Taking emotions out of this, how can they dump if they’re on a 4 year vesting schedule and 1 year cliff after token launch? I can dump long before they can sell anything so not sure about the argument there. I’m pretty sure it’s much more beneficial to airdrop recipients here.
I really do see your point but the reality is that institutional and retail capital have a symbiotic relationship, both need each other. The reason why I keep responding bc I despise this argument of us vs them, bc not all funds are the same. Some are mercenary, some enjoy new paradigms, and others are a culmination of the two.
I believe any ecosystem strongly benefits from insto and retail capital otherwise they won’t have a chance at long-term sustainable growth.
It is in my opinion that it would be more powerful to have 1,000 people joining this new economy enjoying the full yield of anchor and posting about it - running their lives through it and growing what we are doing rather than a single hedge fund like you taking what belongs to these people who are bold enough to join this new economy.
These small people are our marketing and best chance at creating a new worlds economy.
If you work at one of the apps then you would know that there are many people whose life savings are in Anchor and are actively looking to buy protection. We’ve talked with numerous people who ask wen ozone and wen more capacity everyday because they want have some level of assurance for their deposits since it’s everything they have. If you check our Discord, we provide personally provide guidance for new DeFi users all the time in their Terra journey from using the Terra Bridge, depositing into Anchor, and purchasing protection. If your argument is that we should focus on the small guys because that’s where the next 1B+ users of DeFi are, then supporting Ozone is the way to do that because most of the public isn’t risk-on. Instead, they are just people trying to escape the affects of inflation. It’s a privilege to risk your capital in return for greater rewards, a privilege that a majority of everyday users on average can’t afford to take.
Is the $1b purely to insure up to $4b? (Feels like too high of a ratio, but obviously that’s what you built) or are some of these funds going to be allocated to the team as compensation, to reimburse previous expenses, etc? If they are being used as compensation what does that look like?
If the funds are strictly for underwriting I still think releasing funds in tranches based on verifiable deliverables has to be a critical component to this proposal.
I also stand by the bribery for votes being absurd because that infers even you don’t believe in the merits of your own proposal.
So you are saying, they would get 1B UST from the COMMUNITY FUND and only airdrop to those in the community who support it?
Personally I couldn’t care about the airdrop, but what you have to realize here is that we are trying to have a constructive discussion, we agree it’s beneficial but we disagree on the terms.
That’s why this forum is important, to be able to debate and improve proposals and ideas.
When you have a proposal like this that offers brides to yes votes, this is clearly anti community driven.
I don’t feel like their proposal was written well and completely transparent.
If this is the case then I just don’t understand the request for $1b and instead work with a commitment for releases in tranches.
This is a competitive world, if a better protocol comes up and Risk Harbor doesn’t deliver, we as the community should be able to re-allocate funds in a manner that best suits our interests.
What is the recourse mechanism to recapture up to the $1b in the event they don’t deliver? For example if demand ends up being much less, this money is just going to stay in the protocols coffers? Again, this proves tranches based on deliverables is a logical conclusion.
I respect your point and understand but respectfully disagree that it’s anti-community. Transparently, I don’t care for the airdrop either way yet personally still don’t see a big issue incentivizing voters. If I were in their shoes I don’t see why I should airdrop tokens to those that voted no.
Imagine they vote no, receive airdrop, then put up a counter proposal and remove funds? Very unlikely scenario yet technically possible.
I really believe we should give them a chance though, this is the an incredible public good that will deeply benefit the community.
In other words the counter proposal in the future would be completely in Terra’s hands to recapture the funds and not in Risk Harbor’s?
And I did read, maybe it’s just not written well.
Here’s a reasonable revision that should resonate with a hedge fund how about instead of the airdrop, the community is compensated by way of gross revenue back to the community pool. This way the community has a vested interest now and into the future. (Of course this is in addition to tranche releases)
And if the community later wants to divest that stake for tokens or what have you we can.
Hey Drew, I love what you guys have built on Ozone. Maybe a review to the airdrop to appease others but otherwise and fully support this proposal. I have almost 75% of my NW ~ 7 figures on Anchor and this resonated with me so much. If Ozone capacity increases, I want to increase my Terra position by 95% so really hope this proposal passes. As everyday people who luckily discovered Terra and also work in finance, I agree that most of us have mortgages and families to feed and unfortunately cannot afford to be apes, even if we wanted to so we really need Ozone. I also do agree with the proposal fully that large capacity will make other depositors more excited and willing to enter the ecosystem. This is a HARD YES!!
I think there is a great deal of missing the forest for the trees here.
We can probably agree that there is little difference in holding UST in the community fund vs providing it for underwriting in the worlds where no exploits occur. If, however, Anchor does suffer a significant exploit, it would be a dark day indeed for the LUNA ecosystem. I imagine there would probably be calls to use the community fund to reimburse part of the losses. Now, I am not sure whether such a proposal would pass. Neither is anyone committing their funds to projects in the ecosystem right now, which is unsettling. As has already been described in this thread, this is holding back significant amounts of capital and users from using Anchor (and other apps in the LUNA ecosystem).
