If someone commits 100 eth, and 2 weeks later gets back 85 eth, that is not “zero loss”. You must also consider all other possibilities, such as if ETH fell to $1500 while we were waiting for this to be sorted out.
That is the protocol freerolling ETH’s upside volatility (a free call option from investor to protocol), which is not fair with no compensation (TRIBE was to be that compensation, but if it must be given back/burned…). The only ways forward are:
-Full undo (FEI + TRIBE received for ETH committed)
-Redeem each FEI for $1
-Turn back on reweights, so people can sell FEI for $0.99-1.00 until all sell pressure is gone
Limiting redemption to genesis wallets is a reasonable compromise that makes the implementation a bit more involved.
I think that’s punishing the investors because they own FEI (stable coin). The coin is not fulfilling it’s purpose (by far). They want to use the coin as it was advertised. They have to provide another coin as well in order to do that.
No punishment would be allowing to sell FEI at 1 usd.
If you sell someone a product that doesn’t work you either fix it or refund it. Taking their TRIBE as well, which btw they got as a bonus for believing in the project and taking the risk of investing is punishment. They have already paid opportunity cost since their money has been blocked by the failed launch of the stable coin.
I am very glad you phrased your last sentence as you did. “They would only return what they received in Genesis, nothing more.” This is perfectly fine as long as it they get back what they gave, which is ETH. That’s a refund and can be called “undo”.
There is no easy solution. As I said before, I think the dutch auction would be the better way to bring back to peg. Pragmatically speaking, I dont see Tribe holder approving the return of ETH to FEI investors, because this would be a “punishment” to Tribe holders. And If the proposal that get approved by Tribe holders is not good to all fei investors, we will need to wait to fix/improve the reweight mechanism and maybe implement an alternative mechanism as the auction.
I dont see Tribe holder approving the return of ETH to FEI investors, because this would be a “punishment” to Tribe holders.
You keep repeating this point but you do not give any justification. How is anyone giving back exactly what they got in exchange for exactly what they put in a punishment for anyone else. People feeling that way are just talking out of greed and I hope that it is the point where the team finally decides to step in, vote or not.
To speak of fairness, FEI buyers have to exchange it for a value of $1. Because they wanted to buy FEI for $1. Rather, TRIBE is experiencing a dramatic drop in value. The Ethereum ascent should rather be provided to TRIBE.
Yes, sorry for digressing into my opinions and thoughts on what is going on
My main point and one which I think there must be action upon, is that the name is misleading and should be changed as this is not an undo. I have nothing against the proposal going for a vote, just make sure it is very clear what is being proposed and don’t call it or relate it to an undo please.
Trying to understand your point of view and I think what you’re trying to say is that Genesis participants should be compensated for committing ETH since ETH has gone up in USD?
If that is the case then TRIBE holders are down 55% and if compensation was the motive of a proposal, TRIBE holders should introduce a proposal to buy back TRIBE from the open market using the PCV till TRIBE reaches $3.2 and every preswapper is made whole. That would be outrageous wouldn’t it?
All Genesis participants decided to part with their ETH in exchange for a stable coin and an airdrop. TRIBE holders are responsible for FEI to hold it’s peg and would be ready to honour that responsibility. No one is responsible for your investment decisions (and your ETH) but yourself. Not the team, not the community and definitely not TRIBE holders. It was mentioned by the team before the Genesis that committing ETH would be a one way transaction and no one would get it back. It was also mentioned that prices of FEI and TRIBE will be volatile in the beginning and will take a while to stabilise. That’s exactly what has been happening. Do not forget that it is not only FEI holders who are down in ETH, TRIBE holders are alot worse off.
Because TRIBE holders are simply not responsible for your losses in ETH value. TRIBE holders are responsible for FEI achieving its peg and if it does not, then use the PCV to make it achieve it’s peg.
What has happened to the ETH price is irrelevant. The point is, would make the same suggestion if ETH went up, down, or was flat.
In fact this proposal was submitted when ETH price was barely up from genesis, as well as my previous one which suggested trying to reconcile ASAP before ETH moved significantly in either direction, which would cause problems.
If the community does not want to move forward with this proposal or something similar, I suggest forceReweight() ASAP, which will allow most FEI holders who want out to sell at $0.99-$1.00 while keeping their airdrop. This could have been accomplished via proposal 1, or via more reweights, but instead investors have been seemingly been freerolled on ETH’s upside.
Okay! Do that then. Right now TRIBE holders have done nothing except delay resolution. Pre-swap was a bad trade, because it would have realized the most upside if Fei was working, but it’s not, so it is experiencing the opposite. But it is not over yet-- keep that in mind. Pre-swappers still holding their TRIBE haven’t lost anything yet. SUSHI fell to $0.80 after it got rugged and is now more than 20x that after moving forward with a real, strong community who wanted to build.
Until the angry people are allowed out, this project cannot succeed, and the longer it goes on, the deeper the hole gets.
@HittingBOMBS We could wait for reweights to kick in but as the team said, we have to wait for it to be audited. This proposal was only introduced to bypass the waiting time for other members who wanted to leave. A short term fix to allow all the angry people out. Because we do identify that the project cannot succeed without relieving some sell pressure. If the motive is a quick fix, undo button is the way, if the motive is minimal loss, we can wait for reweights.
In my opinion, there’s not going to be a lot of demand to redeem FEI+TRIBE package for $1. The current market price is already $0.93, it’s barely worth the wait.
I have had a brief discussion with @Bruno . Just want to bring it to you as well, as you are the OP. I would like to change the name of this proposal and how it is referred to as it is misleading right now.
Argument is simple:
Undo means returning something to its previous state. If Alice gives X ether for Y FEI and Z TRIBE, undoing this will mean, Alice giving Y FEI and Z TRIBE and receiving X ether. In what is being proposed here ALICE is not getting X eth (could be more or less depending on eth price), therefore it is not an undo.
I have nothing to say whether the proposal is good or bad, fair or not, useful or not. All I want is to change its name because it’s semantically incorrect and misleading especially for people that do not have good command of English.
Hello Redyori, I think changing the name of proposal now is waste of time. People already read it and associated with the described solution in the post. When and If it goes to a snapshot it could use other terms and bring a very clear explanation to guarantee that ppl understand they are not receiving the original ETH, as this would not be feasible to both FEI and TRIBE investors.
I am sorry but the virtue signaling is getting old and I will let others pretend that we are all in the same boat when it is very clear than fei holders are being coerced into nonsensical “solutions” under the premise that they do not have a vote.
The issue at stake here is not that TRIBE holders feel responsible or not for the ETH loss of fei holders but rather that they feel very much like keeping the proceeds.
This proposal is the least likely to achieve the peg since FEI price will be stuck at $1-0.076*TRIBE price. In fact It achieves absolutely nothing but moving one step further from a stablecoin project to a management fund governed by the TRIBE holders.
My only concern is at what point does the team recognizes that the game theory of this DAO is completely broken and what they thought to be a DAO in charge of keeping a peg is becoming a DAO in charge of maximizing the PCV with the untold goal of redirecting its potential yield /financial power towards TRIBE.
Everything that was promised in the whitepaper has been thrown out of the window, seeing proposals like this one gaining traction maybe it is time to reconsider the structure of the DAO too.
I am afraid that even with the new name when it goes to voting, this name will still be heavily referred to, which is what I have a problem with. It seems that there is no flexibility on the matter, which I find unacceptable. At this point it feels embarrassing to be a part of it. So that will be a good bye from me. All the best
