I believe that allowing locked-TRU staking in return for long-term hodl of TRU will benefit TRU in the long run.
Otherwise, you will see massive SELL-OFF of TRU every 3 months like it did during the last unlock. Just my 2 cents.
But in the long run, that selloff still happensā¦ The subsidized rewards and lockup period wonāt last forever. At best, this delays it and make the eventual sell-off worse. Because you just gave the sellers a bunch more TRU to sell to the market.
Anyone who plans to hold long term is going to have that sell-off happen regardless. The biggest winners are people planning to sell in the short to medium term, who want to temporarily inflate the price until they sell.
2 Likes
I disagree. By locking in the SAFT holders, it gives the project an opportunity to provide an ordely exit for large holders. I think thatās extremely important. Yes, over the long run, maybe those holders will probably sell anyways. But if they sell in the orderly fashion, it allows new buyers who become aware of the project to balance out that selling. Maintaining price stability is very important for new projects. If people all run for the hills at the same time, it prevents a lot of potential buyers of TRU from getting involved in the project at all. Having this extra time also allows more time for TRU to expand its investor/holder base and allow more participation from new holders.
Once there is a well established user and investor base, then any selling that the SAFT investors do will have a much lesser impact on the price.
Thank you everyone for sharing your views and concerns. I think we anticipated that this would result in strong opposite views and this is why we took the time to gather feedback to draft a proposal that we deemed fair and would not only benefit pre sale investors.
There are some very valid concerns, particularly around the engineering resources needed to deliver on the proposal, and I believe this needs more clarity. I particularly like @rayanami 's suggestion to have the contracts written and audited by ourselves, but again, I believe more visibility needs to be given by the team in that respect.
I cant speak for everyone but I can assure you there is no intention to create division in the community. I would personally not feel comfortable passing a proposal without a reasonable consensus.
That being said, the reality is that many pre sale investors are feeling at a disadvantage and have lost a bit of interest in actively participating in the project. Early investors have been supporting the company since its very early days in 2017-2018, going through all its changes, and have been closely following and sometimes contributing to its developments. It was pretty much at the last minute that we were asked to support a vesting schedule in order to facilitate listings on centralized exchanges. The initiative received support but never was it clarified that locked tokens would have no utility. This also means that despite having made a decent return on our investment (pretty much similar to someone who bought in November or December 2020), our profits cannot be fully realized for the next 18 months, which is not the case for a later purchaser (mentioning it here as some think our ROI should justify not raising this topic). In any case, this is a subject that has raised concerns since October last year (pre launch) and since the issue hasnāt been addressed yet by the team, we decided to move forward with a proposal. This is not a new issue, and although we understand the perspective of the later purchasers, our concerns are valid and founded.
The above is not an attempt to gain sympathy from the opposite side of the argument but rather to insist on the fact that many of the early investors are not being actively supportive of the project as a consequence. Most will be engaged for selling or staking around unlocking events. Some are actually re-allocating their unlocked tokens to other projects which in my view is a shame as many of them are smart people who could really benefit to the growth of the ecosystem, which is in my opinion equally, if not more important than the benefit of reducing the selling pressure from those investors. Donāt get us wrong, we all see an immense potential in what TRU is trying to attempt, but the reality is that one will chose a project to dedicate himself to based on the ROI it will deliver on his time and effort, and maybe some donāt see it with TRU because of the above.
This is why we have tried to address this specific issue. Again, we believe this proposal is fair and addressing other concerns from the opposite side and is not simply about pre sale investors being greedy and trying to get more bucks for their money.
I hope this makes sense to you all and that we can continue this in a constructive manner.
On another note, I would love to hear about the teamās position on the topic.
This is a symptom of the broader issue that we are incentivizing activities around holding TRU in the first place. First, we gave generous incentivizes to liquidity mining. This meant that stakers were disadvantaged because they could make more LPing. Then we added generous incentives to staking to compensate. And now we are expanding more incentives to vested holders because they are at a disadvantage over people who bought in later.
The value of TRU should be that years from now you will have ownership in a giant profitable loan fund, but a lot of resources are being spent trying to balance out different shareholders getting incentives that dilute other peopleās holdings.
1 Like
Like Iāve said before, I understand the intent and I think itās a good idea to try and reengage disinterested presale whales. Butā Iāve done a lot of work promoting TRU to my friends and followers, who are mostly small retail investors without much experience in DeFi. If this proposal passes, I would feel very guilty about having convinced so many people to invest in TrueFi. I simply donāt know how Iād justify it to them. Despite the sensible rationale, it just feels slimy.
1 Like
this is not slimy! its rewarding pre sale investors who have supported the project from the beginning. the argument that pre sale investors should be happy with a 5-6x is silly and shortsighted. All pre sale investors have tokens locked until next year so any gains are subject to market related risk. this proposal should be supported. i know for a fact several large investors who arent paying attention to the project anymore and who are now allocating tokens to other projects. pre sale investors have been thru a company pivot (not upset at defi), waiting very long for tokens and now a longer lockup.
Hey Carl,
Itās really amazing to see detailed proposals coming from the TrueFi community! Proposals like these are what will continue to drive growth and add value to the platform. I read through this proposal & responses and have a few points of feedback.
I see a proposal like this one as a compromise between giving purchasers more capital voting power versus providing value to all TRU holders. In order for this proposal to be effective, the incentives paid for staking locked tokens need to either increase price or increase security of the protocol. One thing we want to avoid is to intentionally give any single interest group too much power over the protocol. We want to make sure that new TRU ecosystem users can join and participate effectively, and ensure TrueFi is not a plutocracy.
As for engineering time, this is the biggest issue. This proposal is not easy to build by any means, and our current development team would not be able to work on this until beyond Phase 4 (according to our current roadmap). An alternative is that supporters of this proposal can try to find a competent Solidity developer to spec and build this feature, create a pull request to add it to the codebase, and have governance vote to include this in the protocol.
Some initial technical notes & feedback:
-
I love the idea of requiring some action (staking, providing liquidity, etc) in order to use locked tokens in the protocol. In addition, locking the farmed tokens until a later date is a great solution to avoid purchaser selloffs and continue good upwards price pressure. I think @jack had some good alternatives.
-
Itās unlikely the current stkTRU system can support this feature, we would likely have to create a new, special token or contract which represents this type of staking.
-
We would need to ensure staked locked tokens are weighted differently for use in governance. We want to keep the playing field even and avoid giving SAFT purchasers too much voting power over the protocol when considering current circulating supply.
-
I would support this proposal only if the ratio is increased greatly. With a 30/70 ratio it would only take one more unlock for purchasers to stake all their locked tokens. I think it should be somewhere closer to 70/30, which would either require purchasers to wait until the next unlock, or purchase more tokens to stake more locked tokens. This mechanism needs to guarantee the price will increase in exchange for giving purchasers more TRU in the future.
3 Likes
Private sale investors agreed to the lock but they didnāt agree to be prevented from staking. Open market purchasers had the opportunity to buy TRU within the price range of the private sale. If they had done so, they have a private sale price, no lock & can stake.
Seems to me that private sale investors should be allowed the same terms as open market buyers if desired. They chose to lock for the good of the project so at the very least they should be able to stake locked TRU
Can i stake it on other chain ? Now metamaskās connect only on ETH chain ā¦ The eth fees are very high, wouldnāt it be better to use polygon or bsc?