RFC-000-046: Transitioning to Ren 2.0

Requests For Comment | RFC
1

Name: Transitioning to Ren 2.0
Status: Draft
Scope: Outline how to fund the transition to and continued development of Ren 2.0 through setting up a Ren Foundation and minting new REN tokens

Overview

In this proposal we outline how the Ren ecosystem can transition to and ensure the continued development of Ren 2.0 despite the Alameda bankruptcy, through setting up a Swiss not-for-profit foundation (“Ren Foundation”), and minting new REN tokens which are allocated to the Ren Foundation, to be used for funding developer grants and ecosystem growth.

Background

Earlier this year, Ren 2.0 was announced, with the intention that the Ren ecosystem would begin smoothly transitioning to Ren 2.0 over the coming months. On November 11th 2022, the “FTX Group”, which Alameda is a part of, commenced bankruptcy proceedings, affecting Ren. In short, due to Alameda being the responsible party for the Ren 1.0 network, and is no longer paying for its operating and development costs, the Ren 1.0 network is being sunset. The transition to Ren 2.0 can still take place despite the unexpected event of the Alameda collapse, although it is not possible to do this transition smoothly anymore.

This proposal outlines how the Ren ecosystem can transition to a fully community-owned Ren 2.0 network from here. It touches on points brought up and discussed in RFC-000-037 and RFC-000-045 and ideas discussed in the Ren Discord server.

Details

We propose that the Ren DAO set up a Swiss not-for-profit foundation, with members from the DAO on the Board. The Ren Foundation would then receive some amount of REN tokens, which could be made possible through a REN token contract redeployment. The amount of tokens made available to the Foundation could be either a fixed amount, or open-ended inflation, or any combination in between, to be used as funding for the development of the network and its ecosystem. These steps would ensure that the Ren ecosystem can transition to a fully community-owned Ren 2.0 network

Setting up a Ren Foundation

As mentioned in RFC-000-037, the scope of a foundation for the Ren DAO should be simple. As a legal real world entity, it should:

  1. Maximize public value for all network participants.
  2. Provide a stable environment for developers around the world to contribute to the protocol.
  3. Create an organizational framework that is responsive to the DAO’s governance apparatus, providing transparency, autonomy, redundancy, and flexibility regardless of macroeconomic events.

The Ren team has previously explored setting up a not-for-profit foundation for the Ren DAO. While a Swiss structure is more challenging in that it requires more work to set up and maintain, and is generally more expensive, we concluded that the legal clarity, accountability and legitimacy of the Swiss structure would benefit the Ren DAO the most in the long-term. We also have contact with Swiss lawyers who would be able to help set up the entity.

REN token contract redeployment and inflation

To ensure that Ren ecosystem can transition to the new 2.0 architecture as soon as possible, and to ensure that there is funding to see the transition and continued development through, we propose that a new token contract for REN is created and deployed with new features such as inflation and deflation. A redeployment would give the Ren DAO the option to mint new tokens if needed, which could be used to allocate tokens to the Ren Foundation directly, such that it could be used for providing developer and ecosystem grants. This is not possible without a token contract redeployment, because the current REN token contract can not be changed or upgraded at all.

The reason why direct minting of new tokens is proposed, instead of raising money based on future revenue as proposed in RFC-000-045, is that minting new tokens is a much more simpler and flexible approach, that also sets the incentives correctly from the start, as grants would be REN-based. And while there are negative side-effects of inflation, these are much easier to reason about and easier to limit their effects of, rather than attempting a new risky fundraising mechanism based on the revenue of a blockchain network that is not live at the moment.

Minting new REN to the Ren Foundation also simultaneously accomplishes our goal of creating a funded independent entity, governed by the Ren DAO, which would provide a stable environment for developers around the world to contribute to the protocol and ecosystem in a legally compliant manner.

We initially propose that roughly a 125M (12.5%) increase of the total supply of REN would be sufficient to achieve the goals of the Ren community, which is to bring about a thriving Ren ecosystem on top of a Ren 2.0 network. 50M of those 125M could be initially set aside for deployment and continued development of Ren 2.0, while the rest (75M) could be open for the Ren Foundation to decide how those would be used to grow the Ren ecosystem. The vesting schedule for the tokens could include an early portion unlocking immediately, while the rest is unlocked over time, to ensure long-term commitment and minimizing market impact from large supply changes.

