Instead of calling your angry users “toxic” or “emotional”, why don’t you spend your energy to look into WHY your users are so pissed? Then do something about it so that they will start saying good things about you!?
Looks like you didn’t see the comment directly above you, so I will quote here again
Thanks for all the work in writing out this proposal @hanamizuki . I think this has been quite heated, but we do appreciate your efforts.
I think it’s important that the vote itself is worded in such a way that it is very clear that we are voting on only one parameter. I think all the discussion about timeframe (ie changing in 3-6 months) is not helpful.
I also believe that the idea of using DAO income to supplement vePERP gains is unnecessarily confusing, and likely adds significant smart contract risk - we should be voting on the ratio between vePERP and DAO only. If people are advocating that DAO income should be used to supplement vePERP, then people should instead vote for vePERP to have a higher percentage!
A portion of the DAO income should be going to the perp buyback (as this was previously voted upon) and changing this should have no place in this proposal. If people want to change the terms of this, a new proposal should be written and a separate discussion should take place.
As such, I believe we should proceed with the original proposal.
It does seem that this discussion has been railroaded into a discussion on v1 compensation and that has distracted us from discussing the actual merits of this proposal. Many of us have been waiting for the fee-sharing component for over 2 years now, and it’s great to see it so close to occurring. It would be great to see this one reach quorum; and I think we need to avoid distracting ourselves with the buyback and to focus only on the fee distribution.
2 Likes
Why is it an issue for the team to tell you that there is technical difficulty with the proposal? I think you’re being really unfair with this comment.
Is it because of the timing? We have only been discussing this particular detail for a few days. Do you expect the core developers to stop what they are doing, re-write all the code they have written, go through an internal security QA session all within a few days so they can assess the feasibility, all within the time of a few days?
The whole development process is taking place publicly. Feel free to look at the PR that @hanamizuki posted above: Feature/fee distribution by 42bchen · Pull Request #27 · perpetual-protocol/perp-curie-contract · GitHub
If you understand how to write smart contracts, please can you implement the changes required. If you don’t understand how to write smart contracts, can you please respect when the team says that something is technically difficult instead of taking it as a personal attack.
2 Likes