I agree with this proposal.
However, it needs to be locked for a year or several years.
This will lead to long term support for LBP participants and build a strong community.
It will also help resolve complaints about the high purchase price.
1 Like
it can be 50/50
50% to pool,
50% to lbp participants
so everybody will be satisfied
strong hodlers should be encouraged
2 Likes
Ready to vote, good idea, support.
1 Like
amazing community response 
and how the team can ignore this proposal 
3 Likes
@abbey Please answer this question.
1 Like
Hope to vote on this suggestion
2 Likes
Anyone can start that poll, this is nothing the core team needs to do. You can do it here: https://snapshot.page/#/gov.radicle.eth/create
The problem is that this proposal would “compete” with the existing one I believe. Also @abbey mentioned earlier, the Snapshot polls are just to “test the waters” and get a sentiment off-chain without spending gas. The real on-chain proposal needs to happen on Sybil afaiu.
2 Likes
I am sharing my thoughts here, as a number of people requested my opinion over Twitter.
I am personally open to proposals that reward long-term engagement with the project, and generally against proposals without clear purpose.
I believe that the balance that we try to strike with every proposal is to: make Radicle successful over time, while also satisfying our own personal interests through it. But these two things need to be aligned.
Every proposal that is about distributing more tokens to more people will get some support. I read some answers above that have merit, but I don’t see any argument yet that compares this strategy vs other strategies. For instance, do we think that the specific proposal benefits the network more than creating an incentivization plan for long-term holding? or for rewarding communities that move their developer activity and funding to Radicle? or a combination of all the above.
We can examine every-one of those strategies and I am totally open to that. But this is the type of reasoning that I would like to see to become supportive of any strategy. Why is this strategy effective at accomplishing a specific goal. So what is the goal here and why is this the optimal strategy?
Finally, to clear some confusion: In my opinion, there is nothing conflicting about this discussion and the open snapshot poll on liquidity. The snapshot poll attempts to solve an immediate problem we encountered (lack of liquidity). This discussion and proposal doesn’t not depend on it, as the token holders control already >50% of all tokens, so at any point in time they can decide to distribute any portion to any participant. So let’s treat these two discussions independently of each other, because the one does NOT block the other.
5 Likes
Absolutely awesome idea, I will definitely vote for it 
2 Likes
Hi @lftherios Then, is the snapshot poll and vote on this topic will going on?
2 Likes
Thanks for the comments. I don’t get how if this proposal, “Should unsold RAD be distributed amongst LBP contributors?” goes through how it doesn’t conflict with the pool though. Isn’t the “unsold RAD” and the “liquidity pool RAD” the same? If the unsold RAD is distributed, wouldn’t it take the pool RAD?
There already is a snapshot poll for another topic in conflict to this. So if if the liquidity poll goes thru, it means this one fails.
how is it conflicting? the proposal can still be executed for whoever bought from the pool, whether before or after the resumption of the balancer pool.
And even if it’s conflicting, which it’s not, people who voted on that proposal didn’t even know that there are other options.
1 Like
@cryptomalek So if this proposal goes thru, it takes the RAD that are currently in the Balancer pool correct? I’m just trying to clarify which accounts we’re talking about. To me, they are the same account, but I could easily be missing something, thx.
I was under the same impression but its seems the poll/proposal for a distribution to LBP participants wouldn’t compete for tokens from the same pool. I understand from @lftherios comment the current pool is to provide immediate liquidity, while a future distribution doesn’t need to come from that same pool.
1 Like
@onur I agree with your reading or @lftherios’s comment. But the OP proposal isn’t to go dive into the Governance account or whatever ones are available, it is “Should the unsold RAD be distributed amongst LBP contributors”. AFAICT, the “unsold RAD” = “liquidity pool RAD”. So the snap poll went thru and the pool got opened up. So if this proposal passes, it would have to take from there? If it doesn’t, it would have to take from the Governance account, which is a whole different proposal.
I do think if OP’s proposal had been in a snap poll it too would have passed, judging by the comments in this thread.
Thats correct. Imo its not about that detail where the token would come from rather than if such distribution should happen in the first place. But yeah, the unsold token are used to provide liquidity atm., you’re right.
1 Like
its not about that detail where the token would come from
Well, that’s a pretty important detail!!! We’re talking millions of dollars here. If only one goes thru there is one outcome (e.g. just the pool). If this one goes thru and takes from the pool, that is another outcome. But if this goes thru and doesn’t take from the pool, the picture is very different in the end. It is important, imho.
I don’t disagree, yet its a couple different discussions it seems:
- Should the unsold funds be used to provide liquidity (yes/no)?
- Should LBP participants be rewarded for participation? (yes/no)?
2.1. If yes, how should they be rewarded? (how much, where from, etc.)?
…
So I agree with you in the sense that the governance process is still being defined and we’re not talking about the unsold token anymore (at least from my understanding). Even if we would be, the pool could be paused again assessing the future state of the pool.
I understand the Snapshot polls are off-chain/gas-free and I think the community should define what to use when. Is there a notion of importance for when to use Sybil vs. Snapshot? Sybil is slower so it seems here the justification was solving a short-term problem here. I still was a little surprised the Snapshot poll was sufficient to activate the Balancer liquidity pool. A little over 1% (including myself) voted to unpause, is that enough as a threshold? No strong opinions here, just thinking out loud.
Coming back to the initial point, there are multiple conversations mixed up. Each should be a different thread/topic in this forum i think.
And to your point: Framing it as unsold was just opportunistic I believe, so quite arbitrary.
1 Like
@onur I agree about the Sybil vs. Snapshot discussion. I was very surprised to effectively see the governance short circuited. I didn’t realize it was just ~1% voting, which is more cringe. I did see that just 3 wallets were enough to easily get the 50% (though it was still overwhelmingly supported in the snap poll).
“Framing it as unsold was just opportunistic I think, so quite arbitrary”
While maybe it was opportunistic framing, it is still very significant. A vote for “Should the equivalent to the unsold RAD be taken from the treasury and be distributed amongst LBP contributors?” is a very different vote and would have a very different outcome for the token.
With all this debate though, I never see how this is actually going to help with p2p git. If they have $25 mil in the treasury, do we even need more? Wikipedia did far more for far, far less. How much budget do we expect this to cost? What’s the budger? It seems some are just more interested in driving RAD to the moon than the project itself.
For example, what if there was zero liquidity and the RAD holders were me, you, Richard Stallman, Kim Dotcom, DeepFuckingValue, and Bruce Schneier? The governance votes would be significantly different than if the tokens were held by MS proxies and token traders.
Hey @dhejrdlf1 ! As @onur said, anybody can create a Snapshot poll to unofficially gather consensus around a proposed change or idea, but I’m currently putting some more formal documentation on how to move a proposal through the governance process. This includes what content is necessary for a proposal to be “formally reviewed” by the community and so on.
Hang tight! These governance processes are emerging as the community does, so for now, continue the discussion here and start continue to develop the arguments in to support the proposal.
2 Likes