Although some have already voted, can we make this a simple vote for funding through inflation, and then later have a vote on how to deal with tokenomics such as total node count, airdrops to dn holders, deflation, etc.?
2 Likes
Following my ābudgetā question:
Could you give us some rough outline on what kind of benefits/perks each tier has? How many more developers, for example?
Also: Iād like to see some additional detail on how this minting event will be done.
Could we spread out token creation instead of one big minting event? (which will most likely lead to a big price dump; preferably tied to reaching milestones)
1 Like
Itās not ātiersā in that sense. Regardless if say 100M or 200M is minted, hypothetically the Foundation might only be willing to provide 50M for Ren 2.0 development initially after a budget proposal is presented.
The allocation to the Foundation is meant to sustain itself for many years to come, and should definitely not all be spent on development.
4 Likes
I believe in the inflation shielding for DN ops, but should it be a lump sum? Or maybe we reward $REN to Ren node operators and spread this allocation slowly over years.
If funds are minted with the creation of the foundation, we can chose how dev is funded as a next step.
We should mint a full 20%, this gives the DAO the most flexibility on how to move forward and itās enough we donāt ever need to consider this again. we can always chose to burn later.
1 Like
I think thatās the completely right approach.
Especially with the point for the AirDrop that we distribute it gradually to the dnos. So that everyone continues to run dnos for as long as possible.
In the end, it can make a big difference if we are one of the most decentralized platforms.
Without the lump sum, DN owners may not have or want to risk the additional funds to establish the DN on the new network
1 Like
Yes but we also need to put conditions on it like vesting periods so that we can make sure that there are enough dnos from the launch of Ren 2.0.
This is extremely important that we are very decentralized so that developers will build on Ren 2.0 at all.
It isnāt clear in proposal if the new token contract will allow future mints.
I would suggest to ensure the new token contract does not allow mint (even with a multisig/foundation setup).
This would solidify the fact this mint is a one time event due to Alameda collapse and will improve 2.0 security (no mint bug risk, no price discount due to unclear/uncapped max supply).
Even better if the contract is fully immutable overall (no admin controls! would be a centralization risk).
6 Likes
i echo what i wrote in general:
yes the main concern here is the slippery slope.
it is akin to the federal reserve printing money and exporting inflation.
if the governance is weak, it will succumb to another round of inflation when times are hard.
up till now , there is no assurance that any action will be taken to curb inflation in the future and that is the more important point. yes we can have inflation now. but will we succumb to inflation in the future??
an inflationary Ren token is the trojan horse to a decentralised renBTC. How can renBTC be the ideal decentralised collateral when Ren governance itself is weak?
there needs to be an MOU to state that inflation be capped; or even tokens be burnt back if Ren recovers. It is similar like how Binance burns its tokens using its operating profits.
5 Likes
Dear RenLabs Community,
We, BatPug and Dennish, are writing to you today to demand full transparency of RenLabsā yearly expenses, including payroll and any other expenses. This is necessary for us to properly vote on RenLabsā fundraising from the community.
As members of the RenLabs community, we believe it is important that we have access to this information in order to fully understand how our contributions will be used and to ensure that they are being used in a responsible and accountable manner. We also want to know more about how the money will be spent, including how it will be transferred and used.
We understand that RenLabs may have valid reasons for not disclosing this information publicly, but we believe that the interests of the community should be paramount. Therefore, we demand that RenLabs provide full transparency of its yearly expenses, including payroll and any other expenses, as well as detailed information on how funds will be transferred and used, to the community as soon as possible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
BatPug
3 Likes
Letās do it now! It makes much more sense to do it before we vote to take the needed budget already into account. You never reply to this request @MaxRoszko even you think to talk about this asap yourself.
1 Like
The lack of budget transparency is annoying, but the money doesnāt go to RenLabs, but will be set into trust of the (to be created) Ren Foundation.
They should address those concerns, determine budgets and audit funds.
2 Likes
I think that it is certain that inflation will be approved.
