I just started searching full steam about the Rev share from chapters into bOath (newToken)… because in my head it was already determined that we would get part of token supply AND part of the revenue. I could not find it. If we indeed get “only” part of the supply we would be involved in much more risks like:
1- Need endless chains and grants to launch chapters all the time (and launches in the bear wouldnt make much I guess)
2- APR would vary a lot between good chapter token streams and bad chapter tokens. (in this case, if when we are being streamed a token from a “bad” chapter we could at least be getting revenue from the good chapter)
If it is really a index, how come we wont get the rev from the chapters?
I don’t understand the benefit of buybacks. Eg: grain buy backs never stopped the price to go down.
Also, if you buy back and use to incentivise again, its good for platform but that doesn’t mean it will end up benefiting the investor. If you buyback and it sits on treasury, but we dont have access to that treasury it is also not very helpful.
This is a very important topic to work on, and in my opinion will determine part of the long term success. Can’t rely only on token emissions from chapters that may or may not be worth a significant amount.
the accumulated fees from launch will still go to Grain holders. it’s just it will also go to newToken holders. But this will depend how much GRAIN will be allocated to per1 NewToken.
I don’t see the difference between the Newtoken getting a portion of the fees with some user buying some up just as Granary makes the announcement that it will release all fees to all Grain holders. The only difference i see is that with the NewToken, it is a guarantee that the fees will get diluted. It is a just a matter of how much. Unless there is a snapshot whereby only that got GRAIN from LGE will be eligible for the fees, in which case, NewToken holders should not be getting any fees, at least not for some time. Perhaps Granary can do that? To at least pay Grain holders that have been hodling since LGE.
It is simple. Grain holders bought grain expecting revenue from grain, and now those holders are down on PA and that revenue that should go to them will be shared with new buyers AND oath holders (that already got their fees from ethos and wont share any accumulated fees with them). That is far from fair. Future fees is ok because everything would be merged…now… past fees? I personally can’t see a single reason to justify that, only early grain holders lose from that. Exactly the ones that should receive the fees since they are the ones who made the bet on granary. Why would they split the accumulated fees with people that never bet on granary?
@ edit: not only LGE people invested on granary. people bought also from open market since day 1 and hold until today. snapshot could be taken from day 1 until before merge / arb discussion started. you can just take snapshot from the past.
you would not need to launch chapters all the time. so long as the current chapters become successful, the fees will come rolling in.
to your second point, yes there may perhaps be some Chapters and their token that will not do well while others will. I’m personally expecting that to happen in my mind, although I really hope all Chapters succeed!!
Despite what Bebis said in that proposal, I most definitely think NewToken holders should get revshare. i don’t think NewToken will have great tokenomics if it is only getting airdrops of Chapter tokens. If so, thenwe revert back to your first point about needing endless chains and endless chapter launches, which is unsustainable.
Buybacks can be good, but it depends on the emission rate, as well as what other mechanisms there are that would induce ppl to not easily sell their tokens. Extra FI for example initiated a buyback and burn for their EXTRA token, but they also have a staking feature where you would can lock your EXTRA token for up to 277 days in order to get more EXTRA tokens, as well as revshare. Part ofthe buyback would go to those veEXTRA holders. And their emission rate is not really off the chapters. Just a 9%-13% APR. So with all of that, it is not really surprising that it is going parabolic.
Ah ok, i see your point. Hmm from what perspective, it’s not really fair. But, with the OATH and GRAIN merger, and if they migrate their GRAIN for NewToken, wouldn’t they also start getting Ethos fees as well, offsetting that inbalance? Assuming they migrate for a specific ratio.
The only issue with this is that NewToken will be on Ethereum, where many users may not want to go due to high gas fees.
GRAIN not receiving revenue is entirely priced in. So many people have sold their GRAIN and left, and everyone buying GRAIN after got it cheaper, giving you a greater portion of circulating supply, and thus more shares in newtoken.
The 500k in the dashboard is fees, but realistically the pure revenue that could be shared is closer to 200k. If Granary distributes 200k to GRAIN holders, it’s most likely that people will dump it, so while you may have more GRAIN tokens, you will not benefit from any price action.
The simple fact is that we can use that 200k to get centralized exchange listings and prop firm support to bring so much more than 200k of value to newtoken than distributing it would provide.
So yes, rev share was promised. Multichain was seized and everything got iced. But distributing that 200k now does not fix anything, is a short sighted approach, and will ultimately do more damage than good.
I’m sorry if my rant seems abrasive but I implore you to think bigger than a 200k stimmy check because it just won’t end the way you want it to.
Yes. But then we are talking about chapter providing revenue to NewToken? That is exactly my point. Because if we get only the 6 month token distribution, after that 6 months we get nothing from the successful chapter.
Yes, it is expected that some will do well and others won’t. We can’t win all games we play. That is why I am advocating to get rev share and keep the NewToken value proposition high and not relying only on token emissions from chapters.
