CONTEXT:
The discussion around mLoot has one-off solutions around how mLoot, Loot, and AGLD might work together. Some of the proposals suggest giving AGLD to mLoot holders in some proportion to Loot holders.
As the community evolves, there will be many more forks, community projects, and challenges around how to integrate projects or incentivize developers to build in the ecosystem. In addition there will be challenges around how to prevent fracturing the community - critical mass is important to users ultimately playing games built on Loot.
Rather than just solving the mLoot situation, I propose a more holistic solution.
PROPOSAL:
AGLD holders vote to create an additional X% AGLD to be controlled by a community controlled DAO. The DAO can then consider a grants program to incentivize certain tools or projects can create concrete proposals to the DAO for AGLD. AGLD holders can then vote on which projects to support.
AGLD can help align the ecosystem across projects and can create incentives for new projects to build what the community needs.
X% should be large enough to encourage developers to come into the ecosystem but small enough that the future dilution does not scare existing AGLD holders.
I would suggest 40% new AGLD (32M AGLD “worth” approximately $100M today) be created. These would be added to the max supply, not the circulating supply so would not dilute current AGLD owners until they are distributed to projects and developers in the ecosystem.
Out of this 40%, existing AGLD holders can then decide how much they may want to give to mLoot holders (if any) as an alignment mechanism.
By first agreeing on some parameters around AGLD, I think we can avoid having to solve each new project or fork as a one-off.
I’m curious for feedback. What does the community think?
what about nft they are minting mythic and rare nft like hell what about that if we are paying 20 or 40 eth for 1 nft so they are minting them like money heist.
a. Send ($x * 1.3M) AGLD to mLOOT_AGLD_Claims.sol contract to cover the first ~1.3M of mLOOT claims, but not past that (excludes the +250k/yr and might need to be revoted for that).
b. Total proposal amounts based on value of $x (AGLD per mLOOT):
$x = 5 => 6.5M AGLD (~20% of 32M)
$x = 10 => 13M AGLD (~40% of 32M)
$x = 20 => 26M AGLD (~80% of 32M)
Just adding calculations to help determine the amount of extra AGLD to create in this model. Greater than 45-50% inflation could be rejected by the community, but maybe they vote on this number too.
Thanks for this, i like the proposal a lot, i would suggest that smaller amounts to start and AGLD holders can vote for more issuance later if it is used well.
Totally agree here, minting 100% of the supply and giving it all to hodlers makes no sense, we NEED a DAO and we need a tresuary for funds to drive adoption and sponsor sub projects etc.
Growth is key to becoming THE metaverse currency!
My personal vote is to add 50% to the overall supply for growth and burning the keys to cap the funds afterwards
I like the sentiment of a community/governance controlled DAO.
Instead of new supply I’d say that any derivative projects that want to be recognized by the DAO would require AGLD for certain actions, i.e. imagine AGLD for unbundled, or for a reroll on stats, and the AGLD flows into the DAO.
The initial Loot has become a symbol, similar to a VIP, while the regular loot will be a kind of civilian player.
More mloot is just address data, not more people’s contribution as well as consensus.
It is more important to issue a portion of the AGLD increment as a reward to encourage all new loots who have contributions to join the loot effort. For example more developers, more gamers, more writers. Not a bunch of people who mint a lot of mloot waiting to collect and Dump it.
The notion of building a grants organization to fund projects aligned with the initial enzyme that is the sweet Ethereum LOOT is fine and dandy, but why does there have to be the excuse added in that a grants organization is justified because of this expansion pack mLOOT.
Changing the monetary policy of a token because of a worthy policy goal, advancing ecosystem growth, is not going to scale over time.
Each time there’s a new valid policy aim for the protocol, every person who risked capital has to re-assess the distribution mechanics of the token? That’s nightmares waiting to happen.
Grant DAOs that have thrived and struggled in defi projects like AAVE and SNX emerged in the aftermath of strong product market fit and brand identity. Maybe I’m wrong though, just sharing some thoughts, thanks for having me, all!
Thanks for the thoughtful proposal. Completely agree that we need to both incentivize mLOOT holders to come on board and future proof the LOOT/AGLD project."
To do this, I believe we need to arm the LOOT project with some ammo to fund future LOOT (protocol) development, marketing, BD, etc. – just like a “normal” project would be funded with a token treasury!. The way to do this is to mint a measured amount of tokens to the AGLD treasury and to dedicate them to future protocol growth, including the onboarding of the mLOOT holders and the payment of future contributors to the LOOT ecosystem.
Doing this is hard because we face two hard questions:
How much dilution will we, as AGLD holders, accept to incentivize the growth of the “LOOT protocol”, including bringing on new “partners” like the mLOOT holders?
This is basically the same question Yearn faced when it did a fair lunch and there were no tokens left to left to pay the dev team. Yearn minted an additional 22% of its outstanding tokens to solve the problem.
How much of the treasury will we devote to onboarding mLOOT holders as “new users”? And what tasks do we want them to complete (“XP”) to claim that AGLD?
*These are the same question any core protocol team faces when it tries to acquire new users – (1) What percent of the treasury should it spend on user acquisition? and (2) How can it use those tokens most effectively?
As Avi wrote, we can answer these questions one at a time.
@Avi_G Can you share more about how you chose a 40% issuance? And do you have any thoughts on vesting those tokens over time?
My strong instinct is that we’d get the most bang for the buck if for “Proposal 1” we vested the tokens linearly across four years 10/10/10/10. This would slow dilution, encourage engagement and align longer term incentives.
For “Proposal 2,” I’d recommend we ONLY award of AGLD tokens to mLOOT holders who actually engage with LOOT, complete onboarding tasks, and acquire “XP.” We could then award each mLOOT holder more AGLD tokens as they “level up” - which effectively transforms “dilutive” awards of AGLD tokens to mLOOT holders into play-to-earn user acquisition rewards.
I’m also curious for feedback. What does everyone think?
The point of mLoot was to grow the ecosystem and give access to a larger number of people. mLoot holders should still be eligible for at-least some AGLD which will be good for the entire loot project.
100% agreed. In fact, if I were a marketer at LOOT, I’d just view the allocation of AGLD to mLOOT holders as a user acquisition cost!
With one caveat. I’d strongly suggest we award any newly minted AGLD tokens to mLOOT holders ONLY when they complete specific engagement tasks, level up and get “XP”!
Example 1:
mLOOT holder connects wallet to LOOT game - +10 XP
mLOOT holder takes first action in a LOOT DAO “recognized” game - +10 XP
…
mLOOT holder acquires 100 XP - Can redeem for 1 AGLD token
…
mLOOT holder acquired 200 XP - Can redeem for 1 more AGLD token
…
What this does is transform any AGLD minted for mLOOT holders into a play-to-earn user acquisition device. Sounds like a bullish mint, right? @pleurer@ZKTruth.eth
Noting that separation of gov token and currency token can be achieved by letting OG LOOT holders vote in a AGLD/LOOT DAO using LOOT, AGLD for use for in-game currency only. mLOOT could further be used to signal community sentiment on proposals.
I think thinking about this in terms of user acquisition and developer adoption costs is smart. If everyone just starts hoarding then it will be very hard for the community to grow and any interesting network effects to be established, which is IMO the only thing that’s interesting about this project. The fact that it feels open and interoperable is where the power is, not that the original Loot or AGLD holders suddenly have something artificially scarce and valuable.