How do you think, if terms are changing, what options would sound reasonable? Say, would the same allocations with 30% discount off the 30-days TWAP make sense?
I’ve put together a snapshot vote for the proposal — please, send the vote there Snapshot
If you’re choosing “allow the purchase, but with custom terms”, please, share your thoughts here =)
So, another option than adjusting the price is adjusting the vesting schedule.
If the DAO wanted to honor the initial price, because these are strategic/long-term investors, then one thing that can be done is to add the period between when the round closed and when a decision is made on this to the lockup. For example, the round was agreed upon late April. Assuming this is resolved late Sept, this is an extra 6 months, so the format could be 18 (12+6) months lock + 1 year vesting, instead of 12 months lock + 1 year vesting.
This would add some extra assurances to the DAO that the investors are long(er) term aligned. In practice, it’s not clear that locking the tokens for an extra 6 months is a fair tradeoff relative to the LDO price increase since the round, but it is another knob that can be tweaked.
A discount to a 30-day TWAP sounds the most fair.
Even if the angels did not try to get a free option, the project has grown tremendously since the last proposal (6x or so in TVL and I think a bit less in revenue - token price in USD and ETH as well) and allowing people to get in at a stale valuation would not be fair to current holders.
I would be in favor of a proposal that incorporates a reasonable discount to current price while keeping the vesting schedule the same.
Do we know why the angel investors weren’t able to take part within the 1 month period? I’m not particularly sure if it matters to DAO members voting on this, but, some might consider it when voting.
($ equivalent of 100 ETH) 340,000 / 462962.9629629634 = 0.73 , why would we agree to sell LIDO for 73 cents when it’s worth over $5.00?
Let’s not repeat what happened in the initial airdrop and needlessly give away rewards to the whales : Proposal #16 - Retroactive airdrop 0.5% LDO to early stETH users - #35 by nwblhtant
What you see every day is reward LDO, or divide LDO, so the use of LDO besides voting, reward. How to add other values to ensure that prices rise in sync with ecology.
We should consider how to give more value to LDO to achieve a relative balance between supply and demand. Currently, we only see various supplies. Can’t see the practical value of LDO.
I think it would be in the spirit of the previous round to use a discount to TWAP.
Here is a small script to estimate it from Sushi LDO/WETH pair:
Running 'scripts/twap.py::main'... twap = 0.0015968391116729622 eth discount = 30.0% sell = 462962.9629629634 ldo buy = 517.4941565606827 eth
I think another thing to consider is who are the 3 angels that missed their deadline and what contribution have they made to LIDO. If it’s just whales that have done nothing then they should not get anything since it was their responsibility to buy during the agreed upon term. If it was little guys with no money but contributed greatly to LIDO then they should get their well deserved LIDO at $0.73.
Looking at the names list of the Angels https://research.lido.fi/t/proposal-ldo-treasury-diversification-part-2/506 makes me think that most have money and if they were truly committed to LIDO, they would not have had problems buying before their deadline. Again, if it is the issue that it is someone that has contributed greatly and has a genuinely good excuse for missing the deadline, then that is another issue entirely.
I think it’s unfair to EVERY other market participant to do this.
There is already a 5x price increase since the initial diversification procedures.
What value did or do they still bring to the project?
Initial airdrop = 10 day retroactive window, if you missed it tough luck, no possibility of changes, little guy gets shafted. 8 accounts split 2,900,000 LDO.
This time = 30 day window, 3 connected people missed it and project is wildly successful? No problem, deadline extended and here’s more than a million dollar price cushion for you 3 to split.
I’m not opposed to offering a 30% discount from TWAP, it somewhat honors the original terms of the deal.
It would likely be very upsetting to many community members if the angels were allowed to buy in at the original price which is now a heavy discount from current value. Without an explanation as to why the angels couldn’t buy within the 30 day period, you could argue that they decided not to buy at the time and are now changing their mind after the price has more than 5x’d from the discounted price.
I see Tim Beiko is one of the angel investors on the angel list and just used his 5,000,000 LDO tokens to vote yes and payout LDO at 0.73 cents to 3 unknown angels on the same list. I think this is why more transparency is needed on the details of who and why the angels were not able to buy during their given time frame. It would be terrible if this vote left LIDO holders with any lingering suspicions that whales are voting to give themselves or their buddies more LDO at huge discounts.
I suggest the angels not be part of the vote on this since this might not be viewed as proper by the general public unaware of the actual reputations of the individuals involved.
We need the names of the 3 Angels and their contribution to the LIDO DAO thus far.
Else, we cannot vote on this imo. It is too controversial.
Yeah, I would like to know more details about the 3 investors
I will be voting NO at this time.
I feel like we should know more about the angels.
Have they committed:
-been active in governance and discord/telegram
Or are the just really great guys that just deserve it?
Angels(took the description from the proposal):
Ameen Soleimani from SpankChain
Ethereum researcher #1
A founder of a fast-growing DeFi project
shared what I could share in ^
To add some transparency here:
First, those tokens aren’t mine, but delegated by Jordan Fish (can’t seem to tag him…). I don’t have close to 5m LDO, unfortunately.
Second, I voted “terms tbd”, mostly because I think we should find some way to compensate the angels, but that clearly the options proposed seem contentious.
I’m fine with this in theory, but in practice it might be hard to achieve Quorum w/o it. The main reason for my vote was to signal something so the discussion wouldn’t stall.