@oneski22 just flagging that although the vote you’re calling for is in the future, more than the 2 day discussion period, it was called for right after posting which isn’t exactly the same as having a two day discussion period followed by a call for a vote. Maybe that’s fine, but we’re all pretty busy and even two days is a short period of time to hit all forum posts and give thoughtful feedback. Otherwise we would just always schedule snapshots when proposals hit the forum. Let me know if I’m out of line here, I just don’t see a ticking clock given that we were made to wait by the investors in question.
OTC
I am very opposed to using OTC as method of developing partnerships:
My perhaps overly simplistic way of trying to determine how much value we’re exporting relative to an open-market buy was to type $2.4MM in USDC into 1inch and it yielded 25,870.51 INDEX (2021-09-09) - an amount significantly lower than the 92,759 being exchanged here, or roughly 28%. Another way to slice it would be to calculate the cost of an open-market buy of 92,759 INDEX and net the difference, but at this time only 36,715 INDEX are available on the open market should someone have infinite ETH to spend. As far as I’m concerned, I cannot analyze this deal in market terms as the INDEX provided is nearly 3x the amount in all of circulation.
While the value leaving the system is extremely high relative to the USDC gain, I do want these partners. I’d like for the community to help shape what that might look like, but I feel that giving away immense value without commensurate benefit is not a healthy long-term strategy. Our stablecoin needs are not what they were and market conditions have changed. I’d say we need ETH more than stables and we are likely using a strike price well-below what others would be willing to pay. This proposed deal is the result of a lot of effort, but I feel it’s important to know the cost of the deals we make, and in a market-sense this deal is impossible to execute otherwise while there are outstanding concerns about protocol ownership, so what’s the value we place on that? I don’t know the answer, and despite my reservations I’m still leaning FOR as again, I want these partners, but the cost is just extremely high.
Owls
Further, the precursor to this IIP was this post outlining the potential updates to IIP-32, stating:
While I agree, in this case the investors are coming first. To head-off the coming representation that the contributor portion will happen imminently, I would say then fine let’s at a minimum do it FIRST, because previous attempts have fallen flat.
To that end, and this is a criticism of the original IIP (but that door’s been kicked wide open), offering those putting in sweat-equity the same deal as those having as-of-yet done nothing for this organization does not seem equitable at all. As of today the OTC offer is roughly half of spot, so an Owl would be spending $100,000 for roughly $200,000 in locked governance, or a option with an implied net value of $100,000. I ask, haven’t the affected contributors given enough? Why are we raising funds from those that are already providing deeper value? The original IIP had a 6-month vesting period, modified relating to the investor portion to 18-months via comment by @BigSky7, but why is that being ported to the contributor raise when or better was stated?:
While I understand that the MINIMUM that must be done as both a carrot and to maintain at least the appearance of equitability is offering the same terms to long-time contributors, I feel that same terms and fair terms are farther apart than I would like. If we are offering contributors a net $100,000 in value via this offer, it should not be via a pay-for-play scheme. Affected Owls have demonstrated deep commitment and the contributor portion only serves to further benefit those with the means to execute or worse, encourages economic actions by contributors that may not be in their best interest otherwise. Owls speculate on The Coop with focus, The Coop is speculating on large investors with governance, but that loop is currently open as no marginal value is flowing back to Owls other than USD-denominated compensation that has regularly been below spot at the time of distribution.
When dangling a carrot, dangle a carrot; don’t ask for one in exchange for two when addressing the carrot farmers. (got a little lost in my own metaphor there, but I think the gist is coming through)
I understand that this post remaining silent on the issue of a contributor raise might be an attempt to separate the carrot from the deal, but here we are with a passed IIP that wasn’t fully executed and an attempt to craft a new one that skips right over this community.
Owls > OTC
I think we should do some version of both of these things, but I’m made uncomfortable by the fact that we’re continuing to give away so much governance to investors for so little in USDC terms and no guarantees in real terms. I would lean further toward FOR if there was some representation that OTC usage is over after this. We also have partners with large governance holdings, are they amenable to divesting some portion to attract these investors? Further, I’ve always been bothered by the conflation of value that is provided to investors and Owls envisioned in the original IIP; this will hit Owls at different economic levels quite differently and if we’re offering $100k in value then just offer it without asking any more of this community, it’s well deserved in it’s own right and should be addressed before more investors get priority.