Bullish. Thanks for those amazing clarifications Yuvi.
1 Like
Good addressment. I would say we could go for ever discussing details, but we donāt have time for that. Just push to vote.
3 Likes
Yuvi is honestly my hero 
One thing I would like to reiterate is for everyone to consider the alternative to migrating. Clearly we have been through a lot of challenges under the current system, not the least of which have been attracting new users and investors. With each month that passes, maintaining the status quo is a bit like pushing a boulder up an 80-degree hill, its possible but if there is an easier path to adoption it would be silly not to take it. Adapt or die.
What this change can offer us is a clean slate to push a bullish narrative without a ton of baggage. It gives larger players a way to invest in us. It unifies the entire team towards a common goal. It essentially gives us a structure that makes a ton of sense given our past developments and future roadmap. Imo this is a huge step in the right direction.
Marking Ready for GPRC Review on my end as well.
P.S. Everyone here is an absolute chad for sticking with us through all the changes and volatility. You guys have no idea how much we appreciate every one of you, there is no ecosystem without the community.
6 Likes
Great Addressment.
Just a final note. With the NewToken, there would be less of a need for any person, at least those that DYOR, to buy any of the protocolās own token when they can just buy NewToken and get all the value from all protocols instead of just one. Sure there might be some people that, for whatever the reason, may want to buy a protocolās own token, but that is a risky strategy when you can just buy NewToken to capture all value. This could make a protocolās token value at the mercy of NewToken. The local token would theoretically only go up via NewToken.
I personally donāt mind this, but it is something to consider.
This idea is similar to Sphere Finance. They have their own Index token and various protocols that have their own token, but Sphereās Index token captures all value. Iām not sure if you got inspired by them, but if not, they can be a good source to see how they are doing it and what areas are there to improve.
Other than that, Iām good with NewToken becoming the Index token for the whole OATH ecosystem. Lets vote and get it done asap!
3 Likes
Based on the feedback and cadence of discussion I believe this is ready for the GPRC.
5 Likes
Just a final note. With the NewToken, there would be less of a need for any person, at least those that DYOR, to buy any of the protocolās own token when they can just buy NewToken and get all the value from all protocols instead of just one.
This is a really good point and Iād like to hear some of the brains in this thread respond to it.
In order to prevent all these chapter/silo tokens from becoming shit tokens, how will newToken benefit the chapters? Iām not as up to date with all things ByteMasons lately, but perhaps it would be wise to reiterate what strategies are in place to ensure chapters/silos are successful.
3 Likes
newtoken captures a fraction of each chapter/siloās value, not all of it.
Each chapter/silo will succeed in its own path.
Indexes donāt affect the performance of underlying products, they aggregate the performance of all underlying products. There will be underperformers and there will be massive outperformers, like any index.
7 Likes
Doing some more thinking on this specific matter that Naul and a couple others have mentioned. As I understand, oath and grain will likely be deprecated, which I do agree with because I think even for ethos and granary as chapters, a fresh new token and chart is the best choice hands down. In this scenario, newtoken stakers will obviously receive a portion of those new chapter tokens for granary and ethos. What Iām wondering is, would it be possible to treat those specific two new chapter token distributions as a special scenario where previous oath and grain holders get a much more substantial portion of those token distributions beyond just the allotted portion for newtoken stakers? By means of a snapshot and airdrop or something like that? Just a thought, might be a good courtesy gesture from those two specific chapters to keep OG oath and grain investors a little happier on this matter, and feel a little more compensated on the loss of fees point of contention. Basically address it through the new chapter token distribution for ethos and granary and not through the migration. I just think we need to do everything possible to come out of this with those investors who have been here and have been supporting since the beginning, to feel like they got away with robbery after all is said and done, as opposed to coming out of it thinking they just took another hit over it all. Need to keep as much good sentiment in the community as possible.
1 Like
Absolutely. We have discussed increasing the allocation for the Ethos token already and Iām sure Granary would entertain the idea.
