LizCoin discussion

[Entity]

No problem and I appreciate you bringing these questions into play to create these discussions.

I agree with your thoughts, it doesn’t fully explain how the initial ETH will be funded to go into the LP (DEX) or orderbook (CEX). To try and explain it, usually in any LP, this initial ETH is funded by the team, that is called “bootstrapping” - or providing the initial ETH to launch the LP or orderbook. From there, it is expected to provide “yield” rewards or a %/APY to stakers to incentivize them to put their valuable ETH into the pool.

Lizcoin bootstrapping:

1. So I would assume that the 10% of LP would come from the DAO treasury, using 10% of the DAO’s treasury of ETH to bootstrap the pool (DEX) or orderbook (CEX).

From there to further motivate participants to include ETH into an LP pool, you are talking about an extremely complicated topic. Their are two arguments for providing ETH into an LP pool:

1. The yield-APY% is insanely high, so people will jump in, grab those yield rewards and jump out when its low. Obviously this is not sustainable both medium or long term.

2. The token is a “protocol” enabler or helper, as in, something like IMX or Loopring, or any L2 based token, or Chainlink that provides oracle support to Ethereum, are “protocol” enablers that actually improve on the base protocol. This creates a value attached to them, so it creates an attractiveness for people to put their ETH or other tokens into the LP pool because the user may feel the “risk” is low and the rewards or APY% is good enough, since this token has high utility & value, therefore it will be there in the long term and not some ponzi scheme.

My opinion: So is Lizcoin a token that is protocol enabler or helper creating immense value to Ethereum or any other block-chain project? No, not at all. The value that Lizcoin will have is the potential of RevDis being paid in Lizcoin. So when RevDis comes, the DAO will swap it to Lizcoin, and Lizcoin should increase in value as they swap from ETH → Lizcoin.

So will users put their valuable ETH into a Liz\ETH LP or orderbook? No, 99% of users would rather keep their Ethereum instead of trying to grab a 5-10% apy on staking Lizcoin with their ETH.

Is 10% enough to bootstrap a LP, let alone split that between a DEX & CEX? I definitely believe this is not enough, but the team have advised in the document that they are willing to change that number depending on the community’s thoughts. End of the day, this 10% or its increases will come from the DAO’s ETH treasury to provide liquidity to an LP or orderbook that will, IMO, eventually fail sooner rather than later. It will be a waste of our DAO’s ETH.

[Entity]

Once again Steve, you bring up a very confusing issue that isn’t fully clarified by the document and I appreciate you bringing this issue up, I will try my best to answer what I think the method is based on the document:

1. Your NFT and the total Ethlizard NFT value will be immediately converted into Tokens - 10% of total Lizcoin supply which equates to 500,000,000 tokens (500 Million). This includes Genesis Ethlizards.

2. Each Ethlizard would receive (in both total snapshots of 10%): 93,457 Lizcoin tokens. Genesis Ethlizards will receive: 186,915 Lizcoin tokens (2x).

Those numbers are calculated by adding the NFT collection amounts of Ethlizards 5150x + Genesis Lizards 200x (2x amount since Genesis receive 2x revdis) = 5350. Divide 500 million by 5350 = 93,457.

So when both snapshots happen, you should receive that amount of Lizcoin tokens per NFT you hold.

NOTE: This does not take into account staking rewards (30%) which will increase the amount of tokens you will receive.

1. So then, what value do those tokens have?

Answer: The value is entirely dependent on the LP pool price (DEX) or orderbook price (CEX). This is called price discovery. Each LP pool technically has their own price or price discrepancies between different LP’s (DEX) and orderbooks (CEX) and this is what creates arbitrage opportunities. So from the get-go, there will be a $ per liz based on the amount of ETH + Lizcoin the DAO decides to put in (ETH from treasury) the Liquidity pool based on the ratio of ETH + Lizcoin. From there, the market will decide.

2. So how am I being paid RevDis?

Answer: When the DAO invests $50k and than liquidates those tokens for $500k ETH (increase of 10x), the DAO than swaps their ETH for Lizcoin. This creates upward pressure and a higher price for the Lizcoin token. So technically the DAO isn’t paying you directly, but they are creating a higher price per lizcoin through that method. It is up to you, the user, to choose when you want to liquidate your tokens and get rid of them at that certain price. You may choose to hold them for longer if you believe the price per lizcoin will be much higher in the future.

Conclusion: So your not actually getting paid “Revdis” in quarterly or annually time periods, but instead your “Revdis” is reflected in the token price. And the “RevDis” compounds its value through a higher price of Lizcoin as the DAO liquidates than swaps to Lizcoin. So in reality, your NFT becomes useless. It’s value has been transformed completely into a token, and that token is at the mercy of the LP price (DEX) or orderbook price (CEX).

Please someone correct me if I’m wrong or assuming too much with not enough evidence. Thanks

[Entity]

NOTE: Deleted original post since it was a reply to @SteveNX post accidentally.

Liz token issues regarding liquidity & price impact/profits, added utility to help token price, devaluation of our NFT value and securities regulation. NFT’s as an alternative solution to both problems of security and payment:

Liquidity and price impact:

The document states there will be 10% of the total Lizcoin supply dedicated to both CEX + DEX liquidity pools. Based on this:

1. If there is large liquidity in the pool (Lizcoin-ETH pool), the damage or impact of price will be minimal from first in first out users liquidating funds to receive the highest amount of profits → So users may opt into this choice to avoid KYC and take the small hit to profits when converting
2. If there is small liquidity in the pool (Lizcoin-ETH pool), the damage or impact of price will be massive from first-in-first-out users liquidating for higher profits → So users may opt out of this choice and go with KYC and be paid in ETH/USDT
3. Regardless of large liquidity or small liquidity in the pools (Lizcoin-ETH pool) and price impact of first-in-first-out users liquidating for higher profits → Users may opt in KYC to be paid in ETH/USDT instead of lizcoin

Added utility to positively impact token price (such as whitelists) and liquidity counter-argument:

The buying pressure a WL utility or multiple utilities will either:

1. Not have enough impact to affect the price, due to a large liquidity pool which gives market confidence in that pool or token therefore affecting it if people are willing to hold that token. Therefore liquidity is the king here again and is more important than added utilities & the added utility and subsequent buying pressure will not affect the price enough to make an impact as the liquidity pool is too large to be impacted. This is still a healthy view of adding utility for positive buy pressure but with a healthy liquid pool, it makes the buying pressure almost pointless.

OR

2. The added utility and subsequent buying pressure having a large impact due to the low liquidity pool, which doesn’t give market confidence and becomes scary and volatile, therefore people will want to sell that token ASAP. Therefore liquidity is king here again and the added buy pressure may even hit the liquidity pool as buying pressure makes the pool volatile. This is a silly argument to make, but it follows the logic of my below conclusion.

Conclusion: Realistically you don’t want large increases or decreases in the price of that token, the more “stable” it is, the more confidence it has. It shouldn’t be used for speculation since we are getting paid RevDis in it. We want to be able to know and predict how much we are making.

It becomes all very messy, hard to manage and predict and an up-hill battle to add utility to add onto the buying pressure, where-in reality its the liquidity that is the forefront of a healthy LP pool and the tokens volatility levels.

NOTE:

The price or compounding of our profits will be directly correlated to the upward buy and value pressure of Lizcoin being swapped with ETH as our DAO increases its profits. So as the DAO turns $50k of ETH into $500k of ETH, some of that ETH will be used to swap to Lizcoin, therefore creating a higher value for Lizcoin each time this happens. This is how our Lizcoin tokens are “compounded” through higher rewards. The aim here (if you believe in the project) is to hold all your tokens and sell them when the price is high after multiple investments & liquidations after a few years.

This is a completely different logic to the NFT idea of “Buy NFT → Stake NFT → Receive RevDis → RevDis compounds over time”. With the NFT idea, we are not selling our NFT’s, we are receiving a constant supply of profits which compound over time as the project grows and DAO treasury increases.

This is a completely different thesis to our original plan and investment.

Devaluation of our NFT and transforming the value into a token:

@G4C_Mindya_HYPE also wrote a nice comment in the governance talk regarding point A) Devaluation based on the documents proposing the 10% lizard token release and 15% founder token release. I will quote it below:

"But what I read with the actual proposition is that our lizards are worth 5% + 5% (10%) of the total Lizcoin and removing the utility from the NFT to give it to the coin? It would mean that our 5250 Lizards are worth 10% of coin, and team are worth 15% ? It would mean the team is worth 7875 Lizard during the coin distribution ?

Our lizards are being devalued in the short-term while the founders cut gets an increase in value in the short term. In the long term, due to the 30% additional staking rewards, this almost evens out besides the people that don’t actually stake for the maximum duration to get the maximum rewards.

Not only are we transforming the value of our NFT’s into tokens, we are completely losing the “collectability” value of having an NFT. Our NFT comes in two values, 1) The collectability and art 2) The RevDis it provides by holding an NFT. No-one gives a crap about a token, its all the same.

Lizcoin as a security/regulation based token:

Gary Gensler of the SEC (American securities exchange commission) and many other politicians and experts have all argued that any token that has or had a pre-determined sale (ICO,IDO) or allocations (give x% of tokens to founders, team, advisors etc) will be labelled a security. That’s the only reason why Bitcoin won’t be, because they had a fair distribution from the get go with no pre-allocation, no ICOS, no public sale, no IDO sale etc and has been touted as such by many in the field, including Gary Gensler of the SEC. It does not have anything to do with node decentralization.

The logic is as stated by Gary Gensler “The fact is, most crypto tokens involve a group of entrepreneurs raising money from the public in anticipation of profits. That’s the hallmark investment contract or security under our jurisdiction,”

That logic includes Ethereum and will include Lizcoin. Lizcoin will only take LONGER to be labelled a security. It’s a band-aid or work-around to stall time, it doesn’t solve the issue and it may well hurt us even more in the long run if the SEC and other regulators label Lizcoin as a security, which will require us all to KYC to receive profits. What is an alternative solution?

Source: SEC chair Gary Gensler says crypto assets are securities and thus ‘core to our remit’ - Financial News

Alternative solution: NFT dividends and DAO buybacks provided by @DVSTR_soon_Polemos :

“Ok hear me out. It’s also a bit risky but it has no need for coin. Once a investment is terminated by the DAO, we count the profit that is to be divided amongst the LIZ NFT stakers ( number of NFT you stake + duration = a certain % of the profits) The profits / the shares that are to be payed out to liz stakers, we create new NFT’s on L2 IMX, for example LIZTAILS NFT. Those NFT of each the same value (Everyone will be able to claim a different number of those NFT based on how many liz they stake and for how long, but all the LIZtail NFT will have a certain pre-derminated value) once you have claimed those NFT, you put them for sale on IMX marketplace ( @cryptish.eth ) and the DAO VAULT buys them back at the pre-determined price. We only lose 2% due to IMX protocol fees.”

What is the logic here of avoiding SEC regulations + being paid in ETH at the same time + avoiding the creation of a token?

1. The DAO is not paying anyone directly.
2. The DAO distributes NFT’s proportionally to what the user “should be earning” per their weighted-staking length.
3. The DAO provides a price-point of the NFTS that will be bought back (profits per liz per weighted staking length). Anyone trying to overprice their NFT to try to earn more, the DAO will not buy back.
4. The DAO buys and burns those NFTS. The buying is done using the seed profits.
5. The user receives dividends (in ETH) from the selling of those NFTS to the DAO

No token involved. No direct payment.

With DVSTR’s above NFT-buyback method, its brilliant because you absolutely eliminate the need for:

1. Liquidity in a token and the token pairing pools - the most important factor when talking about price increase or decreases in a token.
2. Providing additional utility to provide buy pressure to help the price which again, helps the liquidity, which reinforces statement number 1 above.
3. Removing the “first-come-first-serve” profits of holders and that entire mess that comes with a token and liquidating said token for ETH or a stablecoin.
4. Any potential security or regulation concern as Lizcoin may still be labelled as a security, thus making this whole token a pointless endeavour which than forces KYC on users

Conclusion:

Based on the above, I believe the Token has 0 benefits. I also believe it devalues our NFT completely while adding multiple risks which come with a token and its price with a completely different profit distribution thesis.

With the alternative method proposed by DVSTR with the NFT-profit-DAO-Buyback&Burn method, I think its genius for many reasons as listed above, and I will support it in lieu of any token creation.

Thanks

[SeaGolem]

LizCoin Lending Platform:

If the constrains are: we can’t distribute ETH directly and need the LIZ token, but we want a way for the community to get ETH without the risk of the open market, here is the following idea.

The DAO creates its own lending protocol, lending ETH against LizCoin.
The DAO manages the price of the LizCoin inside the lending protocol.
To access the protocol you need to stake lizards*
LizCoin are distributed to the Lizards owners**

Using the lending protocol:
A lizard is staked, allowing the staker to deposit x $LIZ in the protocol as collateral
The staker can now take a loan in ETH up to 100%*** of the $LIZ value, value fixed by the DAO and adjusted every RevDis.
Next RevDis, the DAO increase the value of $LIZ allowing the staker to extract a bigger loan in ETH from the lending protocol.
Repeat.

Example:
Yes. Let’s say you have 1000LIZ, corresponding to the airdrop of 1 lizard. You stake your lizard so you are allowed to use the lending protocol . You put those in the lending protocol as collateral (let’s put staking rewards aside for now)
First RevDis is 1eth/lizard, so the DAO peg the LIZ to 0.001eth, allowing you to take a loan for 1eth.
Next RevDis is 2eth/lizard, the DAO peg the LIZ to 0.003eth, allowing you to get 2 more eth out of your loan.
If instead you want to sell your Liz, you can actually liquidate your collateral and still have 666 $LIZ that you can sell with your lizard

Pros:
-It’s a redemption contract wrapped in a lending protocol, so it could cover the legal side and the taxes side (loans are not a taxable event)
-you don’t lose control of your lizard as it is not used as collateral, but a key to access the lending protocol.
-you don’t need an official public LP as the value of LizCoin is determined by the DAO inside the lending protocol (there will still be unofficial pools, think sILV=ILV in game, but in unofficial LP it isn’t)

Pro or con?
-the value of the NFTs is preserved as the key to the RevDis (lizard staked + LizCoin= RevDis), but both have no utility or value without each other

Cons:
Create complexity, not necessary if direct ETH RevDis is possible

*The number of lizards you stake can put a limit on how much LizCoin you can deposit, keeping a LizCoin/lizard ratio corresponding to the 1/5250 proportion
**There is different ways to go around this. But what matters is that you keep a balance between circulating supply (air drops and staking rewards) and the value of the LizCoin, keeping this equation balanced at all time : LizCoin price * circulating supply= available RevDis
***You can have a slightly over collateralization so stakers can get out of their loan to take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity for example

Extra stuff: You can also build other mechanism around it like a bonus if you don’t take your full loan creating a faster growth for the DAO: keep more ETH in the vault → more investments → more profits → more RevDis

[Dordi]

I personally think staking and pure ETH revdis is the way to go, if this decisions is not being considered due to law reasons, then
it would be good to know the exact reasons and if we can work around it. I also expected this to be a problem, but somehow Apiens made it possible and i doubt
they ignored possible law problems.

The idea with the token drop and burning is also a good idea, but that should only be considered if purely eth dropping is 100% impossible. It would be wasted gas, time and eth.

If the $LIZ was the idea to have more liquid in the vault then i think the following would be a good idea:

A second collection “Lizard babies” or whatever (theme and name is just a placeholder) with a 10k supply and a 0.07 mint price.
The collection is completly owned by the DAO and all costs, profit and royalities will be taken from and into the vault.
Every ethlizard holder can mint up to as many lizards as he holds, but has to pay the mint price. The remaining ones will go into round 2 which is a premint raffle and if some still remain it will be a public sale.

While the process can be discussed and changed it would lead to an additional 700 eth. Even if we say the cost is 10 eth, which is quite generous, then we have still 690 ETH and all that without trading volume.

20% of the mint revenue will be directly paid out to every ethlizard and genesis holder. That results in a payout of 0.0262(138 eth / 5250 - since genesis counts twice), but since the number is low it will appear in the staking board as claimable, but everyone
can choose to take it right away or wait for the investment revdis to have a higher amount that is worth paying gas for.
10% (69 ETH) of the mint aswell as 20% of royalities (only of the 2nd collection) will be put into a DAO owned “fun wallet”. This money is purely used for events and stuff like this. Will this is not exactly requiered i feel like
it adds a nice little perk of owning a lizard of the new or old collection and wouldn’t it be awesome to make a big lizard event? Sure people are here to make money, but fun can still be involved and the event is for every lizard, doesn’t matter which collection.

This leaves us with an additional 483 ETH for the vault, which basicly doubles our liquidity.

Important points to touch on:

1. How do we make sure it doesn’t devalue the original collection?

Lower revdis won’t be the case, because we just doubled the liquidity, so a ethlizard owner will still get the same revenue as before and could even higher it by getting a baby lizard.
Secondly the ethlizard+genesis collection will be the only communities that are in the DAO of the investment fund. This would make the 3rd a different audience, since it’s for people that just want to stake and relax basicly.

2. How is it possible to still understand how the revids works?

Not touching on the council and founders %, we will make a simple Token:

Collection		Staked under 1 Months	Staked 3 Months		Staked 6 Months

Genesis Lizard		400 Coins		800 Coins		1600 Coins
Ethlizard		                200 Coins		400 Coins		800 Coins
Baby Lizard		        100 Coins		200 Coins		400 Coins

When the revenue is distributed, the whole amount will be split through the actual amount of tokens generated.
Don’t worry, you won’t be missing any revenue just because you started staking once the system is live. You would get less tokens, but at the same time there are less token in total.

The reason to split the staking is to still reward people that just joined. I will be only a way lower amount compared to somebody that had staked since the start.

3. Baby lizard collection might not be attractive to fully sell out:

First of all i personally doubt it, but you could also change the supply to 5050 and higher the mint price and i would say that atleast 60-70% of the current holders would mint it.
Regardless of that, we could look for more benefits of holding a babylizard. So maybe instead of 20% of the mint price being paid to holders, it’s also added to the “fun wallet” and
will be used to create not only events, but maybe other cool things for the whole lizard eco system.

Sorry for the badly formated text, but it was written on my mobile and i will try to format it the next days when i have time. Might also add some points that i forgot to touch on.

[cryptish.eth]

Alright, I’ll ask a question here that’s been bothering me a little. If it’s stupid, I can blame the covid-like thing I’m suffering from atm!

Why do we need/want to stake at all? I’ve never really liked the idea much. Always just seems to be an artificial way to decrease sell pressure. It may just have to do with the legality of all this stuff but I tend to just sing happy songs to myself when anyone starts talking about that, so I’m far from clued up on that subject.

If it isn’t, can we focus on decreasing sell pressure by offering value, instead of locking up an NFT for x amount of time? I think the only reason I shouldn’t sell my lizards is because the value I know they’ll bring, rather than the fact a better-off me made a decision a few months ago to stop me selling it.

It also complicates things more for any newcomers

[Treaton]

I believe your covid-like brain still functions perfectly. Purpose of staking is to reduce sell pressure (most likely Ilv influence).
The only other purpose it serves is to reward those that have been holding (staking) lizards longer.