Implementation

  • We will hold a period of open discussion to collect feedback, improvements and new ideas.
  • If the community is in favor of the proposal or a modified version of the proposal, we will publish a formal RIP.
  • If the potential RIP is approved, the Ren DAO would need to formally start the process of setting up a Ren Foundation.
  • If the potential RIP is approved, the Ren DAO would also deploy the new token contract for REN.
17 Likes
2

I am 100% for this let’s get REN 2.0 deploy asap!

1 Like
3

Thank you Max. This is painful since we used to have a treasury that would guarantee the future of Ren. Nothing can be done, and I am happy we are back to have control over the project without any inference of a VC or corporation (I hope). There is no reason to look into the past. Saying that, I fully support inflation to allow Ren to be self funded, expecting than future revenue generated by the project will be enough to have a healthy treasury. Possible inflation is no needed after 125mm Ren minted??? And deflation can be implemented? needs to be evaluated later on.

My questions:

  • there is no mention on possible options on inflation/deflation.

  • What is the time expected to have operationally Ren 2.0 if this proposal pass?

  • What is the time expected to have Ren foundation operational?

  • How would be chosen the members of the DAO foundation?

  • DAO foundation would have control over Ren labs and the roadmap?

  • The scope of the DAO foundation is too generic. What are the specific responsibilities?

  • How the proposed structure of the DAO foundation would look like?

9 Likes
4

Team should be locking up nodes with the funds from printing for a number of years and having a very small amount for initial funding .
Printing and dumping tokens does not align the REN team with Darknode runners or REN holders .

8 Likes
5

In general I don’t like when projects mint new tokens to fund themself. These projects are usually doing this as a last option to put money in their pockets and going more and more silent over the next months.

Before creating money out of thin air there should be a budget plan provided with monthly costs for CAPEX and OPEX. Then the tokens should be vested and only the amount unvested based on the budget forecast and REN token price. Not used REN tokens should be burned.

The receiver of the funding and the treasury multisig should be independent people with zero overlap. The beneficiaries of the money and the keper of the money can not be the same.
A monthly report about the spendings has to be provided to the REN community to oversee the expenses.

6 Likes
6

I’m missing a short description of the alternatives that had surely been on the table. And I’m missing as well the reason(s) why they are no longer being considered.
Whether we like it or not with the collapse of Alameda the project has been taken over by the development team. Having some darknodes in operation I’m greatly interested in a development that conserves the value of my investment in REN.
In principle there is no alternative but to trust the development team. Doubts may collapse the value of REN by a large degree. Thus anybody with at least two brain cells should support the team as long as integrity is visible.
Thus details regarding the new contract should become visible. We must keep in mind that this is similar to an ICO and it happens in bear market. Taking the valuation of REN as a constant figure is a possibly dangerous idea.
The following subjects require answers from the team to critical observers to further establish trust:

  • Details regarding the migration from the current REN contract towards REN2,
  • According PR needed (it is not a given that the somehow widespread acceptance of REN resulting from its comparably long history can be inherited to REN2)
  • Planned vesting (take visibly away the risk of rapid inflation via intended long-term vesting periods),
  • Planned funds consumption during 2023 (the team ($ 2.6 Mio) (?, perhaps partly payment in vested REN2), the swiss lawyers for the setup (hopefully only slightly above $ 0.1 Mio and hopefully payment in vested REN2) (?), PR (addition of a proven marketing manager to the team)). Any planning beyond 2023 other than vesting periods extending up to 2033 can be avoided.
  • Way forward for the current DNOs (The earlier at least some operation can be started again the better. And perhaps you like to keep the mechanisms for node initiation, node operation, node update, etc. Anyhow the last thing REN needs is dumping of bonds by frustrated DNOs)
6 Likes
7

Assuming that there is a separate entity interested (eg. Binance) to put some cash on the table for immediate needs, I assume that the funding will be in exchange for some of the newly minted REN tokens, which is fair enough, what I don’t get then is why is there a need for an immediate unlock then? it does not make sense for the initial funding as there is no liquidity and it could just be vesting too.

