Perpetual funding + perfect participation distribution for DAOs


#1

I believe I’ve found an interesting method for funding and perfect token distribution.

It’s controversial. I’m sure a lot of people remember proof of weak hands. I was looking for meaning in the pyramid scheme. After all, so much about the order of all living things involves a hierarchy. March of last year, I deployed the first concept of this smart contract. Within the last month I revisited and refined it. It uses a pyramid scheme for the funding and distribution mechanic. How the funding work through a pyramid scheme is obvious, but as people lose and sell out, their loss counts as a multiplier for the “resolve tokens” they are rewarded.

This would be interesting for the perpetual funding of DAOs that fairly distribute governance to its participants. It also has a type of “immunity” from being bought out by whales.


#2

Sounds good. I’m also having a similar idea that super nodes to distribute their reward to strong hand voters like not moving voted coins for 6 months, 1 year etc. If this would lead to more ELA usecase and getting high quality DPoS nodes at the same time, I’m in.


#3

interesting thoughts. Perhaps a better name for the structure is “waterfall”? Pyramid scheme has a very bad connotation.


#4

I understand. It’s just that the original contract was called “ponzi token”. And rather than people thinking the developer is just trying to hide something, beat them to the punch with transparency.


#5

How does this work in the beginning?
As I understand it, you get rewarded resolver tokens when you sell the bonds (proportional to how much you’ve lost) … Seems like will be an imbalance of voting power at the beginning

Not to mention giving a disproportionate amount of voting power to people because theyre investment judgment wasn’t sound

Has anyone looked at Moloch dao?


#6

In the beginning not many resolve tokens will be minted because the loss people will take is minimal compared to what will happen at greater volumes. The first person that sells any number of bonds, will have 100% of the resolve tokens, yes, but at high volumes, there will be many people that sell (even in partial amounts) within the first few moments.

Founders are expected to sell some amounts to fund the project that is being worked on. Or considered as payment to people marketing the project. The “height” of the contract declining isn’t symbolic of failure, only symbolic of expense. Economic growth happens with a series of expansions and contractions.

It would be
-Pixel Map real-estate is a good concept demo. Advertising power to those who hold resolve tokens. Probably the easiest to create at the moment.
-A project management tool that implements resolve tokens would be good as well.

More advanced use cases:
-A PoS sidechain where resolve tokens are staked and used to vote on the sidechain’s configurations
-Gaming asset market place


#7

Not sure I’m following this part " They can;t centralize the supply, because the moment they create demand for resolve tokens (purchasing in mass on an exchange), the supply inflates at a disproportionate rate as bonds are sold to match that demand."

What’s the mechanism for bonds to be sold when resolve tokens are purchased?

Feels like those who hold a larger amount of resolve tokens have larger incentive to sell them to recover their losses. Essentially, what is to stop whales from preying on those bond holders who have sold at a loss and buying up resolve tokens to centralise their influence.

It’ll be an interesting experiment nonetheless.


#8

The mechanism is incentive.
What’s to stop them? the way the supply inflates. It’s not perfect, someone that’s super rich, could technically buy out the entire ecosystem, but at that point, everyone has profited.

When someone sells 100 resolve tokens and is incentivized to sell 100 more, the 2nd batch of 100 resolves would have been cheaper to mint.


#9

Sounds good for me :c