Yes. Buy backs are good, but it depends what you do with those tokens.
Token distribution, rev share, liquidity; these are all value capture mechanisms that can be established case by case and can definitely be achieved for each protocol.
Take the time line and split in two parts: before and after merge. more specifically: before and after the discussion about merge started.
after: doesn’t matter. not my point. both will be merged and both will share the revenue. fine
before: bOath already got all fees it should get. Grain never received anything, only bad PA. still tho, early holders and buyers believed in what was promised. those are the people that should receive accumulated fees from launch until the point on time line I mentioned (discussion about merge). Otherwise you would share that money with people that never invested / believed on grain.
You didn’t get rev from grain, so people sold, so you got cheaper grain, so you get more newtoken shares, so you get more rev from the newtoken model, which will be greater than grain rev
Why are you assuming people had money to buy more? and even if they did, what if they did that to receive more revenue that was promised to them? using the bad PA and “cheaper entry” as an argument to don’t distribute that fees to them is not a good argument imo.
200k distributed to holders that had grain when it was around 1Mcap and under is very significant. Also, wasn’t you the one that said that mcap doenst matter? Since the migration will be based on amount of tokens and ratio. So I dont mind grain going down as long as I have more grains to be migrated. What I dont find fair is to ignore those fees and the fact that people bought and hold grain from launch until today and got NOTHING in return. those people should be rewarded by those fees and not the ones coming after for arbitrage of migration.
yea yea, you can use those fees for a better use, but again, nothing that we know or could do anything about it, and that value would be shared with people that never believed on grain before the merge. again, IMHO, not fair.
ps: bigger thinking? I hold both tokens and never sold any and also did not arb any. I am advocating to fairness with people rekt hard getting rewarded and not sharing that with people that never believed on grain project…
I am saying mcap does not matter for the migration. But it would be naive to ignore its effects on distribution of circulating supply.
You are suggesting that everyone invested in GRAIN PURELY because of rev share and NOT AT ALL because of growth. What I’m suggesting is that if distribute this rev now it will stifle growth. And every leading tech company in the world got there from growth, not from rev share or dividends.
It’s not an excuse for not delivering wholeGRAIN. It’s a realistic assessment of the best moves we can make given the current circumstances.
I appreciate that you never sold your tokens, and there are many reasons why people have been rekt by GRAIN price action, but revenue share is not the crux.
Not purely, no. But partially yes. Sharing this rev with people that never invested / believed on grain isn’t fair. I am just pointing that I don’t find fair with early investors. Lower price and chance of buying low as an argument isn’t fair also cause you need to assume that people had money to invest more (I personally did, but others may have not).
Nothing I cant change by myself. My point was made but it will be done whatever others want. So my part is done.
The multichain hack basically ruined GRAIN’s ability to create a unified system of value accrual. Mint/Burn is the most secure way to bridge assets & Multichain was 3 years ahead of the market because they cut corners unbeknownst to us.
This is why we are restructuring. This is the purpose of the unification. Our wings were clipped before we had a chance to take off & we’re using every resource we have at our disposal to fix it.
Part of this is understanding that we are doing this for you. We are doing this because we believe in our technology and our community and know we can deliver on our promises a hundred-fold.
As a top holder of both GRAIN and OATH as well as the person driving a large portion of this effort, I can say with certainty that any retroactive revshare or parting out of the foundations would be for purposes of head-patting and have very little impact on outcomes for any party.
The new liquidity and circumstances we are working overtime to create for GRAIN and OATH holders will dwarf any single element of either protocol, foundation, or strategy. Getting lost in details like this will slow down the process considering crafting distribution strategies takes a tremendous amount of time and effort.
I suggest no change to the proposal based on this particular point but would be happy to weigh in on others.
All good ser. I do think merge is a very good idea. And also, no intention to hold proposals, votes or execution because of this “small detail”. Just pointed I don’t find fair with early holders and believers (of granary specifically). But of course people are free to disagree with that.
I still trust the team. I love the hype and “promises” on how we will succeed. Just point that it is hard to swallow since the “small detail” is exactly an early promised that shifted with nothing delivered on that end (grain). It is a “small detail” now, but it wasn’t called that when Granary LGE happened and the project was being “sold” to investors.
But yea man, don’t let me hold ya. I am all in favor to go ahead, vote and migrate ASAP.
What will happen to the GRAIN left to claim from the TGE? Will we get an NFT to vest in 12 months or until the current vesting period? IF the Grain is on FTM networks would it migrate to another network with the new token?
Im all for the merger. I think it will be a great restart and a new beginning. Improved value accrual and eth mainnet is good for what we want. I have full faith in team and believe unification is the best way forward.
Unclaimed vests of both OATH and GRAIN from all networks will be automatically migrated to a newtoken vest on Ethereum at the commensurate rates. The exact details of the vest like time and position standard (NFT vs wallet-assigned) are yet to be determined.