RE: LBI-GOV Vote on Hard Cap and Open Call for Proposals
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I still think there's a middle ground here. The problem with these proposals is that there really needs to be a few days of discussion and THEN a vote. Let people voice their opinions and rationale BEFORE asking for a vote. That way you can make an informed decision by seeing all arguments rather than voting on your own drawn conclusions. I voted YES and I'm still leaning that way but I can certainly see extremely valid arguments for NO.
Here is why I'm still leaning YES. My LEO and everyone in before me (and after but before Cub) who sent in LEO provided LBI with the Cub they received. If I let the fund double in size, that doesn't double the Cub. It cuts my return on that Cub by 50%. I get that new holders will have to add more LEO than what the fund is "worth" per LEO so the dilution shouldn't really be felt. For example, if a 10% stake is worth $10,000 of a $100,000 total, then if someone comes in and doubles the fund to $200,000 then my now 5% stake of $200,000 will still be worth the same $10,000. But, like I said, where does that factor in the Cub I provided? Someone buying today gets the benefit of that Cub and lessens my benefit through dilution. At least that's what it seems like to me. Especially if Cub moons. They buy in today for 1.1 and in a month Cub goes to $30. My dividend is diluted where theirs is enhanced.
Anyway, like I said, if we had a discussion period and THEN a vote, we could talk about altering this proposal before voting on it.
I would like to see the number capped now at the "soft" number of 275,000. If people really want in, pay the market price. However, I would like to leave maybe as much as another 225,000 tokens left in reserve for future use cases. If we decided we wanted to open it up to new people, we could take a vote and do that. We could also decide to allow current users who want to increase their stake the ability to have first right of refusal on buying those new tokens.
If I have to vote on this current proposal, I will stick with my YES vote for the reasons mentioned above.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Sounds like you have the workings of a new proposal that you should write up and submit for the next vote. I will be keeping an eye out for it! Make sure you follow the guidelines laid out above and in the post from @silverstackeruk.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I agree with you about an advance post where discussion could take place before the vote; I'd also like to see that ballots are set with a minimum 66% majority vote in support of the proposal.
I guess the benefit of pooling is that we are all getting wealthier through the compounding effects of every contribution. So although an account might miss out on "their" bit of cub, they are benefiting overall from the total contributions. There are people working on this voluntarily, for example, we all benefit from their contribution.
Except that the CUB drop was priced in and all new LBI buyers are paying for your (actually the Fund's) CUB when they buy LBI. Because CUB already added to the LBI value. SSUK is doing this all above board, Legally, morally, properly and actually the best way AND sticking to the whitepaper 100%.
Not saying you don't have some good ideas but it does sound like a whole 'nother fund if the changes were made that you are spitballing. I use that term to avoid confusion with a "proposal" because we have an exact mechanism in place for a "proposal".
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta