While the proposal aims to clarify the value proposition of SPIN and provide a clearer pathway for token holders, there are some potential weaknesses to consider:
1. Lack of Clarity on GYFI Distribution:
The proposal outlines the potential distribution of GYFI to SPIN holders based on different SPIN amounts. However, it lacks specific details on the timing and conditions of this distribution. This uncertainty could lead to confusion among token holders and impact their decision-making.
2. Reliance on Future GYFI Valuation:
The implied APRs for SPIN holders are heavily dependent on the future market valuation of GYFI. This introduces significant uncertainty, as the tokenās value will be influenced by market dynamics, project performance, and broader market conditions.
what is this extra 200 m spin? we couldnt passed 500 after 10 month then you want increase cap to 700 mil??? p;ease explain more? and if you can be online in discord server to clearfy some question
Overall, I feel this proposal is in line with feedback and expectations. There are two final points I would love to get more clarity on:
At the current SPIN distribution rate, I donāt believe weāll reach 700M SPIN by January. Does this mean we aim to accelerate the distribution rate of SPIN in the coming weeks/months?
I believe itās critical to grow GYD supply and the Gyro brand in the period before the first Token Distribution. I would favor accelerating the pace of SPIN distribution and adding more campaigns.
It would be good to understand if other airdrops are taking place at launch besides the proposed 700M SPIN conversion. It would make sense to convert any early contribution elements such as OGs, NFTs, or other elements into the SPIN reward mechanism by, for example, issuing 50-100M SPIN to these stakeholders. This would greatly simplify the valuation of the SPIN conversion rate and avoid uncertainty around GYFI distributions.
To clarify, 200m SPIN is to be held as a reserve to be used depending on how capital in the system grows. In this proposal, there is no required minimum amount of SPIN that needs to be distributed by January before any GYFI distribution event (not 500m as a minimum, not 700m etc).
Relatedly, the idea of the āsurgeā program is indeed to accelerate the distribution rate of SPIN to bring in more capital to the project.
On your second point about Gyroscope Founding Frogs etc, yes, these are to be handled separately. A new consultation about these topics will follow next week.
Not at the moment but purely because the numerical analysis hasnāt been done. The intention would be to make the threshold very high only affecting the very largest SPIN holders. Parallel to other projects, the purpose is to protect everyone in the ecosystem from huge supply fluctuations.
I am happy to see so much discussion has gone into this conversion topic and I support the resulting revised proposal from FTL. The ability for users to lock up their GYFI and commit to their long term support and involvement of the ecosystem speaks directly to why they should deserve more governance power, in the form of tokens. At the risk of any current SPIN holders planning to sell their allocation instantly, this is a fair deterrent mechanism to benefit those who believe in Gyroscope longer term, this is after all just the starting phase of the project with many more decisions to come.
Regardless of proposed FDV at launch, every option is a fair result for users from my perspective; and the expectation should be for the demand for GYFI to increase due to the surge period and bootstrapping as more products and features of governance roll out. Additional information around how these incentives will be placed, if by a committee or data driven process would be helpful, but again can come at a later date assuming the budgeting of this proposal passes. I look forward to hearing the finalized distribution information and team/investor unlocks, but for the sake of this proposal I do not see it as a blocker before proceeding.
Props to the team for navigating this topic so well, as it is never easy for any project.
Agreed, the minimum of 4.79% of the supply for the no lockup option feels quite low.
A similar project Usual Money is dropping 8.5% of their supply with no lockups in the coming days. And as most are aware, HyperLiquid dropped 31% (fully liquid) of their supply to early users the other day, and their token has been up-only since TGE.
Enriching early users helps create a cult like community who will want to return the favor by continuing to use the protocol and promoting it to others. On the flip-side, if users feel short changed by a meager airdrop, they will be more likely to abandon the protocol.
Iād urge @ftl-labs to re-consider the proposed allocation to make it more generous.
In my opinion all the details are great & logical beside Conversion rate!!
With all do respect, take me as an example (since many others are in a similar situation). After completing challenging and hard tasks and staying committed to the project for more than 3 years, including participating in pools since beginning, Iāve ranked among the top 10% of users in Spin Rank. Yet, with the current conversion rate, I canāt even earn 40 tokens! The interesting part is that 90% of the community will gets even less than this amount!ā
