This thread addresses the order of operations behind LIP-5.
Because of the diversity of ideas, LIP-5 should be broken up into two proposals.
V1 genesis ethlizards get an allocation in the DAO.
if that vote passes we vote on LIP-5b
LIP -5b: How much of a multiplier should genesis ethlizards receive?
b) 2x (with one of the allocations going to our charity wallet).
d) 3x (with one of the allocations going to our charity wallet).
simple. concise. straight forward. all wishes from no allocation to 3x allocation see their chance at the polls and everyone is represented.
I would take out the word “multiplier” from the LIP-5a for a more neutral statement:
Should V1 genesis ethlizards get an allocation in the DAO?
Also you are talking allocation, but the LIP should clarify voting power as well. I personally am open to the allocation multiplier, but much less to the voting power multiplier, so i would like it detailed to be sure I understand what I’m voting for here.
2x with one that goes to charity is growing on me. As we wanted to implement a % of profits going to charity, this solution effectively shoot 2 birds with one stone. Effectively it’s a 2% revenue stream for charity (100/5250)
Agreed that’s better language SeaGolem. I’ll edit rn.
Agree with your point of view.
imo This could take out the “greed” aspect from our discussion, reflects the variety of opinions and fits the complexity in a straightforward proposal and order of operations.
As it stands, some of what is written in this directly contradicts language in the LIP 5 proposal. That proposal was specifically written from an equality perspective to end current debates and to avoid any future conflicts or divisions. (DAO procedure would first execute voting for LIP 5 before considering what is written here according to LIP 4)
However, as I wrote before if Gen 1 want an extra utility that doesn’t negatively impact V2 holders, (like this cool idea of an allocation that goes to charity) then sure we can add it in to LIP 5 and I’m happy to continue championing that proposal with this kind of addition. I’m all for creating value in the Gen 1 set, especially if it even indirectly benefits the DAO.
I agree with Kieran that had this all happened in the beginning it could have been sorted very differently. Now the conversation comes from an existing DAO, expanding and sharing it’s resources to additional NFT token holders (of the same family). With that we must consider the wellbeing of the entire DAO in any proposals or changes we make moving forward.
Don"t want to add a long new thread - just don"t want that my opinion is buried in the other chat. I partially agree with your statement (Gen1 utilities, in here your paragraph 2) but disagree wether it is too late or not for adjustments.
IMO the existing DAO is still very very young and in a phase to find a sustainable definition in a Lizard Ecosystem - as mentioned before, (imo) yes - it would have been easier to make everything clear from the very beginning; no - it is not too late, cause actually the most revenues generated for the DAO didn"t come from the work of the DAO (this will probably change in the future, but now?) and we are imo still free to adjust definitions. I truly don"t understand the focus of our discussions on the existing funds of the DAO - who “earned” this funds and now wants to defend them from illegitimate participation? (I also speak as a Gen2 holder, without WL btw)
I have posted an update to LIP-5 Genesis Utility thread. It would be helpful if people can direct their participation there.