It all boils down to this for me. It would make sense to sell this GRAPE if we can create more value with the funds than what we are giving out. In addition, a lot is happening behind the scenes in stealth mode - not challenging that - but that means we’re not privy to all the information needed to make a decision here. To elaborate, is GRAPE at the end of the runway and needs more funds (e.g. to expand the dev team or sustain current initiatives) or is this a bonus opportunity we’re discussing etc.
3 Likes
This would be specifically for funding the community treasury. There are 0 concerns regarding runway and we will be publishing some ecosystem grants shortly
4 Likes
This is my concern also, that certain holders will have such large voting power that could stop certain proposals that we currently would be supporting. I can definitely see the benefits of the sale, in allow us to invest in projects now especially with current market.
2 Likes
I’m in full support of this proposal, with more funding it will allow grape to continue growing the team which will in turn speed up the roadmap to deliver better features and products. This will also help with the awareness of grape from investors and other partners. Not to mention improving the potential value of the community and token over a longer period of time.
More resources = More potential
1 Like
I like the idea of behind the sales… I also love this better because its vested for 10yrs, I mean 10yrs us a long one for us to use the money acquired from this sales to do something for Grape in general… waiting for the realms voting already.
1 Like
Trying to view the rationale from both sides of the proposal. I’ve read the comments that detailed some credible positions against, but fewer in favor. Recapping the points:
Scenarios
A. TVM: Sell X $GRAPE at a % Discount with Epoch/Monthly Emissions over a 10 Year Duration
Example:
- AMOUNT: 50 M GRAPE (<10% of Supply)
- DISCOUNT: 15%
- VESTING (per/month): 500K GRAPE
- SCHEDULE: 10 Years
- EX. USDC →
- MARKET: $0.05 = $2.5M
- SALE: $0.0425 = $2.1M
- DIFFERENCE: $375K or 7.5 M GRAPE
- ALTERNATIVE: 42.5M GRAPE at market - purchased over time
IN: $2.125M Treasury following Sale
OUT: 500K GRAPE or $25K per Month
B. TVSW: Organic Community Growth, Emissions & Grants
Current State
Overview:
Scenario A
Pros:
Funds to allocate and invest in Growth
Upfront Investment / Network Effects?
Expectation that an investor would have a vested interest in the success of the token/community and contribute in ways the community may not be fully capable of envisioning.
Cons:
Fewer Large holders
Governance Control to dictate treasury allocation/utilization?
Unclear Participation or Expectations
Larger % of emitted Grape per month in fewer stakeholders
Scenario B
Pros:
Meritocratic allocation by active participation
Governance majority control distribution in hands of Community or Market buyers
“Fair” Distribution (theory)
Cons:
Indeterminate timeframe to accumulate $2M+ / 20K SOL / 50 M GRAPE to bolster Growth
Doesn’t prevent an entity from accumulating large % over the same time frame, but slippage would add a barrier to the activities.
The debate seems to be Time Value of Money vs Time Value of Social Work
My perspective is that Grape will grow and in turn the token will accrete value due to the contributions of individuals. However, I am not completely unaware of the value of liquidity today invested in initiatives that could help bolster that same value accretion.
All perspectives make certain assumptions that must be achieved for either scenario to succeed or fail. Theoretically, if this were a debate between Azpilcueta, Friedman, Keynes and Marx, I’d argue we must consider all points with objectively factoring in modern finance and studies in human behavior. But, I digress.
If there was a clearer expectation on what the funds received would be allocated towards, I would consider scenario A a viable and worthwhile endeavor, at the discretion of the same decision makers that made Grape possible for all of us.
Lacking further insight into scenario A, I can not make an informed decision, but am not entirely opposed to exploring the option further. As it currently stands, I think scenario B mitigates the potential for short term moves that can adversely impact governance or tokenomics, but does not prevent them if any entity wants to take a large position over the same time frame.
For now, I’ll take the position of Time Value of Social Work, but Time Value of Money is significant enough to reconsider.
9 Likes
I had a pretty visceral initial reaction to this proposal.
Thank you to everyone for their considerate responses.
I largely agree with @Arximedis and others in this thread who would like to see a specific use case for the funds.
There are a number of ambitious proposals that could clearly benefit from a well funded treasury. But I much prefer when funding is sought it is for a specific initiative that is well vetted and planned.