[Treaton]

Thanks for exploring other options, it’s really cool to see all the different possibilities we can think of!
With the loan mechanism (e.g 3 eth you’re entitled to loan), what purpose does that serve that has any advantages over just saying you own a % of the vault?
If you get your 3 eth and make a profit trading it or staking it that’s good, what other possible value can be derived from the 3 eth?
If you’re unable to repay the loan, the lizard is collateralised as well?

[cryptish.eth]

Yeah, see, then it gets a little weird for me. It’s just artificial.

Our time, energy and funds should be spent on creating value for the holders of the NFT without locking people into staying somewhere they maybe cannot afford to or no longer wish to. Staking is sort of inconvenience masquerading as utility.

IMO, Ethlizards NFTs should do everything we want it to, in regards to GameFi investments, and also then things like:

• Creating a Beta Tester platform where lizards guarantee a certain level of feedback for any game that needs beta testers.
• A platform where lizards can band together and maybe invest in things the DAO passed on as a whole (maybe the council share details of things they’ve passed on?)
• Access to other systems/marketplaces/tools related to games.
• Insert here any ideas the other 1500+ lizards can dream up.

A question I’d keep in my mind would be, what do NFT-based games need help with? How can the lizards provide that help in exchange for pre-seed investment opportunities, alpha or beta testing, other early access stuff and whatever else. Kieran has a nice dream for the lizards (being a thing a new game wants to show about, when receiving investment by us) but I can’t see that happening unless we dominate the space in any way we can. The lizards need to be seen as an army. A voluntary army, and not partially comprised of people that aren’t paying too much attention as they’ve been staked for months and have gone off the idea.

Let a holder be able to sell at any time, but with the value we offer, dare them to leave. Right now, leaving is fairly easy as we have no promise of what’s to come and no real idea of what’s happening now. We need more and we need to not just rely on pending investments, once they come.

It would seem a little strange to me if we focus our time on a staking platform which temporarily increases the floor price whilst some people stake. Unlikely that the people contemplating selling actually stake anyway.

Woah, I’ll shut up now. That Vitamin C really kicked in for a couple of minutes there.

[SeaGolem]

Thanks, I try my best to explore this with as little preconceived ideas as I can.
The main advantages to me are:

• legal protection from having a distribution in token rather than ETH (although I’m not a legal expert, nor I try to be, but that’s what I understood from the paper and discussions)

• tax optimizations: if you distributed ETH and use them, that would probably be a taxable event, whereas if you take a loan in ETH it would not (again, not an expert on this and might be wrong)

• the point is you never really have to repay the loan, it’s pretty much a redeem mechanism wrapped in a lending protocol. Your collateral is the LizCoin NOT your lizard (which gives you access to the plateform and determine how much LizCoin you can put as collateral) , so you never loose control of your lizard.

• although you don’t need to for this plan to work, but you can also create utility for the token outside of the lending protocol, there by creating extra value to the holders.
  Ex: let’s say the circulating supply S = cLIZ + oLIZ (cLIZ= the amount of Liz blocked in collateral, oLIZ = the amount in the outside the lending protocol)
  Because cLIZ has value determine by the DAO in the protocol and is a fonction of how many lizards are staked, a solution exist to peg the cLIZ to give the corresponding loan = % of RevDis entitled from your lizards staked.
  oLIZ will have a free market value and can trade at a premium or a discount without impacting the lending protocol. But they will have value above 0 just because of movements and value of cLIZ. Now if you can add some utility on top (lizard EGGS??? Ahah) and have some extra buy pressure then everybody wins. Open market value from LIZ is extra on top of the RevDis (loan) instead of a liability to it

Tbf, the tokenomics need to be ironed out, I don’t claim to have a perfect solution, but I think the basic principles make sense

[Treaton]

That’s probably a little bit off track but I’ll clarify some points anyway.
Staking has been mentioned as an upcoming feature for months to be honest. Development is now mostly complete so whether we choose to do it or not, it’s kind of a bit late to say “don’t develop it”.
Other points are awesome, we should always be encouraging new opportunities and growth for the ethlizards ecosystem, how we can offer benefits to other companies and our holders.
Perhaps keep that part of the text and paste it as another post moving forward. It’s already a feature that anyone can offer new proposals and ideas, perhaps we just need more motivation from the likes of someone like you who has some good ideas!

