[Discussion] Follow Up Proposal to the misleading Proposal to increase the Shimmer Supply

Should the current Shimmer supply be increased to create funding for the Shimmer Ecosystem and be distributed for Ecosystem Funding between A) a Community DAO and B) the Tangle Ecosystem Association?

tl,dr; The last Voting that should have decided whether the Shimmer Supply should be increased or not was way too inaccurate. This Discussion and Voting here will lead into a new Firefly Governance Voting with three Options in case this Pre-Voting and Discussion here will end positive.

Learn your lesson and do it better next time – (human) errors are a good way to get better and better. We’ve seen that the Community wasn‘t d’accord with the current Voting because the underlying Proposal that was finally written by Kappy (and edited on the day the Pre-Voting phase started) and Phylo’s Discussion left too much room for speculation and misinterpretations.

So, on such an important Voting, it is mandatory to be absolutely precise in what we want to get voted on and it is also important to change nothing of a Proposal AFTER (Pre-)Voting has started here or in Firefly.

Let me get straight to the new Options that we’ve picked up from the Community and the last (Pre-)Voting:

Answer 1: Yes, increase the current Shimmer supply by 20%. Distribute 16,66% of the new Shimmer supply in equal Parts to the Ecosystem Funding.

Answer 2: Yes, increase the current Shimmer supply by 25%. Distribute 20% of the new Shimmer supply in equal Parts to the Ecosystem Funding.

Answer 3: No, do not increase the current Shimmer supply to create funding for the Shimmer ecosystem.

These three Options will be available in a new Firefly Governance Voting in case the community accepts this Pre-Voting here.

Short Explanation:

„Ecosystem Funding“ is defined as A) a Community DAO and B) the Tangle Ecosystem Association (TEA).

Answer 1 will result in a new Token Distribution of 83,33% / 8,33% / 8,33% (Community / DAO / TEA)

Answer 2 will result in a new Token Distribution of 80% / 10% / 10 % (Community / DAO / TEA)

Answer 3 will result in no new Token Distribution, 100% of the current Shimmer Supply will be held by the Community.

[EDIT] If the sum of answer 1 and 2 (both yes, ecosytem funding) receives more votes than answer 3 (NO ecosystem funding) the answer that receives the highest votes of answer 1 or 2 will be the winner, otherwise answer 3 is the winner.

Discussing the Advantages of creating two Treasuries isn’t part of this (short) Voting / Discussion and should be viewed / read in the previous Proposal by Kappy.

Keep in Mind: The current Voting cannot be canceled due to the decentralized way of the Tangle. So, like Dom stated in Option 1), setting up a new Voting that gets more Voting Power than the current one is the only way to outrule the current Voting.

[EDIT] Set End of Voting

  • Yes, setup a new Voting in Firefly with the three options mentioned above.

  • No, I’m okay with the current Firefly Voting.

0 voters

4 Likes

What will happen, if Answer 1 get ~32%, Answer 2 get ~32% and Answer 3 (no increase) get ~ 36%? Will there be a following Proposal between the first 2 answers because most of the people vote for an increase? Or will win “Answer 3” because this answer get the most votes in this proposal?

Sorry, I had to set a deadline for this voting here. Pls, vote again in case you’ve voted in the 1st 30mins. Voting will end in 5 days.

1 Like

I’ve added the following: If the sum of answer 1 and 2 (both yes, ecosytem funding) receives more votes than answer 3 (NO ecosystem funding) the answer that receives the highest votes of answer 1 or 2 will be the winner, otherwise answer 3 is the winner.

3 Likes

In this case, a consequential vote would have to come with only the first two options. I’m going out on a limb here, but this scenario is very, very unlikely.

1 Like

and this addition is correct, i’d say.

Tolle Arbeit, so muss das----> Danke
:smile:

3 Likes

Keep in mind that with selecting “yes” you agree on invalidating the current Firefly voting!

1 Like

In my opinion this is not a follow up proposal because you are not the one who proposed the main proposal. It should be its own proposal, so that we can vote on it or invalidate the current vote. Just my 2 cents here.

I see your good intentions, but it is misleading because people will believe, that with voting on your proposal the current vote can be stopped, which is clearly not the case.

Kappys Proposal was internally aligned and disussed with our proposal and fusioned into one, the one he presented here. but we proposed the 20%-option (based on the current supply) as many in the community interpreted it, too.

2 Likes

So it seems this proposal was accepted to go to the next phase?

We will end up with no increase at all. All it takes is for the wallet that voted “No” on 71 TI today to vote on day one. Great!!!