Implementation feasibility is not an excuse, the final ratios of vePERP/DAO/Buyback can be implemented by dynamically tuning the ratio of remaining DAO% going to Buyback plan to achieve the desired ratio. If the team can execute the Buyback plan, the various ratios mentioned before can be implemented by changing a single constant, without the need of re-writing the whole thing.
Regarding scope, by declaring a narrow scope here, the team is forcing the users to choose an option that will negatively impact the v1 users. By declaring a narrow scope, the team is avoiding issues being raised and rejecting potential solutions that could actually solve the problem. Instead of going for a mutually happy solution, the team opted for options that no one will be happy. 75% vePERP is mediocre yield compare to potential solutions that were proposed to boost its yield to 86.25% or even 91.25% without infringing on v1 users. Those options were single-handedly rejected by the team as “out-of-scope”, as if their primary goal was to minimize payout to the v1 users rather than maximizing the yield for vePERP. This will be truly sad for Perp.
Thank everyone for the comments and suggestions. It helps a lot in improving the gov process.
The final option is the following (I’ll update the original post too):
50% DAO / 50% vePERP holders
75% DAO / 25% vePERP holders
25% DAO / 75% vePERP holders
We removed the 100% vePERP option as it’s controversial being connected to v1 buyback plan. But I’m grateful to those came up with this idea and support this option.
There are also some great ideas around boosting the growth or finding a better balance for everyone but not in the scope, so I encourage everyone to launch new proposals to advocate your ideas. @LeeKB and I will be happy to help facilitate the process. You can find us on Discord.
The funding rate was around 8% if I remember correctly, for the users that were in BTC/USD positions for example. This was at a time when DeFi yields elsewhere were high. In other words this was a relatively low yield, and very much did not look “too good to be true”.