The development delay that currently exists, can it be made up with more employees?
-
Could the team draw up a plan in which areas the team should be enlarged so that Ren 2.0 can be launched more quickly?
-
Especially functions like create and hold accounts on other chains should be a top priority.
-
If the Dao is to manage everything, it also needs more information about it?
@MaxRoszko could you please comment on the points?
2 Likes
What if we eliminated the āAirdropā to DNOs by simply lowering the bond requirement for them to DNO 2.0? (Or have it airdropped directly to their new bond?) The point being DNO 1.0 ā DNO 2.0 parity, we donāt actually need/want to give DNOs additional liquid tokens. If there was a way to basically allow DNOs to migrate to 2.0 1:1 without inflation that would be best.
Alternatively, if we must do an airdrop/inflationā¦ What if it was distributed to DNOs based on a time weighting, similar to how we currently calculate voting power? Long term DNOs are what will continue to bring stability to 2.0ā¦
I would prefer if this is a one time mint and we burn the ability to make more after this proposal.
Top priorities should be identifying candidates for Foundation members, ideally who serve on other major projects (but without conflict of interest) and transparency on first budget priorities.
Increased transparency from Devs on headcount plans & finances are still good to have, as the future Foundation may need to evaluate it if any future budgetary assistance is needed (ie if Foundation needs to help with any additional dev needs). Given the climate after Alameda, RenLabs transparency will greatly improve the overall projectās trust.
This will come with abrupt withdrawal by many. But Iām going to say it anyway. I think the options for minting are far too low. Operational target for RenDao should be 1.0 Billion to achieve threshold, introduce 4-6% yearly inflation to token supply and protecting dark node holders from dilution.
The dao cant afford to introduce further tokenomic changes in the future. Provisions need to be provided/not necessarily utilized, to provide runway not just for the forseen future, but to future adoption cycles as well.
Hey builders! If you want to add your opinion or some more value to the article as a quote, PM me.
The results are in 
The proposal is approved, with 94.88% of the votes in favor 
The amount to be minted according to the weighted average rule: 179.928M REN
Next steps
The next steps for the Ren DAO is primarily to continue setting up a Foundation or Trust which can custody the tokens that would be allocated to it. This work is ongoing in the š§±ļ½foundation-setup channel on the Ren community Discord server, which we encourage everyone in the community to participate in, to offer help and suggestions.
It is encouraged that a smaller group is formally or informally given the leadership role for this task, to help ensure that it can be accomplished in a timely manner. A smaller group would also make it easier for the Ren team to offer support and resources.
Smaller tasks
Some other tasks the DAO could settle in parallel to setting up a Foundation or Trust, is to determine exactly which darknodes are eligible for the āinflation coverā of the mint, given that there have been contentious discussions within the community on this point. Should it only cover current registered nodes, and if so in the previous or current or some other epoch? Should there be a grace period, so current deregistering nodes are covered as well? And should the cover be open for anyone who wishes to register nodes now or at the launch of Ren 2.0?
Another minor task is to decide whether the minted amount should be rounded out to some decimal for UX reasons when bonding new nodes, such as rounding it to 180 000 000 REN, instead of 179 928 193.46 REN.
Future steps
As soon as a Foundation or Trust is ready to receive the allocation of new REN and custody those funds safely, the new token contract can rapidly be deployed by the DAO with technical support from the dev team. And then a funding agreement can be reached regarding development. And then Ren 2.0.
5 Likes
I struggle how any reason was applied with agreed inflation without funding agreements, darknode agreements , etc being established. If Ren is 0.01 at the launch of 2.0; we will be underfunded. Agreeing on 200m prior structuring the protocol is a potential mistake and could lead to further inflation.
I think using a grace period for applying the darknode inflation cover makes sense.
There was a lot of sketchiness surrounding the FTX/Alameda collapse and I think a lot of darknodes deregistered with the intention of registering again once the dust settled.
What are we waiting for