3 Likes
8

Thanks for the proposal. I think this is a better solution than RFC-000-045 for the reasons stated (network not even running). I think that the community needs more insight into how funds will be spent. This should include team members (can remain anon if required), their role, their rewards.

I also think that it is important that the community can gain increased control. If very much feels that everything is out of our hands right now. Any decisions should be given a once over by the community first.

2 Likes
9

I think the elephant in the room when it comes to pass this potential RIP is whether or not current DNOs will receive some compensation for the inflation and how (eg. receiving liquid tokens each new 2.0 epoch, and/or vested tokens each new 2.0 epoch, and/or receiving vested tokens in bulk as per snapshot at current or final 1.0 epoch).

Clarifying this as part of the new tokenomics directly in the RIP might help assuage some of the concerns of the DNO community who’ve been supporting the protocol and whose continued DN operation would definitely be a huge benefit for the 2.0 protocol to launch in a decently decentralized manner right from day 1 (a great competitive advantage compared to most recent L1s).

8 Likes
10

  1. need to discuss burn schedule, and is it possible to eventually burn all increase so we end up at current total supply?

  2. does this then increase total number of possible nodes? What are implications of that- more nodes is good for security but as a long term investment the ceiling gets lowered a bit for operators.

  3. I would like to discuss a possible merge with the other proposal, whereby investors can also choose to receive a set ROI from darknode rewards and then equivalent value of Ren tokens are burned when anyone elects this method in lieu of receiving tokens as return on investment.

  4. echoing others comments - I’ve never been one to complain much, but if we are going to increase the supply, thereby decreasing the value of my current investment- I understand it’s a survival issue and the alternative is collapse - but yes we need to have a new level of transparency and information availability if nothing else to increase community sentiment and promote community involvement.

6 Likes
11

I’m generally in favor of some lower inflation as a DNO, but would like to know the other scenarios.

What are the other options on the table? Has Binance approached us? There have been rumors of this. Who else are we talking to?

This all needs clarification before we proceed with redeploying and enabling inflation.

3 Likes
12

NO. This is too much inflation. I would say 30 M more coin for development not 50M. As for future development, wait until the time comes for another vote, do not inflate and hold. So I’m proposing we revised this to 3% inflation and that’s just for the RenLab operate for another year.

1 Like
13

Dont like how this sounds . Agree with comments saying its way too much inflation . I like the fundraising idea much more

2 Likes
14

Speaking from the standpoint of a DNO, which are clearly in a minority position on this project.

With the additional 125M Ren, it seems like asking for additional credit card debt when you’ve already maxed out your card. Also, would the DNOs then be diluted, or would they then get value of 112.5K Ren in bond for each node? (for those of us bonded before 2.0).

One ask that I’ve seen from the community, instead of continuing to throw funds into development, why not open source the code and let the community grass-roots the transition?

15

Strongly bad idea! just make it worse! however this proposal already made a strong FUD!

1 Like
16

If this is what needed to continue the project, I am leaning towards to vote yes.

A few feedbacks:

  • I support of the idea of getting back the control of the project to the community from VCs.
  • there are lots of fears since this morning in the discord server. I think there should be more detail there.
  • first of all, why 125M REN is needed? how the numbers 50M and 75M are decided? what’s the thought process that led to this number? this needs to be clarified. the more details the better. the off-line calculations should be presented here. this is the only way we can see if the numbers make sense.
  • it should be made very clear that only 50M goes to development and there is a vesting schedule. the team should propose what they want it to be like instead of us making the first proposal. I don’t think that’s communicated very well which based on what I observed on people’s reactions on the discord server. lots of them think 12.5% goes to the dev. some thinks 50M REN get unblocked immediately.
  • Based on the feedbacks on the discord server, I’d add a sentence explaining there are multiple VC offers but they all require some REN tokens which implies inflation as well. I know there are NDAs so not sure if you can mention vaguely about the offers w/o mentioning about the names.
  • If the DAO controls the inflation and the deflation, it should be mentioned. There should also be more details about the DAO.
  • The post should give some examples of scenarios where inflation and deflation are needed.
  • In general, I don’t think many people will read the post. I suggest the team to make summarize the key bullet points of the things you think people care the most about and post in the discord.
  • I think DNOs should not be affected by the inflation or at least it should be less than 12.5%. DNOs are more involved in the ecosystem and took significant more risks. They shouldn’t be diluted the same as others. It’s discussed in RFC-000-037 as well. To be fully transparent, I run multiple DNs myself and also hold liquid RENs.
3 Likes
17

On your last point, how about making the current DN bond worth 112.5K, which would not dilute the current node operators (or give option for a free node for those already staked enough into this) ??

