Deleted thread <<remove>>

Proposals Protocol
33

Appreciate the reply. Am quite excited for this!

1 Like
34

Iā€™m happy to think if we are able to (temporarily) simplify the proposal by using IgniteDAO or have the ZIL being managed by Ignite to distribute or burn the gZIL. It will be a bit more centralized in the beginning but could perhaps save time and simplify things. Torch wallet could also be used for distribution in that case.

1 Like
35

Imho the proposal is overly complicated and can be stripped down to:

  1. 30% of burned ZIL fees shall be used to buy back GZIL from ZilSwap.
  2. Acquired GZIL shall be removed from circulation.

The rest of the proposal is extremely confusing and unclear to me what problem you even want to solve with that.

For now, I suggest separating the proposal into two independent ones. The first, as outlined above with the two steps (1.) and (2.), and a second proposal about the idea of bonded gzil and so onā€¦

Divide and conquer :wink:

I also suggest coming up with some block diagrams visually explaining your proposal. I am hardly able to follow what you are talking about.

BR,
Julian

P.S.: Thanks for the efforts you put into the proposal. Highly appreciated! :slight_smile:

38

Thanks for the infographic, looks good. :slight_smile:

One question remains: Once the stable coins are received by the treasury contract, who is in control of these funds? How can these funds be accessed? Can gZIL holders vote on what happens with these funds or is it controlled centralized by Zilliqa team?

BR,
Julian

1 Like
40

ā€œIn this measure the stable coins will be reserved as non-native treasury for purposes of governance voting ā€¦ā€

This should be explained in much more detail, i.e. ā€œA smart contract that allows approving of treasury transactions by gZIL holders in a fully decentralized manner.ā€

42

This is interesting but we need to think of ways to deploy this without any need for a protocol level upgrade. I know @maqstik @junhaotan have been discussing things as well. Ideally, short term, its best to do it ā€˜centralizedā€™ through a multisig and buy/burn those gZILs.

1 Like
44

and also, thank you!

45

I think this is a great idea, just not too sure about the implementation of this. Furthermore this could extend to something sort of like Olympus Pro (Introducing Olympus Pro. A paradigm shift in the way protocolsā€¦ | by OlympusDAO | Sep, 2021 | Medium), where protocols can purchase bonds with their LPs. Not sure how itā€™s going to work on Zilliqa since we donā€™t have LP tokens but having protocol owned liquidity I believe will be beneficial to the projects launching on Zil in the long run anyway.

1 Like
47

Well writtenšŸ‘

Yes, the more coherent and well thought out the proposal is (from all angles) the easier it becomes to discuss.

1 Like
48

This proposal is excellent, but we have an issue with no one voting or likely know how to vote.

If the quorum is unmet, I would recommend the same proposal to be launched with a longer time frame to about 3-6 months and require Zilliqa to help get people to know how to basic, VOTE! Even if itā€™s against, we would be happy to see participation!

1 Like
49

The ENS DAO requires a 1% quorum for normal votes and a 5% quorum for constitution changes.

I think these are more reasonable figures as there are and always will be many reasons why $gZIL holders cannot or do not vote.

I could imagine something similar for Zilliqa.

  1. Ecosystem enhancements (normal votes): 1% quorum
  2. Core protocol changes: 5% quorum