To consider selling otc at a discount I think we should have an initiative in the chamber that needs the funds to go out and provide exponential returns for grape.
3 Likes
So to be more clear. I would be in favor of building out the process. But not in favor of executing a sale without a plan for the funds.
So I would say the process should be initiated and driven by Grape not initiated by buyers.
2 Likes
Thanks for the breakdown.
GRAPE is 100% considered a micro-cap. As an investor, it ticks all the boxes for some looking for high upside potential. I understand this is somewhat held in check by the vesting period. Also have no idea who these potential investors are.
- clearly developing and informed community
- utility that is still being developed on
3.Brand and its impact across the space. - Over 300,000 users and counting
- Copypasta crew
- Alpha curation from a skilled community
- Gaming (no denying the parallel between gaming and out space, especially NFTs…they will come)
I side more with Paws, in that if we have a clear direction on what the funds will be used for then I am more inclined. Even so, I feel a balance should be found as long a the right investor presents itself (which I have no doubt the community will do proper DD on)
Maybe not selling as much, but having some liquidity to realize out goals/plan and putting the success in the hands of the community is something that is quite intriguing.
Judging from comments, it appears that a conversation should first be had on what funds could be used for, or if there is anything we have currently working right now that could help that. Then we can explore the option of an investor.
@CryptoPawz add this to agenda if not done so already, please 
4 Likes
Reading everyone here and it made me happy that no has rock solid arguments. In last weeks DAO call I was hesitant to give my vote knowing we dont have plans for the funds. Millions of USD sound nice to have but do we really need them atm? Another thing id liket o add here is that the discount makes no sense to me. Buy pressure should drive the price up.
6 Likes
Been following this discussion the past couple of days and I am inspired by the prevailing conviction of our community that this sale is not something we really need at the moment.
Indeed, the only argument for it would be that we have a plan for this liquidity; (a) defined, major initiative(s) that would require that level of funding would change the stakes on this decision.
In that case, I would reconsider and be very interested to explore that avenue and hear proposals on this but, in the absence of it though, I see no compelling reason to go through with this.
Plus, I would much rather prefer that amount of $GRAPE gets distributed (bought from the market, earned by emissions over time, grants and so on) by members that actually embark to actively be a part of our community vs going to VCs who (in as much as good faith or romantic approach to view this) will never be as involved or contribute that much as the people that are the mere fabric of our community.
The Grape community has always shied away and pushed out people looking for quick, effortless profit (wen og sir?") and embraced people that put their skin in the game, put the work in and truly want to belong here.
I prefer we keep building, entrusting and propelling each other upwards than to take shortcuts.
1 Like
After Sunday’s Public DAO Call and further discussion among a range of active GRAPE DAO Members regarding the opportunity or risk that this presents for the GRAPE Community, I wish to definitively clarify my position given my clearer understanding:
Scenario A: FOR
Brief: There are so many more pro’s than con’s, including the value accretion and marketing, this would be a strong signal to the ecosystem that GRAPE is capable of more than what may appear today and those who have the vision or willingness to take a 5+ Year position should be rewarded accordingly. We should entrust the decision making to the same members involved in past negotiations, which are usually confidential and for good reason.
Rationale:
- I maintain my initial position that I have faith & trust in the individuals involved in decision making that have played a role in the genesis and continued development of GRAPE.
- Provided it is a time-sensitive opportunity, it would prudent to avoid seemingly unnecessary debates of semantics, given the opportunity may not exist in the near future due to a change in market conditions or our community inability to delegate authority to proven leaders who should be entrusted with sensitive information & opportunities of this nature.
- If a credible stakeholder is willing to take a large Long Term $GRAPE position over a 10 Year timeframe in exchange for Short Term funding, this is not an insignificant investment thesis for both parties. The value of GRAPE is tied to Time Value of Social Work, which is not undermined, but rather, supported by this proposal as it combines Time Value of Money & Social Work, which would likely lead to $GRAPE appreciating in value organically & with substantial credibility.
- Liquidity can bolster the strengthening of the treasury needed to catalyze a range of key strategic GRAPE DAO & Community Initiatives.
- Pros outweigh the cons as this is not a mutually exclusive consideration, but an opportunity to parallelize opportunities & bootstrap future strategic options.
