[Vote] Remove the Emissions Cap

As discussed extensively here - [Discussion] Adjustable emissions Cap

This is a vote to decide if we need a cap or not. If the vote passes to keep a cap – we will then have a subsequent vote on what kind of cap that is

There is also an on-chain vote for this here – Solana Governance

  • Yes – remove the cap
  • No - we need to have a cap

0 voters


60 DAO members and we only have 9 votes this is not really how an active dao should work.


its been 3 hours. we have a wait time of 7 days

a little patience here :slight_smile:


I might not have followed well enough,
I thought the discussions were for finding a good enough algorithm to reward those in multiple subdaos or rewarding those who contribute the most to grape. Which required a fine tuning on how much emissions is released based on multiple factors.

This vote is to completely remove the cap?

Aren’t they different conversations entirely?

Is this a prerequisite? by removing caps, the decision or algorithm that will be created is alot easier?
help me understand please

1 Like

You can read all the comments I made, as I seem to be the main person pushing to get it removed.

I actually pointed out what you did – that we should first discuss whether we should even have a cap, and IF we decide that we should have one, then we can talk about how to best implement it. That’s why we’re first deciding whether there should be a cap at all.

1 Like

So you pointed out first that we need a discission on the cap.

But what we have infront of us is a VOTE on removing the cap.

These two are not the same.

The only recent topics in discourse regarding caps are a VOTE to remove cap and a discussion on an equation of emissions.

Might be wrong, but don’t we need a dedicated discussion solely for the removal of the cap?

1 Like

Actually ser, we explored this topic on Sunday during our dao talk and dim was kind enough to write the recap after we concluded that it’s best to put it into a vote on discourse for the entire dao members to decide


Yes thank you.
This is what you refer to yeah?
There are distinctly three options, whereas this vote has two options.


1 Like

That is the title of the thread, but if you read through you’ll see it went in a different direction, and there has been a thorough discussion on the cap.

1 Like

i made it binary so it can also be a on-chain vote. first we decide we need one, then we decide type

there is also an onchain vote here


Are we voting on this twice / in parallel?


if you are referring to the onchain vote, then yes. its more about gauging sentiment and continue learning about activity in discord vs grape community token votes

1 Like

Im kind of loving this wide difference between onchain voting and DAO sentiment – will be fun to discuss how we bridge that divide!


A huge difference with the On-chain voting, it’s clearly showing that DAO need to keep Exercising voting power


My vote is keep the cap. I’ve seen a lot of projects over spend in their earlier days and then run out of funds as the months/years pass by, then once people realize the funds have been entirely dispersed the project loses steam.

Would love to hear an argument as to why the emissions shouldn’t have a cap, would it be to better reward different parts of the Grape community on a given basis?


See all my arguments in thread where the discussion originally took place, linked by Dean at the top.

By the way, how much the DAO allocates to skill role emissions is a totally different topic from whether individuals should have a cap. I think you might be conflating the two.


I already said the same thing, Grape is still developing, I also said it’s best to do everything at minimal but I guess everyone would go for what benefits them the most, sentiments aside, I have a bad feeling about the removal of the cap and I might be wrong but I hope after the cap is removed we can provide an even better solution or equation that will show that the resources will continue to grow and not decline over time. This is the hard work of every one and it would hurt me the most to see it go down. Its never a good thing to harvest crops that are not fully grown. Rather than removing caps I suggest we build the Grape work place/community to a high standard and we’re doing so well so far, we’re growing everyday but let’s keep our resources at a very conservative level. A financial crisis would be very detrimental to the growth of this community more than anything else.


I’d voted no in the original proposal of actually doing a cap in the first place, Meritocracy means we reward those of us that are working hard. If some are earning multiple roles through their work, that usually means they are in the system much heavier - and might be doing something like 8+ hours a day.

Someone doing 1-2 hours a day can currently earn the same rewards - to me it’s a simple answer, remove the cap and if people are abusing being in multiple roles then we obviously monitor and remove those roles from them. Most subDAOs have now managed to look at their lists and get in form good control over them. We want people to want to work harder - it benefits Grape by doing this.


But y’all don’t think that for the tier system to work properly the cap must be removed? A working tier system would ensure that everybody gets grape tokens equivalent to the value added at the end of every month. The subdaos are expected to self police themselves into establishing this otherwise the emissions coming into that subdao would be lower until they correct this. Also ser Billy stated that the capped emissions and the uncapped emissions when distributed doesn’t have much of a difference


It’s looking like we’ll be keeping the Cap, but Regardless-- whatever the outcome is, I think we need to Restructure every SubDao.

  • If we’re keeping the Cap, we should also consider that people who have multiple skill roles and give their best to their respective SubDaos will be undervalued and affected
  • also, if it falls in favour of removing the cap, then there should be a cap on how many roles one person should have (if this makes any sense)

Maybe it’ll be best to put this in a formal proposal after the voting ends