Tokenomics WG proposes to mint an additional 10% new vested VITA for new strategic contributors.
VitaDAO’s community has been approached by many mission-aligned and strategic institutional biotech and web3 entities. Purchasing VITA on DEXs is impossible for these entities or in this volume. Working group members believe it would be beneficial to grow the DAO treasury and include these entities.
We propose to split this decision into multiple proposals.
Decision in VDP-11: Does VitaDAO want to mint an additional 10% of tokens, bringing total circulating supply to 40%?
In a first step, these tokens would be transferred to a ringfenced multisig, with its sole purpose to enable treasury growing transactions with entities approved by VITA holders.
Once this decision is made, working group members and VitaDAO community could engage those entities and 1) prepare an institutional raise and 2) prepare a whitelisted on-chain auction. In either cases, we propose these newly issued tokens are vesting. If the decision is no then the DAO expends no further energy here and we continue as is.
Vitalians sit at the helm of a global neo-longevity renaissance - within months, our network has attracted some of the brightest minds in the field and we are just beginning. With VDP-11, we seek to rapidly accelerate this progress.
Great to hear there are expert contributors looking to get involved with this fantastic movement and community!
To better understand the rationale and impact of the proposed 10% mint, it might be beneficial to add some clarity around the following points:
1.Where does this group of contributors come from and what characterizes them?
a. What is to be expected apart from the capital contribution (if anything)?
2.What is the long-term intention with regards to anonymity?
a. Will it not be difficult to support the DAO in an advisory, network, or distribution capacity if they aren’t making their affiliation with VitaDAO known?
3.How does the size of the aggregate contribution compare against Vita’s current market cap?
10% of total supply is a lot, especially when compared to the circulating supply.
4.Is it correctly understood that the contributors will receive APY on their vita as it vests?
If so, what is the APY? Current token holders cannot stake for APY but must enter liquidity pools thus taking on risk of impermanent loss.
a. If this is a large, passive amount of capital, perhaps it could be put to use in a way that would provide $VITA more liquidity?
I think this is a great opportunity for the DAO to gain more support from institutional and high-conviction members.
In order to ensure that the culture of the DAO is maintained while accelerating its ability to operate, I think the following modifications should be made
all token holders should be able to lock in their VITA in a similar contract to earn staking rewards for a time horizon of their choosing
all owners of these 21 accounts should be encouraged to identify themselves (anon accounts are okay of course) so the community can engage with them, or at least listen to their perspectives on social media / Twitter
the VITA DAO governance tool should be expanded to include (a) a delegation option and (b) a no-vote penalty with (c) low gas voting. Details below.
(a) is required so high-value passive account owners can empower active contributors with their tokens, (b) tokens that are not used for voting should be penalized (e.g. staked VITA that is not used for voting should not be able to earn staking rewards)
(c) high gas fees are stopping junior members of our community from actively contributing. Building the tools to enable low gas voting with staked tokens (polygon etc.) is an important step to ensure continued shared decision-making within the community - especially when we decide to have more powerful members join us.
I think VDP-11 is a phenomenal opportunity and should include an explicit mentioning of points (1), (2), and (3) together with subpoints a-c on-chain.
From the initial post I gathered that these 21 contributors are anon/unknown right now, but by the time the proposal goes to a vote, all voters would at least know who those contributors are (twitter anon or otherwise) to be able to confirm them. Not sure if I understood it right, though. Might need some clarification.
But I guess you don’t want either a single organisation or few individuals to have a too big of a pie of tokens, especially if you consider the price is still low, it can become a drag in the future. This could still be acceptable if they bring recognition through their funding or expertise.
This was a really good comment Ariella! My initial proposal was a shot in the dark to spark a conversation - we’ve now come up with a much better structure. Really appreciate your input.
X = 10% of all tokens
Y = treasury funds + expertise from those entities
We should know their identities, but I propose we do a twofold mechanism 1) institutions with known identities that join the DAO and 2) an onchain whitelisted auction
The major risk is changing our community culture through additional entities, but that is unlikely to be a problem because the community should align and vote on those entities.
The more realistic downside is change in our processes, but this could be really positive as VitaDAO professionalizes itself into an industry facing organisation, attracting more talent, capital and resources to democratize longevity.