[DISCUSSION] Should the remaining RAD balances from the LBP event be distributed amongst LBP contributors?

If one of the early Radicle supporters has $ 100,000 and bought Radicle for $ 15,000 for $ 1.50, his confidence in Radicle is 15%. An LBP member with 1500 bought RAD for 1500 at $ 15, then his trust in Radicle is 100%, so I think it would be correct to divide it between LBP members.

7 Likes

i agree with this…i agree with this…

2 Likes

I fully support the author’s suggestion. In the current situation, I see two options for development. 1. Burn the remaining tokens.
2. Distribute it among the auction participants.
It seems to me that to create a good aura and a positive background for the community and all participants of the auction, it will be right to choose the second option.

4 Likes

I am against this proposal.

I bought 2000 $RAD at the LBP event. Although the price is a little bit higher than I expected, it’s still a transparent distribution.

This proposal will not bring any real benefit to Radicle’s future. It will just make some speculators get free chips and sell out ASAP. The current way, unpaused the liquidity pool and letting more adopters on board is a much better approach.

5 Likes

agree, i am for using it as liquidity

2 Likes

Hey Everyone! :wave:

Since this discussion has garnered substantial participation and positive sentiment from the community, let’s move this forward to the next stage of the governance process.

Going off of our official Governance Guidelines, the next step is to craft an objective overview of the proposal that meets the following criteria:

  • Functional description (what is this being proposed?)
  • Purpose (what’s the “why”?)
  • Background (what is the reasoning behind the proposal?)
  • Link to previous discussions (this thread and the other)
  • Reasoning & analysis (what is the case for the proposal? what are the pros and cons?)
  • Technical implementation (who will be writing the code? what is the scope required?)
  • Impact (how does this contribute to the long-term resilience, sustainability and/or growth of the Radicle network?)
  • Open questions (what else needs to be figured out?)

From the discussion in this thread and this one :point_down: it seems that the main open questions are:

  1. How/why a distribution to current LBP holders would benefit the project in the long-term and
  2. How would the distribution be implemented (vesting contracts, long-term vs. short-term, etc.)

I suggest that one of the proposals’ “champions” (@dhejrdlf1 or @kit ?) draft the overview based on the comments in the two threads. Once this is created, let’s post it in a new topic with the label - [Structured Discussion :herb:] - Title of Proposal to consolidate the conversations.

Once we have this, we can have a focused and structured discussion around the proposal and prepare it for a Snapshot and Formal Review!

Let me know if you have any questions. Happy to support

6 Likes

Great proposal. I can’t wait to vote for pass. When voting?

2 Likes

I support @dhejrdlf1 and @kit. Please help work on the proposal.

2 Likes

My opinion

1.i think Radicle team should token distribute proportion to their contribution

2.Not share of 1/1800

3.proposal for Holder only , locked 1 year (There are a lot of Spaculators sold token will never get proposal)

Good idea.Agree with that.

I support @dhejrdlf1 and @kit as well. Also thepleb’s point is relevant and makes sense.

  • The distribution should be the proportion to their token holdings, not 1/1800. This is just more a “fair” incentive to contributors because it gives a fair purchasing price decrease to everyone, meaning people having 1 RAD and people having 1000 RADs will have same impact on the purchasing price.
  • Also definitely agree on locking the distribution for 1 year. Those who didn’t exit after the price drop should be okay with that. It encourages new members to involve in the ecosystem and envision for long term success.
2 Likes

yes , agree with you. useful for the liquid

i would agree if its all allocated will be locked.
for now earlier participants has near 2% of RADs and they are selling them out. thats all you have to know about everyone’s behavior in participating in projects.

1 Like

I 100% don’t agree one year locking。 It‘s only benefits to the people who bought the token with $1.5. The guys’ tokens will be be release in half year later. Then, the price of Rad will become very low. our token distubution will means nothing.

Well that’s your opinion so I respect it but if we let people to just freely earn the distribution without locking, price may sky fall. Maybe we could do something like two step vesting or something then? Half in 6 mo full in 1 year (or maybe shorter). Any ideas around that?

1 Like

I agree with this decision

Yeah I agree with only rewarding those that didn’t sell off afterwards. It sux for me thou coz it looked like everyone was selling off and I don’t have that much money so I was worried I was going to lose $ but I bought back in a day later at a loss coz I really believe in the project and kicking myself over the panic sell. I’m happy with whatever is best for the rad community.

I participated in the LBP and I’m against this proposal:

  • It sends a bad signal to anyone who invested after the LBP as the value of the RAD token decreases
  • As per the initial blog post, these funds where allocated to bootstrap liquidity, so I believe the remaining balance must be used for that purpose (see for example this discussion to add liquidity on various exchanges), this would be much more useful than an airdrop.
1 Like

I respect your opinion but mine is against your thought and 100% supportive of the proposal. The majority of the LBP participants who still hold the tokens are likely ones who believe in the project and would like to contribute from various perspectives (for me as a Seeder and feature dev potentially). This proposal is about to make the community more decentralized (meaning to become truly DAO). Currently early supporters and investors hold the majority of the votes and are more centralized. But if we can have more bright talents tightly participated in the community, growth of the project will look more exponential. Also adding liquidity of various exchanges at this point is just a really bad idea. I see there are a lot more features to add in the product to be the mainstream code collaboration platform and we should first make tighter community with bright talents, not bunch more speculators.

1 Like

Governance Vote is coming ?

1 Like