Precommitting capital to covering this unlikely event not only helps in the worlds where nothing goes wrong, but it also arguably even helps in worlds where the worst comes to pass. If a significant portion of TVL is covered, a panicked market reaction is comparatively less likely. It is this dynamic that causes many people to describe this as a public good. Many layer 1 protocols subsidize/invest in their developers and ecosystem, but LUNA would be the first to make a strong push for insurance.
Another thing I would urge you to consider is that Ozone intends to cover much more than just Anchor in the future. It has ambitions to cover a wide diversified set of protocols and risks with a reasonably high degree of capital efficiency. The goal is to be an insurance provider for the entire ecosystem and facilitate innovation/new investment.
We already built systems for leveraged protection so we can provide protection on multiple protocols with the same underwriting assets. Those systems are live on Ethereum mainnet currently and engineers are currently working to build the same systems in rust so that they can be used on ozone. For more details on the technical implementation of AMM and leveraged vaults, see the v2 white paper link in the original proposal.
Institutional clients want exposure to the larger yields terra ecosystem offers but in order to do this there needs to be ample underwriting capacity to protect the capital therefore I see it as absolutely necessary to pass this proposal.
The TVL is only that low because the lack of underwriting capital, if there was 1b+ in capital TVL would be very very high while at the same time collecting premium. Many are on the sidelines waiting to insure 7 to 8 figures.
I think your missing the point completely, you would get the airdrop and would directly benefit from premiums collected. What you are suggesting is we stagnate growth of the entire ecosystem and force VCs to move capital elsewhere. Putting that community fund to use this way would benefit everyone and would certainly strengthen the ecosystem.
Chiming in here as someone who has a substantial amount of savings managed in Anchor and a buyer of Ozone protection.
Pros of this proposal:
It provides the capacity so that people like me can easily buy enough protection for our Anchor deposits without having to shop around and piecemeal from a bunch of different protocols at sometimes unaffordable prices.
Partaking in some of these emerging protocols is more palatable if protection is native. This will be crucial test in the coming months to see if this inflow of capital is here for the long run or just because stable yields have been depressed on other protocols.
Cons:
A multisig is handling 1B needs to be bigger than 3 holders. As @Thorchain.BULL stated there should be additional signers with better geographical distribution.
May need a fairness mechanism so that bots don’t buy up all the protection before retail has the chance to. Something like a Gnosis auction may work here.
Overall:
In for this proposal if the multisig issue is resolved and look forward to buying the Anchor protection once its launched.
Thanks to the team for addressing two concerns in a very timely manner.
The custody of funds is tricky, human will decide if funds get deployed. This is already much better.
So the concern of releasing tranches of funds is going to be ignored because that actually suits the interests of Luna’s community?
The token which offers some potential benefit (albeit peanuts) and doesn’t completely align incentives after HANDING $1B over is still in play, instead of offering a gross revenue multiple back to the community pool for perpetuity or until the community wants to forego those funds.
A gross revenue multiple clearly aligns incentives, is measurable and absolutely fair given that the community is HANDING $1B over to this team.
The incentives continue to be misaligned. But good job adjusting the multi-sig and removing the bribery… but it’s simply not enough.
Notice, that my dislike at the moment is due to clear misalignment of incentives and given that it’s $1B I hope non-risk harbor members vote NO. Or at least opine on why opposing the following is the right call:
A. Tranches
B. Gross revenue back to the community pool
And if the team wants to address points A and B feel free.
Disclosure: Beware fellow Lunatics, I’m starting to become skeptical that some of the fudders above may be from Ozone competitors.
I’m a HARD YES for this proposal and have been waiting for ample capacity on Ozone to put in around 7-8 figures myself. The demand is clearly there and this proposal will help spearhead the Terra ecosystem even more.
Also, I’m not sure where the other insurance protocols being mentioned are coming from. Never heard of Phase Dao and Nexus Mutual has no place in this discussion. It hasn’t moved the needle for the community because we want Ozone! Ozone is a much better product fundamentally than Nexus Mutual. With V2 Ozone coming along as well, which I heard is porting over a lot of the new features currently live on their core offering, it’ll make me sleep like a baby knowing my money is protected by them. 1B probably won’t even be enough when the time comes to expand insurance across the entire ecosystem and all of the different protocols.
Any reasonable person would know that this proposal is good for Terra and for what’s to come. Risk Harbor has done a great job with owning Ozone and I was very happy to see how receptive they were to community feedback to update the proposal with more signers on the multi-sig and ensure a more fair airdrop. I’m super excited and can’t wait to buy extra protection!
how about instead of the airdrop, the community is compensated by way of gross revenue back to the community pool. This way the community has a vested interest now and into the future. (Of course this is in addition to tranche releases)
so we really need Ozone. I also do agree with the proposal fully that large capacity will make other depositors more excited and willing to enter the ecosystem. This is a HARD YES!!