Brainstorm ideas for Darknode Community Fund

General
36

I am in favor of governance capture. I do think there’s some things to consider though:

  1. Approach: how much governance should we capture?
    A simple vote initiation isn’t much. So to me it seems a protocol like bancor would demand a huge amount of capital purchased at full price for a small percentage of say.

  2. Trust: how sure are we that the governance token controls the protocol?
    In most cases governance tokens are primarily profit shares and secondarily governance control. At the end of the day these governance tokens don’t get much say, and id argue its important to get into the ones that specifically do, even if that just means a team who actually wants input. Not sure if this applies to bancor specifically.

  3. Discount/seed round/early investor:
    similar to point 1, this point focuses on the idea that almost every protocol has tokens set aside for VC and seed rounds. My opinion would be to focus on these. Maybe an established protocol like bancor would still give us this, but I see it as less likely as they’re established and connected.

  4. Protocol built fairly: I have concerns about many technologies from the pre-smart contract finance world. I do think bancor incorporates some of these concepts and I am critical of this approach. A system that relies on 0.00000001% chance of 100% failure is in my eyes destined to need a bailout (read: fail) eventually. The question is, where does the money come from? Every one of these farming or AMM or aggregator protocols can shift around who pays for what where, but at the end of the day, in bancors model it appears the investor holds the IL risk, albeit small chance of happening and 100% chance of losing everything if it does, minus what insurance pays them back.
    Things i personally would avoid:
    A. Withdraw/deposit fees on yield aggregators
    B. Insurance schemes or protocols relying on insurance
    C. Overly connected networks such as how CRV gives YFI vaults but blocks every other yield aggregator. Who doesnt want more volume? Seems fishy on CRVs part.
    D. Overly single party owned networks, such as maker or CRV. This one though i could be easily swayed on as at some point its highly subjective.
    E. overly established protocols, such as I don’t want to buy Amazon shares as I feel like wed be buying “bags” for a very low percentage, versus some deals I’ve seen like harvest buying 10% of perp protocol at 20% discount off ICO price, which then did a 10x; these are the governance captures id get excited about personally.