The core objective of 0IP-10 is for the community to vote on the total amount of protocol token rewards in the next epoch.
There will be regular voting on the total amount of rewards distributed per epoch to keep the total supply in check once the protocol token launches as begun in 0IP-1.
0IP-10 continues the participation of the 0VIX community in the decision-making of the pre-mining mechanics in the following epoch. This comprises of the following vote:
- Lower the total amount of the protocol token paid out in the next epoch from 45k to 40k per epoch to keep token supply in check.
Reducing VIX issuance will reduce future sell-pressure and therefore corresponding negative price movement. At the same time, this would reward early users that have participated in the pre-mining program since the very beginning as their rewards will have a greater value than if pre-mining continued to have high emissions.
Low emissions-to-revenue ratio is important for a protocol’s business viability. It is in all $VIX holders’ interest for the 0VIX DAO to reach a healthy ratio here for the sake of stability, in combination with a veTokenomics sustainability. Emission-adjusted revenue has become an important metric used to identify projects with long term promise. A good example of a positive revenue/token emission ratio is GMX. It is imperative to manage a token economy that fosters growth while bootstrapping without being at the expense of token holders long term.
Due to the FTX collapse and subsequent market conditions there wasn’t the right opportunity to launch VIX in the past months thus pre-mining was extended. Total pre-mined VIX emissions need to be kept within reasonable bounds to limit the dilution of the protocol token.
Therefore, we propose a reduction to the total amount of VIX rewards distributed across all markets.
- We propose to lower the amount of protocol tokens paid out in pre-mined rewards per epoch from 45k to 40k.
The options with the most votes will be adopted.
- 2 days
- Accept the proposal: Yes
- Further discussion needed