Just keep in mind that distributing a larger portion does not mean you are compensated more. Itās a larger portion of the supply, meaning that if a few people sell, everyoneās uPNL is affected. Itās a zero sum game and handing out free tokens only proves to be successful at a very low frequency.
We tend to forget about how many airdrops end poorly vs how many end well, simply because we keep hearing about the ones that end well.
Something to consider.
3 Likes
This is why I left to just go buy bitcoins.
Too much is in the hands of devs to execute.
This is inherently a trusted system. Similar to the fiat system we left.
Trust the chain.
Trust the devs.
Trust the tokenomics.
Trust the code.
Trust the bridge.
Trust the other plebs to hold, when really they want to stack USDC or BTC.
I wish you all the best of luck, I really enjoyed my time with this team. But most of this stuff is needlessly complex.
There are only 21 million bitcoinsā¦ Get your stack while the getting is good.
Try an onchain tx. Buy some non-KYC peer-to-peer sats. Letās quit larping as if weāre going to take over the financial world. The financial world is buying bitcoins en masse, and itās not going to stop.
Printing tokens and stoking hype is just irresponsible and scammy. Push people to the only good and scarce money, bitcoins, and stop pretending these tokens we launch have any value.
āToxic arbitrageā? More like people being smart and trying to extract as much value from the ādefiā and āyield farmingā as they can, to buy BTC or USDC. Things that hold (well not USDC) value.
That is all.
Just came around because an IRL friend said my vested OATH might get deprecated. Course itās only worth $100 now. 
1 Like
Correct. That is why I raised the point ā100% of fees from ethos and granary would flow to oath and grain and with newtoken we are loosing that, which was a core value when selling the tokens/projectā. I honestly donāt think that bigger airdrop will fix it, more concerned about more fees flow, and other suggestions for the compensation.
Other point is: Where will the granary accrued fees will go? bOath received ethos fees but grain never received any fees and will migrate before being able to receive any return.
Ps: buy backs that dont blow back to investors dont matter because it never helped with price action.
Ps2: accumulation on treasury wasnāt the selling point when we invested, it was fees distribution. And even tho we never know how much is on treasury and how its being used for.
Imo it should be distributed somehow to grain holders, even if in grain tokens to increase allocation before migration.
This topic might be more suited for the follow up proposal, but Iāve been thinking about how we can make and keep NewToken appealing. There was talk about chapter specific distribution methods for the tokens, but I think it might be good if we got either a revshare or a portion of the tokens locked for the NewToken treasury from every chapter with the yield funneled to NewToken stakers, despite the main value sharing method chosen for the specific chapter.
This would make sure at least some of the value stays in the NewToken. Otherwise after all the airdrops have been distributed NewToken suddenly looks significantly more irrelevant.
We could even not do the airdrops and let NewToken serve as a proxy for all the shared tokens / revenue staked in the NewToken treasury granting access to the generated yield for the NewToken stakers. That might be bit extreme but Iām trying to think how we could keep the value inside the NewToken. Just food for thought, maybe some of you already have or will come up with a better solution.
Also letās get this thing to vote already.
1 Like
Michael Saylor, is that you?
2 Likes
Agree likely more of a follow up concern but Iāll comment also as I mentioned this point earlier, that newtokenās value prop would diminish significantly in a few years when chapter deployments slow down or cease, as that is inevitable. So imo the chapter token allocation to newtoken stakers is awesome, and essential, and will create a ton of interest early on but it canāt be the main selling feature of newtoken because itās not a sustainable feature. There needs to be more. And Yuvi did address this to a point in one of his posts above citing other ways newtoken ācouldā provide value such asā¦
- a chapter can create an LP with its token and newtoken, and commit 20% of revenue to the LP forever. This means that 10% of its revenue is buying newtoken from the market, while providing liquidity for alternative chains.
- a chapter can give 10% of its tokens to newtoken holders, transferring value upfront, for users to stake/sell/whatever.
- a chapter can give 10% of its tokens to newtoken treasury, which can use those tokens to generate revenue/ value towards newtoken. This could mean staking in the chapter, LPing with newtoken, staking half in the chapter and giving half to newtoken holders, etc.
