Proposal for Vote on Burning Newly Minted FLASH Tokens

So I didn’t realize this from before, But those tokes weren’t arbitrarily minted like your Implying. Their his own rewards that Zack just never claimed, that was the flash his wallet earned from pooling XIO/ETH. In the same way that we all earned flash out the gate for holding/pooling XIO.

What is a little bit disconcerting is the fact that we were originally told that these were never going to be touched, and now all the sudden they were claimed. There should have most definitely been a vote before that, or at least a bit more clarity. But honestly dumping all of them into the index in my opinion is not a bad thing.

Where did you get this information from? I’ve never heard about that before.

As a non flash holder, I feel the success of flash will still lead to the appreciation of xio, and therefore think that flash should not be diluted. The short term gains that would result just are not comparable to the long term benefit of keeping the flash supply small. Flash will be and example and incentives holding xio in the process.

I agree with @sharpen9257 on this, we shouldn’t be overly concerned with these tokens as they are tokens that were previously not claimed willfully. These tokens are not cause for concern, as they will not be entering the market or part of the circulating supply, especially if a large portion is put into the index.

If the community does want to burn tokens, we should only do so after having all the details about the tokens and the potential adverse effects of burning any of them

I disagree with your post. I am with you on the thought that some portion of the newly minted tokens should be burned but your proposal is about burning 90% - 95% which seems to be your personal opinion. Why not give everyone the choice and decide for themselves and vote .

Some might want 25% in index fund and some might want 50% . Also, your premise of “conflict of interest” is highly insulting for people (who hold XIO and flash too) who have been working on this project for more than a year . Most XIO holder i think are holding FLASH as well and everyone wants FLASH to succeed.

Also your comment about XIO holders voting only is kinda pointing that you did not do any research. From the beginning it was made very clear that XIO is the governance token, and if you want to take part in governance you can buy XIO yourself as well.
Are you going to buy DIGG and then go tell to BADGER community/team that DIGG holders should be allowed to vote in all governance voting as well ?

3 Likes

Not a rant - very logical. Optics are important. In governance infancy, err on the side of generosity. Margins can increase for future projects, but don’t scare aware future projects by what can perceived as greediness.

2 Likes

I’m sorry if you’re offended, that is not the intention. But there is a direct conflict of interest for those who own a much larger stack of XIO than flash. Adding flash to the index is beneficial for XIO at the cost of the value of flash. If you hold only XIO, you want to add as much flash as possible, which degrades the value of flash. Surely you can’t argue there is no conflict here?
I’ve already seen one comment from someone who said they aren’t that worried about dilution because they don’t hold much flash.

I did do my research. To be honest, this was an edge case I hadn’t considered because I didn’t envision a scenario where having a token governing another token can cause a conflict in this way. And granted that’s an oversight on my part. If there is a way that a project being governed can be negatively affected to the gain of those governing, there should probably some kind of mechanism whereby the governed token has a say.

By the way. I’m not saying a lot of people won’t have the best intentions for both projects. But there will be some that won’t have the same mindset as you or others

I hold somewhat equal bags of XIO and FLASH, and tbh I would still vote for the FLASH tokens to be burned. As an XIO holder I get: 1. Any airdropped tokens for free, 2. The XLP, and 3. The XSI. Those are more than enough Imo, and diluting the FLASH supply is not needed at all. I would say that 500k FLASH is enough for the index, and maybe 100k can be flashstaked for a year, and the flashstake reward to be used for some serious agressive marketing in the next months or so.

In Order to stay independent and ‘decentralized’, the newly minted FLASH should at least be burned by 90% or even all of them.
The integrity of the core team should be as neutral as possible.
The move by Dash to claim flash at the last day possible (31.03.) although they shouldn’t have been touched in the first place and the fact that he stated in the Youtube Video on March 11 a proposal should be held to vote for it, didn’t even take place.
The resulting minting of nearly 10M FLASH tokens without any community governance intervention questions the meaning and existence of XIO as the governance token at all.
With proof-of-work this would never be possible.

Guys, consider this:

The minted Flash is not liquid on the market when in the Index fund.
Neither is it staked in the Flash app.
Because it is not staked, it increases the FPY for everyone.

===> Effectively no one is diluted + everyone earns more on the Dapp.

Where is the conflict of interest?

You can’t increase FPY by adding a bunch of flash to the pot without devaluing flash itself.

Else why dont we just move to V3 and print 1 trillion flash so that we can all enjoy 1,000% FPY?

Because it’s not sustainable and the value would crash. Thats what’s happening here but on a smaller scale.

There always has to be a trade off. This is what a lot of people are seemingly glossing over.

1 Like

I think there’s something to be learned from Fridge Token team. Not sure where this topic would best fit, but they seem to be developing an interesting model for raising capital, mitigating conflict of interest & liquidity.
https://thefridge.finance/home

The conflict of interest:

  1. It was minted without governance.
  2. v1 was not meant to enter circulation, why should it be different with v2, just because a core member changed his mind suddenly?
  3. A dev from slack left
  4. It is a single person with ~10M in FLASH and simultaneously a core member
  5. If its not meant to be staked why minting it in the first place?

There is certainly some complexity here. I have read the thread and somewhat understand the governance. For the record, I hold XIO but no Flash. But having a growing stash of Aqua and plan on being a long time hodler of XIO because I love the concept and look forward to future successful projects.
So what I think I understand (and from the outset it would have good to point this out for noobs like me, so correct me where I’m wrong):

  • Zachary D has a big stash of XIO (personally?), and legitimately staked those and as a result has a large number of Flash tokens that he only redeemed last minute.
  • he previously stated he would not mint these (although entitled to?) without a governance vote, but this did not happen.
  • community wants to burn his newly minted tokens, keeping a bunch (500k) for the the treasury (even though he is entitled to them no more than anyone else?).
    Personally as I don’t hold flash I’m not inclined to vote to keep its price afloat, but far more importantly I want to keep confidence in XIO so that makes me want to see Flash succeed far more. So we’re asking to burn tokens that rightfully belong to a founder? Surely this dilution was expected and would be understood by the larger community?
    I feel I’m making some incorrect assumptions here…please correct me.