People bought a project in its infancy. Therefore the acepted the risks associated. When they have no patience/believe, they can sell at loss anytime. Like they knew first hand when they were able to read…
hope team do the best project. to the sunshine
be a parter with binance is good for prject
There are alternative ways that data can be interpreted:
People are more willing to take more risk with small amount of money and are more conservative with larger sum of money.
With more funds committed, it’s likely that more time is spent studying the protocol and genesis mechanism. It’s not hard to reach the conclusion that the genesis is over-subscribed and large drop in TRIBE price is likely after genesis. Therefore it’s better to buy TRIBE after the initial drop.
The pre-swapping is not necessarily an indication of commitment to the protocol, but rather a risk profile.
In other words, here is an alternative interpretation:
Not allowing $1 redemption is to favor recklessness, and punish prudence and carefully studying the genesis mechanism.
Let alone leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
@joey, You say: “Ultimately, TRIBE holders are responsible for the FEI peg, and the long term vision of a scalable decentralized stablecoin is the top priority.”
But is that the top priority of TRIBE holders? Are TRIBE holders selflessly here to support a scalable decentralized stablecoin? Or is the top priority of TRIBE holders to maximize the value of TRIBE? Are those the same? It’s at least arguable that those two goals are not the same.
This Reserve Stabilization approach seems like a big risk for TRIBE holders. You’re giving away a decent amount of the value that TRIBE controls. What’s in it for TRIBE holders? Is this TRIBE holders sacrificing for the good of the whole? Is this the best way for TRIBE holders to maximize their value?
Why not give all the ETH to the TRIBE holders? Or maybe they should get part of the reserved TRIBE tokens?
I may be misunderstanding something, but if you want TRIBE holders to vote for this, you may want to see the situation more from their point of view and explain to them what they get out of it? The current sales pitch for this approach seems more like asking for TRIBE holders to sacrifice, when so far, TRIBE holders don’t have much reason to be trusting or eager to sacrifice.
Hope that helps.
Here’s another analogy for you, you buy a t.v., sell the remote and power cord(TRIBE) for a profit then want to return the t.v. for full price even though you never intended to keep it.
That’s a good analogy. Following your train of thought:
Amazon refuses to refund the TV after I sold the accessories, so I said to myself, fine I will keep the TV. but it turns out the TV is defective and doesn’t really work. It flicks on and off, and 80% of the screen has pixels and the rest is just black or noise. and there is no way to get a refund just because I don’t have the accessories anymore.
I’d say amazon should still give a refund. Or rather the TV manufacturer should now take back the defective TV and give the refund.
FEI is the defective TV and tribe is the manufacturer,
Refusing redemption is the same as the TV manufacturer saying: just wait, keep that non-funcitoning TV in your living room. We are working out a new line of product, it will be better, and when it’s ready (we don’t know when that is and we don’t know for sure if it will work) we will give you that newer model for your defective TV.
It’s reasonable for people to say: no, I don’t want to wait for your new line of product. just give a refund now. It’s hard to imagine that TV manufacturer being successful if that’s how they do their business.
Is that the right analogy? If you were just looking for a stablecoin, why not buy one of the many established stablecoins? Or why not wait a few weeks to see if this one works?
If you were buying a television, would you buy the pre-release new technology television that no one has ever used when the market already has many televisions that work pretty well? Were you looking for a stablecoin or profit?
Ultimately, both TRIBE and FEI holders took a risk in the hope of earning a profit. The rules were public and up to each person to gauge the risks.
Now TRIBE holders have to decide what to do to minimize their loss / maximize their profit. That may or may not include ensuring FEI gets back to $1. But it’s hard to blame TRIBE holders for trying to now serve themselves first.
Both TRIBE and FEI holders are damaged here. Both TRIBE and FEI holders made bad decisions to invest so early. Both TRIBE and FEI holders need to decide what’s now in their own best interests.
This actually reminds me of the old post on Kickstarter:
Investing in a pre-launch crypto project is not buying a television at a store.
How do i find out how much circulating TRIBE is out there right now?
I guess this is because this TV comes with a free microwave and people just want to keep the microwave and return the TV.
This is similar to how various projects issue their token in their farm through inflating token supply, and the whales come in the farm the token and dump it on the market, depressing the price and harming the token hodlers.
Is this the fault of the whale dumper, or is this the a sign that the tokenomics can be improved? Now imagine that there is a bug in the farm contract that takes away 20% of the funds in the farm. (some would say this can be seen as a soft rug)
Of course this is different from buying a TV. The whole point is that this is an analogy. and the goal of the analogy is to convey this: don’t f over your customer, that means bad business.
And that’s another reason this isn’t a good analogy.
A television manufacturer probably has to care about its long-term brand because that’s probably the path to maximizing shareholder value.
Here, that’s not necessarily true.
The incentive of TRIBE holders is to maximize their value. Maybe they do that by voting to make FEI whole. Maybe they do that by unwinding the entire project and distributing all the ETH to themselves.
that’s what I am afraid of. that the TRIBE holders are going to try and rug the entire PCV. I hope that it doesn’t come to that, if it does, it will be the biggest scandal in DeFi, and leave a bad reputation for the entire sector. Short term profit for a few, very bad long term consequence for the project.
In fact the TRIBE voters are anonymous, and the team is not. It’s really the team that will suffer the consequence on the reputation damage.
That’s why the no changers were completely silent until the vote came out. It’s really not a very honorable and prideful thing to do.
Another evidence to counter your point, is that the option 3 voters so far are mostly big whales and if you scroll down to the little people, there are a lot more for 1% redemption.
Can you blame the TRIBE holders for voting in their best interests? Do they owe FEI holders anything?
How much would TRIBE holders earn/lose if today they distributed the ETH to all the TRIBE holders? I’d be curious.
TRIBE will be eventually worthless if FEI doesn’t stabilize around the peg sooner rather than later.
Holy moly I hadn’t seen this comment. That’s incredible. That spread needs to get more publicity. I was under the impression until now that the majority of people that wanter FIP-1 were small retail investors. But it seems possible from Joey’s post that that’s not the case.
Gutting the PCV to distribute to TRIBE is hardly in the best interest for Tribe. a short term profit maybe. But it means the project dies and everyone abandons ship. Can’t imagine the team and investors with long term lockup would ever go for this.
In fact, every genesis participant should have long term lockup and vesting schedule same as the team, so that their interest is more aligned. If I can only take away one lesson, this would be it.
You’re absolutely right. The price of FEI at the moment is a tremendously good deal for anybody that believes in the long term viability of FEI. I mean, even if it takes a year for the protocol to reach stability. That’s a 20% return in just one year!