Counter Proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association

[chang.liyu]

@ShimmerMeTimbers

With the market in turmoil it is evident the community treasury requires some serious money management, and that optimised value can be achieved with the community funds. With the current proposal, albeit geared towards a quick spend for maximum value, it is somewhat ambiguous in its intentions, very Foundation oriented, and not focused on long-term community benefits.

Hi, I am founder of company in Hong Kong. Sometimes you need more money to operate successful, IOTA needs money to operate, we should give them money first because without foundation having money there is no tech

[chang.liyu]

@ShimmerMeTimbers

With the IOTA Foundation receiving 10% of SMR supply under the form of the Tangle Ecosystem Association, it was expressed that these funds would be used towards exchange integrations, marketing, partnerships, and other opportunities, as well as now developer resources. It has also become apparent that 30% of these funds have already been allocated, with Dom sharing the basic IF financial status in Discord as containing only 7% of the Shimmer supply.

I say they should use all funds for foundation development of coordicide, do what is most important first

[chang.liyu]

overall I like the transparency approach of the proposal

[ShimmerMeTimbers]

Dom has been cleae the foundation has operational expenses covered and recently shared the breakdown of the foundations holdings in Discord. The TEA also already has 7% of the Shimmer supply.

This propisal is about what to do with the Community DAO treasury. The lowering of the initial funding for the Shimmer Growth Committee doesn’t hinder the initiative in any way. There can always be future votes to add more funds to the committee if the community deems it a good investment.

All this counter proposal does is limit exposure to the initial community treasury, for long term sustainability of the Community DAO

[miohtama]

No meaningful ecosystem can be build in one year.

Spending too fast and not carefully enough results to graft and other ecosystem damaging activities. It means low quality projects get funded.

There are several ecosystem examples from Fantom, Solana, etc. how you can burn your treasury without achieving much impact. Shimmer is not exceptional this regards. More carefully treasury management is better for the ecosystem, especially if 2023 is going to be recession where we do not know the end date yet.

[chang.liyu]

@miohtama

Shimmer is not exceptional this regards. More carefully treasury management is better for the ecosystem, especially if 2023 is going to be recession where we do not know the end date yet.

Agreed, we need good quality projects to be funded and money carefully spent

[Sissors]

@Heisenburrg

Right now there could be some serious industrial partners knocking on the IF’s doors.
Maybe a bank which wants to test the opportunities for new groundbreaking financial products or a big player from the machine industry who tries to invent new tools for their automated fabrication.
They could just be waiting for an incentive to start building on Shimmer, such as an amount of tokens as collateral.

A big bank wants to start a groundbreaking financial product on IOTA, but only if they get enough tokens on a small staging network for free? Doesn’t that seem kinda far fetched to you? And do realize, the impact is that it means multiple startups who want to make something on the Shimmer network cannot get funding from the DAO.

To me it seems very unrealistic. But if it is not, why can’t there be transparancy around this? And no, “NDA” is not a valid answer. An NDA can be that they cannot tell who gets what for exactly which project. It doesn’t mean you cannot hare any information whatsoever.

But believe me on this, if a big company wants to do a serious project on IOTA that they think is gonna be a game changer, they 100% are not making that dependent on getting some staging net tokens.

@MannyYolo

What’s all of that uproar. Dom knows this business best, trust him.

Then why have a DAO? Why have community involvement? If you always going to rule out transparancy, since “Dom knows best”, why wasn’t the initial vote just to increase token supply by 25% and give everything to Dom? What changed, and why don’t you want any information on this as community member. If you did vote earlier in favour of having part of the tokens as community supply, then you should also take some responsibility for it now!

(Also Dom has been board member for over 6 year, if we go for the “Dom knows best”).

[chang.liyu]

@Sissors

(Also Dom has been board member for over 6 year, if we go for the “Dom knows best”).

Without dom in charge we can’t get anything, he is our leader, he will bring coordicide, coinbase, evm, ebsi, mobi and iota to $2, it’s better to leave if you don’t support him.

[NickelanddimeO]

Uff, then why have a DAO anyways, if „all we have to do is trust Dom“? This is a serious question.

Its about find a consesus around this proposal.

For me the question is what are our short term and long term goals for the treasury and do both proposals align with our goals

[Heisenburrg]

Yes, that could obviously be the case. Then 2 outcomes are possible;

1. The additional funding from the community treasury would maybe be used to help the IF survive. If that works, it is good for community and IF alike.
2. The IF drains the additional funding but it is still not enough. If this happens the project dies. But a larger community treasury would not help in this case either, because Iota‘s development still is not finished.