What Iām thinking would be nice to see however, is instead of leaving it up to the individual chapters to set the rules, newtoken foundation should have a set of guidelines that any chapter deploying newtoken tech stack MUST follow. Just for example, all chapters must allocate 10% of supply to be streamed to newtoken stakers and MUST create an LP with its token and newtoken, and commit 20% of revenue to the LP forever. Or maybe even make a list of multiple ways in which chapters can benefit newtoken, kind of like the list yuvi provided above, and maybe say the chapter MUST do 3 of them out of a list of 6 or whatever. Or they MUST allocate certain percent of token and one other option from list. Something like that anyways, these are just quick examples and thoughts to get my point across.
I think the foundation should set strict rules for chapter deployment in regards to how they MUST provide value back to ānewtokenā even if itās a choose from this list kinda thing to give them some leeway. That way, we ensure longevity in value for newtoken, and also anyone investing in newtoken knows pretty much exactly how it will be valuable short term and long term, and not how it could possibly be valuable.
1 Like
Great stuff I think this a step in the right direction A+
2 Likes
The granary fees will continue to go to anyone holding GRAIN. The Ethos fees will go to anyone staking bOATH. The NewToken is also going to receive those fees, based on how much GRAIN and bOATH it is per 1 NewToken.
Perhaps think of it this way. What is the difference between some user that didnāt participate in the LGE buying up a bunch of GRAIN right now in order to get a portion of the fees than with NewToken scooping up GRAIN in order to meet demand because users want a share of all fees from the Oath ecosystem?
GRAIN holders holder will still get a portion of the fees. They will just only get fees only from Granary and will probably have to share those fees anyways when Granary eventually announces fees will be going to GRAIN hodlers which will cause other users to buy in.
The NewToken is just a gateway for any user to get fees from Granary. The only two difference is that with NewToken, they will be doing it indirectly and NewToken holders will be getting fees and other perks from the whole Oath Ecosystem, not just from Granary.
At least thatās how I think it should work since Yuvi is supporting the notion that most if not all Oath ecosystem protocols should have their own tokens. If NewToken simply allows users bypass the GRAIN token to get those fees without having the users or NewToken buy up some GRAIN, then there is no point in allowing Oath protocols to have their own tokens and yes, Grain holders would get royally screwed.
Good point.
I personally prefer NewToken gets some of the chapters own token AND a portion of revshare. Chapter token airdrops are short term hype, but the revshare are long-term. Now how much allocation will it be, idk. Im flexible.
I think the NewToken guidelines should be for all chapters to do all three points you outlined and not have them choose:
-
a chapter can create an LP with its token and newtoken, and commit 20% of revenue to the LP forever. This means that 10% of its revenue is buying newtoken from the market, while providing liquidity for alternative chains.
-
a chapter can give 10% of its tokens to newtoken holders, transferring value upfront, for users to stake/sell/whatever.
-
a chapter can give 10% of its tokens to newtoken treasury, which can use those tokens to generate revenue/ value towards newtoken. This could mean staking in the chapter, LPing with newtoken, staking half in the chapter and giving half to newtoken holders, etc.
The first section we could divide it into two;
- a chapter can create an LP with its token and newtoken.
- a chapter would divert a portion of its revenue fees that it generates to NewToken holders
How much allocation would or could each chapter allocate in each section, we can negotiate with them. But all three or four points must be done
1 Like
Rev share was promised since LGE to grain holders. Would be done through wholeGrain (boath from granary), but it never got ready on time.
Also, I am referring to fees accumulated from launch until the start of the migration discussion. The one that should receive this fees are the ones buying and holding grain for this purpose, and not for migration arbitrage. Future fees will go / can go to newtoken etc, but it will slowly die since the idea is to absorb granary into chapters. Doesnt make any sense to distribute those accumulated fees to people that never bought grainā¦ The same way it would not make sense to distribute ethos (past) fees to grain holders that never had bOath etc. But that wonāt happen because ethos fees are distributed in real time to bOath holders, which is not the case for grain