2 Likes
18

“DNOs receiving vested 2.0 tokens to compensate the inflation”. This is a smart idea and I liked it. It also incentives DNOs to stay.

5 Likes
19

  • Finally becoming independent and that the DAO manages Ren 2.0 and we are no longer dependent on a VC is the right way. The people who are really committed to the project and interested in the long term success have asked for this so much.
    I have to say it, thanks to Alameda we have a chance to start completely new and to have learned from all the mistakes in the last years.

  • Many people are not aware of the fact that Ren 2.0 needs a lot of resources in the beginning.
    But it is a fact and you can only achieve that through inflation. 5-6 million resources are needed in the treasury for sure.

  • Let’s say the launch of Ren 2.0 is successful and everything works, then that’s very good but we still don’t have any new developers on Ren 2.0.
    The developers are where the benefit is high, so we have to convince developers and make sure that the benefit is high on Ren 2.0 also in the future, but to create that we need the incentives. Maybe with a lot of patience it would go otherwise but do we really want to wait that long again and who knows if Ren can still succeed, then. There will certainly be a leading one to bring btc into other networks. If this is to be Ren 2.0 we need to be well prepared with enough developers.

  • @MaxRoszko @Susruth to you again how much would it help if Ren would hire 10 more developers, do you have contacts to good developers and it is currently only a budget question?
    Because I am not happy with the speed of development, it definitely takes way too long no matter how much attention is paid to security. It also needs more people who can write docs, currently what’s online is a disaster.
    I can build you a framework of what all needs to go into a good whitepaper.

  • This is exactly why we need the 12.5% inflation.
    To all of you who are against it, think about what it really needs instead of just thinking about your tokens. Or do you plan to sell soon and check every day how the ren price is? The DAO would control everything not the Ren team or a VC and how often do I read in the chat that people are unhappy about the speed of development and that there are no good documents. Let’s hire new quality people for this. In the end the 12.5% inflation is ridiculous if Ren 2.0 really becomes a working platform.

  • All those who really believe in blockchain and the long term benefits see it as making sense and as I do see a great opportunity after the Alameda out.

  • And yes the team can and should communicate much more with the community and also give updates more often. This is usual for a successful project. @MaxRoszko

6 Likes
20

I like the idea that some proposition is coming from the team, al be it that some precious time has been lost.
A couple remarks that i would have are :

  • if you come with this proposal now, why wait for all this time and say that you are in talks with several funds and possibly binance?
  • if actual proposals from funds are on the table with regards to funding for x amount of time for y amount of $, why not bring the proposals to the community as a part of the discussion? Right now we are to assume that there are in fact funds that are interested, while having seen 0 proof of that.

Then to the actual proposal itself how it was stated right now :

I’m not against an inflation mechanism, but why decide now on an arbitrary number that may end up being way too much right now with no clear plan on how to use them?
Why take this opportunity to introduce a minting mechanism for proposals to get the ecosystem going. then after we get some income from ren2.0 we could dedicate a portion of funds each epoch to do a ‘buyback and burn’ until we’re either back at 1 billion or even keep it beyond that.

In short i think we should get a breakdown from the team saying how much $ they want, what the equivalent amount of ren would be and then decide on a part released on a monthly basis and a part when certain goals are met. This is the only way to allign the dev teams goals with those of the investors and supporters of this project.
Otherwise it’s just another money grab.
We need a whitepaper of what they plan to do and a timeline on when it will happen.

And we need to get an overview of other funding proposals done by external funds. As of now i highly doubt there were even any interested parties.

6 Likes