VDP-11 New 10% VITA Mint for Treasury & Strategic Contributors


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.

:arrow_right: More info and discussion on potential next steps that are beyond the scope of VDP-11 and not part of this proposal.

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.

  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree (with revisions)
  • Disagree

0 voters


Full support! i think it is a great idea to find strong strategic supporters for the DAO that are aligned with long-term vision and mission.



reasons why this is a bad idea:

  • dilution of vita governance
  • receiving more contributions than we can deploy for 12-18 months
  • distribution to new powerful entities who may skew governance

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?


10% is indeed a lot of tokens.

1 Like

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.


I really like Niklas additional points. Identifying at least via anon account would be helpful. That way interactions can be started and the community can actively collaborate with them.


I love the idea of both bringing in strategic partners and raising more for the treasury.

A few questions that come to mind:

  • I don’t know exactly how current tokens are structured. I assume that these are being minted from the pool that’s allocated for treasury, not increasing the total supply cap. Is that right?
  • What price would these people buy in at? Is it the market price, a set discount, or some other mechanism?
  • How do we choose who these 21 people are? Is it open to anyone who is willing to buy at such a large quantity, or is there some selection process?
  • What’s the thinking for the anon piece? It seems like a huge benefit is the strategic input and collaboration — it seems like this may be wasted with anons.

After talking to some people, I think I’m starting to get it… but if someone could phrase things more simply for all of us here in the tokenomics n00b club, that might really help get more support.

Some suggestions:

We are giving {person? org?} X in exchange for Y.

X = 10% of tokens that are currently inaccessible on exchanges? 10% of all tokens? APY based rewards (somehow?)?

Y = Funds/USD? Expertise? Holding tokens without the option to freely sell in order to {stabilize token price? Something else?}

We {do/do not?} already know who/what these 21 entities will be. The reason they need to be anonymous is :record_button::record_button::record_button:, not because they’re super shady or ashamed or be associated with our community.

The major risk is :record_button::record_button::record_button:, but that is unlikely to be a problem because :record_button::record_button::record_button:.

The more realistic downside is :record_button::record_button::record_button:, but this is more than compensated for by the upsides, which are :record_button::record_button::record_button:.



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.


insightful additions, especially the second point ( identification via Twitter handle)


From my layman’s view, I think this is a good idea, you don’t want to restrain capital and (does it have to be always mandatory) expertise inflow.

“Receiving more contributions than we can deploy for 12-18 months” => is a good point.

The 4 major pitfalls in my opinion for this are:

  • Governance issues.

  • Diluting or giving the impression to dilute the token with new tokens.

  • Be absolutely certain about the Lockup period and a yearly allowance (see Jed McCaleb and Ripple).

  • Regulatory clarity (securities).


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.


updated it to represent the latest discussion we have to focus on roughly 5 high value add investors!


Updated again following discussion with @theobtl


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.

– Thank you! Loved this thinking style


Great that the proposal has been updated for further clarification!

Sounds like a fantastic opportunity for the DAO to grow both our community and influence (via increased treasury), with this VDP being the first step.

Updated my vote to strongly agree.


Are the conditions (buy price, APY %) different depending on how long you choose to vest? What’s the incentive for the investor to choose 5Y over 1Y?


Just a random thought, but would buying back tokens on the open market by the Dao for those organizations makes any sense (wouldn’t improve treasury).

Do they have preferential conditions, how is the rate determined.

Overall, I think deploying some of that treasury is good.

1 Like

Also apart from locked funds for a specific time period you can imagine something like:

Unable to sell more than 0.5% of average daily volume “for each day of the week, including weekends and holidays”.

During the second and third years of the agreement, this amount grows to 0.75%, while it accounts for 1.0% in the fourth year. Beyond the fourth year, the amount is set to 1.5%.

(this is from an existing agreement)

Released with contracts.