- The majority of arguments against this proposal weigh fears of Governance control, which I initially was skeptical of, but these opinions overlook a key fact:
- A large stakeholder has an equally weighted responsibility to ensure the success of the project, community and token.
- Theoretical models of allocating resources and capital were framed before the popularization of decentralization, web3, technology, finance & markets. Ascribing to one thesis overlooks the strengths inherent in augmenting efficient theory with effective reality.
Concerns: Counter arguments against seem to index more on pessimistic shorter-term perspectives (trader), rather than optimistic longer-term perception (investor).
As always, Thank you all for your incredible energy & participation. Keep making Grape GRAPE!
3 Likes
Reiterating my position: FOR - This initiative again incase my last reply wasn’t visible or captured correctly. [Discussion] Proposal to sell large allocation of Grape from community emissions - #32 by Arximedis
After the last 2 Sunday Public DAO Calls and further discussion among a range of active GRAPE DAO Members regarding the opportunity or risk that this presents for the GRAPE Community, I wish to definitively clarify my position given my clearer understanding:
Scenario A: FOR
Brief: There are so many more pro’s than con’s, including the value accretion and marketing, this would be a strong signal to the ecosystem that GRAPE is capable of more than what may appear today and those who have the vision or willingness to take a 5+ Year position should be rewarded accordingly. We should entrust the decision making to the same members involved in past negotiations, which are usually confidential and for good reason.
Rationale:
- I maintain my initial position that I have faith & trust in the individuals involved in decision making that have played a role in the genesis and continued development of GRAPE.
- Provided it is a time-sensitive opportunity, it would prudent to avoid seemingly unnecessary debates of semantics, given the opportunity may not exist in the near future due to a change in market conditions or our community inability to delegate authority to proven leaders who should be entrusted with sensitive information & opportunities of this nature.
- If a credible stakeholder is willing to take a large Long Term $GRAPE position over a 10 Year timeframe in exchange for Short Term funding, this is not an insignificant investment thesis for both parties. The value of GRAPE is tied to Time Value of Social Work, which is not undermined, but rather, supported by this proposal as it combines Time Value of Money & Social Work, which would likely lead to $GRAPE appreciating in value organically & with substantial credibility.
- Liquidity can bolster the strengthening of the treasury needed to catalyze a range of key strategic GRAPE DAO & Community Initiatives.
- Pros outweigh the cons as this is not a mutually exclusive consideration, but an opportunity to parallelize opportunities & bootstrap future strategic options.
- The majority of arguments against this proposal weigh fears of Governance control, which I initially was skeptical of, but these opinions overlook a key fact:
- A large stakeholder has an equally weighted responsibility to ensure the success of the project, community and token.
- Theoretical models of allocating resources and capital were framed before the popularization of decentralization, web3, technology, finance & markets. Ascribing to one thesis overlooks the strengths inherent in augmenting efficient theory with effective reality.
Concerns: Counter arguments against seem to index more on pessimistic shorter-term perspectives (trader), rather than optimistic longer-term perception (investor).
As always, Thank you all for your incredible energy & participation. Keep making Grape GRAPE!
3 Likes
My position is that we should develop the process for raising funds. But I don’t think that necessarily means we should leverage community emissions for funds without significant DAO discussion.
Grape is building up to be quite an impressive workforce. While in the world of crypto the progress may seem slow, I think what is already in place is quite impressive for the short time frame it has existed. I worry that reducing community emissions significantly without rigorous discussion that we will hamper the future growth of the grape workforce.
3 Likes
In our last DAO Call on Feb 6th, we decided to get a better idea of our members’ preferences regarding selling a larger amount of $GRAPE. Based on that we could then create an on-chain vote to see, whether there is a consensus.
There are a lot more things to consider and we need to be aware that whoever will be leading the negotiations (e.g. Dean) needs to have some room for maneuver. These polls should help us in defining the scope.
How much $GRAPE should we potentially allocate in total?
- Don’t sell anything
- up to 10 million
- up to 50 million
- up to 100 million
- unlimited
0
voters
How much $GRAPE should we allocate per epoch?
(deducted from monthly emissions)
- up to 250.000
- up to 500.000
- up to 750.000
- up to 1 million
0
voters
Do we want to offer a discount?
- No
- 5%
- 10%
- 15%
- 20%
- Indifferent
0
voters
2 Likes