@sadar:
Changed it based on your proposal. I think we can even merge it and go on with that as it allows for both while having a simple default to launch on.
1 Like
I also think portfolio is most simple and best strategy to start. I lean towards Arb but don’t mind Eth launch as there’s no real way to tell which is best.
My main qualm is with 1 ETH minimum. It feels like we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot with that and doesn’t fit with the lunarpunk narrative that “anyone can join.”
The next raise would probably have to have a higher min requirement than 10% increase. Maybe it would keep doubling up to 1 ETH.
0.1 ETH → 0.2ETH → 0.4ETH → 0.8 ETH → 1 ETH
Also, we haven’t received much community feedback on this min raise investment requirement outside of core team.
2 Likes
We shall not be doubling a price of shares for the sake of “inclusivity” in the first round. Who would enter 3 months later paying 200% price to get a share?
Also as more investments coming up, the share entry price shall be slightly exponential (ie 10% of previous → compounding curve) not logarithmic (starting with +100%, next time +50%, next time +33%).
Seeing how the discussion goes, We will start to add changes to shape it as a portfolio default launch strategy with the option to start new subDAOs if the community wishes so in the future.
A flexible model with optionality fir different scenarios, based on a clear default for the launch.
I’m thinking a lot about this point and I’m unsure how much 1 ETH will exclude. I think you bring an important point. Interested to hear more opinions about it to get an sense of what ppl want.
Actually I see that you doubling all the time, that makes the curve even steeper and high threshold, as the 3rd event (6 months lifetime) is 4x price for the new members and on fifth event you asking new members to pay 16x for the same share.
An interesting thread, something to think about: https://twitter.com/chaserchapman/status/1630265203894939649
1 Like
I think you bring a very interesting point and the thread shows some willingness to evaluate honestly and self-criticize our work.
I’ve been following quite silently all of the discussion as I’m new to tokenomics and governance topics; in the beginning i also saw 1ETH as initial tribute to be a little too high, but then again i would have never imagined that the low end of the raise would be set to 700ETH.
I think that for the public we’re interacting now with 1ETH seems doable. But there haven’t been that many replies except from core so i would be interested in what sentinels and other lunarpunks have to say.
For the growth of the tribute in next raise events, i agree that the doubling could get very big in a short time so maybe not the best solution.
3 Likes
It would cap at 1 ETH after 0.8ETH in the original idea.
Anyway, this is besides the point. The main point is the min tribute. The raise contribution curve can be easily adjusted.
Today’s community meeting: Minimum tribute decided to be 0.1 ETH based on the feedback.
3 Likes
@ogma I believe you answered my question for 5b. user fees.
Its good to see how the discussion is developing, are there any issues that seem like red flags 
or that we still need to address? Any outstanding questions??
