This proposal is to formalize a process for the Grape community to sell future community emissions. By doing this, the community will be able to increase it’s treasury substantially and bring in more ecosystem partners.
The ONLY reason this proposal is coming up is because we continuously receive requests to purchase allocation.
The goal of this proposal is to frame a process to making this happen:
This is a decision that goes to an on-chain vote. the vote would be regarding the size of the allocation and the maximum discount. Because this would not change tokenomics, the vesting period would be identical to how that grape would be released, which is every epoch
My recommendation would be to sell 50 million Grape at a 15% discount to market at the time of sale, with around 500,000 Grape vesting every month.
2)We need a selection process/criteria. We can decide if investors must “pitch” or discuss the purchase in public or if there are delegated members (ie the Team) that will be having those conversations. Things move faster and we have more options with non-public discussions
3)We need a deadline. Once we agree on the proposed amount/price – this will only be available for a short-term duration. The goal is to satiate demand while also growing our treasury and adding net positive partners. Setting a duration ensures this doesnt become a distraction.
If we can find consensus on this, im pretty sure we could start discussions with investors as soon as the vote goes through
Not sure I understand the rationale for this. Supposedly, investors want a largeish allocation of GRAPE, but buying on the market would incur a lot of slippage, so they want to buy from us directly. Fair enough, but why do they get a huge discount? Are they going to add value to Grape somehow? I don’t even remember who the VCs who invested in Grape are, but have they added much value? I think some connected us to market makers for a CEX (which I still don’t understand why we want to list and pay for the privilege). Anything else? Are they even members in Grape?
There was a similar proposal for Sushi a while back. Try Googling “sushi treasury sale proposal” for a bunch of arguments for and against it. They ended up not going through with it.
Yes – its not supposed – i wouldnt propose something that cant be done.
Discount is because they are buying GRAPE that vests over 10 years
They will add as much predictable and enforceable value of any other person purchasing GRAPE
They have added great value
A few are members of Grape. The mega Stylish stud we cite often is an example of an existing member/investor participating
I am well aware of Sushi.
Id like to understand why you think its a bad idea to grow the treasury using grape that would be emitted anyway.
It sounds like you are mega bullish on existing Grape processes; so much so that you believe we will be able to produce more value paying that grape out to community members.
Not saying I think it’s a bad idea per say, just trying to be careful and understand clearly the benefits. The investors must be mega bullish because over 10 years they could get much more than 15% on their cash, so I assume they expect GRAPE to appreciate a lot. And if they are right, should we really be trading it for cash? That’s the part where I’m trying to tread carefully.
You mentioned “the vesting period would be identical to how that grape would be released”. I thought this was 5 years? That’s what I remember from the initial draft of our tokenomics. But it will be 10 years for them?
Of course you have a much better view of the value that the investors have added. Would love to get more insight on that! Apologies if it’s just me not having paid enough attention, but yeah I’m generally unaware of how investors have been involved.
If there are numerous suitors, would it be better to divide such a substantial amount among 2-5 instead of one? The ball seems to be in our court if GRAPE is ‘continuously receiving requests.’
Only b/c it doesn’t feel right that someone/entity would yield so much voting power, but the fact that it is vested over 10 years is nice.
As for the case to not do this, has the GRAPE PoSW been allowed enough time to measure its validity and efficacy?
I mean, even as simple as having the name of potential suitors would be great. Then a discussion can be had after those in GRAPE who are interested have done a bit of DD
I heard Dean speak about this topic on Sunday’s DAO meeting and I do like the idea. I’ll come at this from another angle than all of the others because Dean discussed the idea of using some of those funds in the treasury to build up other initiatives, like funding ideas surrounding the Photo Finish syndicate. There will be many more metaverse, NFT plays, where Grape could have a presence, however, that presence requires capital.
What exactly can venture capitalists offer besides fiat? Why treat them differently and even offer them a discount? They can always wait for CEX listing and buy $GRAPE from the secondary market.
We need to keep in mind that our community members not only invest their money, they also invest their TIME in this project. They are the people who add value to $GRAPE. Fiat is not scarce, TIME is. A person only has so much of it. In Web 3.0 creator economy, a token’s value is determined by the total amount of time people are willing to spend on it. 50 million $GRAPE is equal to how many working hours for people with skill roles? What’s the total amount of their opportunity cost versus VCs? The community emission is only 60%, and skill roles take a small proportion from this 60%. We will face scalability issues with this allocation model.