[cryptish.eth]

I wouldn’t say it’s too late at all. Don’t we still have to pay out for audits? We also have some lizzies that have some other ideas. And, no one really seems to want a coin, so what would be the purpose of staking?

I also don’t think it’s off track, just because the examples I gave were alternative ways of spending our resources. Whenever we do something, it should always be asked if what we’re doing is the best use of our time and money.

Edit: Also, love the dashboard. It does more than just staking and can be built on top of for anything else in the future. Staking is just a small part of that, so it’s not like much time was wasted creating a staking page and contracts.

[Treaton]

Sorry mate, all I meant by off track was questioning work that’s already completed when there’s been plenty of time to question it earlier. Audits are free and finalising staking wouldn’t take spicy much time at all.
Happy to question the way time and resources are spent moving forward of course!

[cryptish.eth]

Ah, gotcha. Although, there’s never a time where we shouldn’t question something. Maybe I missed a bunch of announcements or something? But that doesn’t mean things can’t be questioned. The DAO hasn’t made this decision, so the DAO should now make this decision. I believe Spicy and the team had this in mind when posting the docs and the recent announcement. A sort of “here’s our thoughts, go talk about it” approach.

The team’s Google Doc, under ‘We invite further discussion’, says " An Argument for No Token or Staking at all". Why would we be inviting further discussion and talking about there being an argument for no staking at all, only to to suppress these arguments on the very forum created for them?

If all these emails are bothering anyone, ha, happy to stop messaging on here and move over to Discord.

[Treaton]

Pretty simply, I think we’re debating 2 different things. I thought you were questioning why we’d waste time preparing for staking, when the work is already done. Debate staking going ahead all you want, that’s good for everyone. Don’t debate work completed on an initiative that’s been a long time coming and discussed, that’s all.
Correct, this discussion is clouded now, back to questioning staking moving forward.

[lizident.eth]

The current ELI5. There are great details and discussions happening in here and in discord where more can be found

[Entity]

Lovely work lizking. Clear and concise.

My personal desired rankings are:

1. DVSTRs NFT Buyback idea
2. Distribute ETH
3. Distribute others/GameFi “governance” tokens
4. Seagolems Lending/loan platform Idea
5. Lizcoin

[Lemz]

Really nice ELI5 summary, Lizardking! My preference options would be as follows:

1. Distribute 50/50 ETH and Game/governance token we invested in (where possible, if not default to ETH. Also don’t have a strong opinion on the % split, but would like to split between ETH and the game token). I like the fact it ties into the community holding the game token and reduces the need to fully liquidate to distribute profits.
2. Distribute 100% ETH.
3. Distribute 100% game token
4. NFT Buyback (DVSTR idea).
5. Loan/lending platform with lizcoin as collateral (SeaGolem’s idea).
6. Lizcoin distribution (with clear definitions on it’s use case, tokenomics details - they are lacking now)

[Pierre_C]

Thank you for the hard work.

I would like if possible to keep it simple as the core proposition of our initial investment ‘1 lizard, 1 vote, 1 share’. So many ideas, please find below what I prefer:
ETH distribution > NFT buyback with ETH > anything with a Liz token related to RevDis.
The correlation of RevDis with another token adds much complexity and I am not sure that I will be able to adapt with it.

[Scoriox]

So the concern with regulation is understood but quite frankly i dont really care until they get their shit together first. Id say eth distributions make the most sense overall as its simple and easy and gives us all one of the greatest tokens in the ecosystem. If regulation hits hard it wont be difficult to pivot either by registering the dao in a friendly location or using a different token.

As an alternative the imx buyback solution from DVSTR is pretty solid. Besides ensuring it is simple enough to use it seems like a great workaround.