Exclude Rage Quit from Merger Because It Will Lead to Mass Rage Quit and Drain Protocol Equity

Summary

I am proposing that we remove the rage quit provision from the Fei-Rari merger agreement and table it for future discussion after the merger closes.

I believe this is critically important because it:

1. Incentives all old TRIBE holders to rage quit

2. Lets old TRIBE holders transfer the majority of the Protocol Equity to themselves at a cost to newer TRIBE holders and the incoming RGT holders

3. Will drain the PCV of most of its equity value

None of these are actions that I think any of us would want the protocol to undertake without substantial discussion – let alone tie to another proposal. In addition, I have grave concerns about enacting a proposal that will effectively divide the TRIBE community into two factions in which one group conducts a governance attack on the other.

Proposal/Action: Remove the rage quit option from the Fei-Rari merger agreement and table it until the merger is completed.

Background

GFX’s proposed merger agreement included a provision called a “Rage Quit” which allows TRIBE holders to cash out of their share of the Protocol Equity and exit the community. Under the Rage Quit, each exiting TRIBE holder will be paid:

Rage Quit Payout = (Protocol Controlled Value - User Circulating FEI) / Number of TRIBE outstanding BEFORE the merger snapshot date

However, an additional ~350m TRIBE will be issued in the merger with Rari Capital. This issuance will immediately reduce the protocol equity per TRIBE by about ⅓. i.e, each TRIBE will now only be backed by:

(Protocol Controlled Value - User Circulating FEI) / (Number of TRIBE outstanding BEFORE the merger snapshot date PLUS ~350m Newly Issued TRIBE)

HENCE EVERY OLD TRIBE HOLDER WILL BE INCENTIVIZED TO RAGE QUIT (AND BUY BACK THERE TRIBE AT A LOWER PRICE).

Moreover, because the protocol will pay Rage Quitters a 30+% premium to the current protocol equity per TRIBE, the protocol equity per remaining TRIBE will decline as more and more TRIBE rage quits. This mechanic will only amplify the incentives for the old TRIBE to rage quit and accelerate the drain of protocol equity.

Example Calculation:

Pre-Merger:

Protocol Controlled Value = $1 billion
User Circulating FEI = $300m
Protocol Equity = $700m
Number of TRIBE outstanding BEFORE the merger snapshot date: 620m

⇒ Protocol Equity per Tribe: $1.12
⇒ Rage Quit Amount = $1.12

Post-Merger, Pre-Rage Quit:

Protocol Controlled Value = $1 billion
User Circulating FEI = $300m
Protocol Equity = $700
Number of TRIBE outstanding: 950m

⇒ Protocol Equity per NEW Tribe: $0.74
⇒ Rage Quit Amount FOR OLD TRIBE = $1.12

Post-Merger, Post-25% Rage Quit:

Protocol Controlled Value = $1 billion - $173.6m lost to Rage Quitters = $826.4m
User Circulating FEI = $300m
Protocol Equity = $526.4m
Number of TRIBE outstanding: 950m - 155 lost to Rage Quitters = 795m

⇒ Protocol Equity backing up each NEW Tribe: $0.66
⇒ Rage Quit Amount FOR OLD TRIBE = $1.12

The Bigger Picture

The bigger problem is that we are setting a snapshot date for the Rage Quit and then issuing additional TRIBE which have no right to the Rage Quit (or even to vote on it). This mechanically creates two, non-fungible classes of TRIBE in which “pre-snapshot TRIBE” are incentivized to conduct a governance attack on “post-snapshot TRIBE” – and then Rage QUIT to transfer PCV to themselves at the expense of the “post-snapshot TRIBE.”

This will happen as long as not all TRIBE holders are eligible to rage quit.

Considerations

Transferring protocol equity from one class of TRIBE holders to another is about as important a decision as a protocol can make. So is draining the protocol equity. I believe that we should consider these decisions deeply as an entire community until a broad, super-majority consensus is reached.

I believe this is especially important given how the Rage Quit sets a precedent for one faction of the TRIBE community (here, old TRIBE holders) to conduct a governance attack on another faction of the TRIBE community (here, recent TRIBE holders and all incoming RGT holders) and take their PCV. I also think it is important to think through the implications of this sort of behavior because … why would anyone buy TRIBE if they might be governance attacked by another faction of the community?

Next Steps

Given that we are deep into trying to execute a complex, first-of-its-kinda DAO-to-DAO merger, I propose that we remove from the merger agreement and table it for further discussion until after the Fei + Rari merger is closed.

I think your framing of this issue as a “governance attack” is quite ridiculous.

As proposed currently, existing Tribe pre-snapshot gets to exit - providing an alternative to these holders just voting “no”. Without the ragequit mechanism, it’s very possibly that the snapshot vote would have failed on the Tribe side.

Tribe holders voted for this.
New Tribe holders have this information.
RGT → Tribe converters have this information. They’re not Tribe holders yet.

This mechanically creates two, non-fungible classes of TRIBE in which “pre-snapshot TRIBE” are incentivized to conduct a governance attack on “post-snapshot TRIBE” – and then Rage QUIT to transfer PCV to themselves at the expense of the “post-snapshot TRIBE.”

No, this is ridiculous. The ragequit mechanism exists for 3 days and then is gone.
The conditions for which the new Tribe to be minted were the ragequit mechanism; using that as as a governance attack itself is…not even a stretch, it’s malicious framing of the issue.

I agree that the framing was potentially inflammatory. I’m concerned about the long-term health of the protocol and wanted to focus people’s attention on the hard questions that nobody is asking.

Like you said, market participants like holders of RGT should know what they are getting after the on-chain vote passes and the rage quit mechanic is widely publicised.

However, that does not change the fundamental “problem” that we are creating two non-fungible classes of TRIBE (pre-snapshot TRIBE and post-snapshot TRIBE) that have different entitlements with respect to the PVC. This independent from the merger and is simply a governance/capital structure issue.

For example, does the team expect to Rage Quit with its own vested Tribe? What about the TRIBE controlled by the Treasury?

Realistically, the optics would be ridiculous if the team and Treasury were to Rage Quit! But it seems like we should expect that, no?

Again, the larger concern is that this is a complex issue with messy game theory. I am concerned that the community hasn’t thought through the implications and believe it is a mistake to tie this to the another proposal that we all believe is great for the protocol and needs to be finalized on a short timeline.

Curious for your thoughts now that we have begun a discussion!

@klob In light of the discussion with @joey https://tribe.fei.money/t/merger-ragequit-mechanics-amendment/3755/19?u=court_jester, I feel comfortable with the balance we are striking here given the fast-moving timeline of the merger.

However, I want to again encourage the team @joey @klob to clearly explain how the Rage Quit will work as we go into the final merger vote and to show how there will be distributional effects within the TRIBE community. The most obvious is that anyone who recently acquired TRIBE, comes in from RGT or holds unvested TRIBE (YOU!) will be on the “PCV losing” side of the buyback.

I personally believe that the team’s sitting on this side of the equation is a powerful testament of its commitment to making TRIBE work now and in the future. Let’s be transparent about that, too!

@klob Hope we are also now more in sync!