The consensus we are trying to building here is: ‘$GRAPE is the only medium of value exchange we will accept’, that’s how $GRAPE as a commodity can capture value in creator economy. Accepting fiat or stable coins make things easier for us in the short term, but doesn’t help much with organic growth and formation of consensus. If we want things produced or incubated by Grape is 100% backed by $GRAPE while reducing volatility, we may start thinking about issuing our own stable coin. Perfect example here would be LUNA-terraUSD. Jump Trading did an amazing job on redesign of the tokenomics.
Please also keep in mind that most DAOs are in post-scarcity economy, which means most goods can be produced in a great abundance with minimal human labor need, so that these goods eventually become available to all very cheaply or even freely. They also have serious issues with product homogenization. Grape can spend fiat and labor in incubating 100 DAOs, but in the end of the day if most of the DAOs can’t have a healthy revenue generation model with sustainability, I don’t see how $GRAPE can capture value in the long term.
The only thing that makes web3.0 a better place than web2.0 is redistribution of means of productions and social wealth, I recommend you to read Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie.
Mostly introductions and discussion. Having an informed opinion shared with us is the most valuable imo.
We’ve also received help with accounting, legal, PR, and more specific things like negotiations for the market-making, and in some cases we’ve had investors share digital assets (ie the stud i mentioned before)
I’m also hesitant regarding the idea of giving away a large amount of $GRAPE and I’m using the term since I can barely see any upside. Everyone who holds (a larger amount of) $GRAPE has done something for the project, even be it buying $GRAPE on the open market in larger amounts does something for us in terms of price stability. Giving an entity that much for a discount isn’t something we should do just for the sake of having fiat.
I mean, cash in the treasury sounds nice but do we have a plan for utilizing it, that outweighs the potential risk of having some entity that gains more and more voting power down the road that has no other motivation than generating as much revenue out of the project (aka us) as possible? That’s not how we approach things for our members or the community and we reaffirmed time and time again that we are a community project and that people who only are interested in generating revenue with their $GRAPE aren’t what we’re looking for and we certainly don’t cater to them.
Additionally, as far as I understand, those $GRAPE would come from the community emissions and as such would decrease the amount we’d have available each epoch; fewer emissions for the subDAOs to work with.
For me, it also doesn’t really make a difference who this VC would be since I can’t imagine them adding any additional value besides their initial investment. And that’s my real issue. Every one of us is constantly investing, we invest our time. I follow natome’s argument here since I also believe that time is the most valuable resource we’re dealing with.
So, unless we really have a plan, not a vague idea but a solid plan, of what to do with the money, I can’t see why we should do it.
A valid example for me would be something like securing external developers who support our subDAO Development and aren’t paid in $GRAPE but in fiat. With a real contract and not on a ‘voluntary’ basis. They’d be assigned to a specific project that we know will generate revenue.
If we can outline such a project and have a budget plan plus a revenue projection, then maybe.
Love everything you and @CryptoPawz have written here. The single biggest argument against doing this sale is this faith and passion in what we are building as a community.
The sale is what I consider an “easy lever” – we can take this option when things are difficult and other options have been exhausted. The longer we delay pulling on this “easy lever” the stronger we become as a community.
Im more bullish than ever on Grape seeing how many people are against this sale…some people have better reasons than others…but the vocal majority seems to want to continue our current path and i personally support that 100%
No one has a greater voice than you in Grape, so if you 100% support those who believe in the meritocracy in grape, that means noone gets a discount and they can buy secondary or at least from grape at market value adjusting for slippage.
It’s probably important we continue the conversation though, to highlight good arguments for and against.
So what will be the additional value added by new investors? I imagine there isn’t a need for more people to provide the services you mentioned. After a certain point, the marginal value of each new investor begins to decrease significantly.
I disagree for the sell to happen, merely basing it on the growth Grape had so far and the trajectory Grape is on, the community keeps on growing and so many future ventures are in the work, as I mentioned when I first introduced myself, No limits for Grape Protocol.
Another point take it from the investors side, vesting for 10 years , you have to take a step back and see what they see…
Having extra fiat helps to venture in more Projects and bring more revenue but as well a healthy growth and Community engagement …hope this helps.