I’m sorry! I would have made this shorter but I ran out of time! (A phrase attributed to Blaise Pascal and Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin and Woodrow Wilson and it never let me down.)
Here are the pieces that matter most and describe best the choices made. Looking forward to feedback here or in an upcoming debate!
DMs are open if you are feeling shy but still want to kick the tires on proposal #126 together.
Inspired and influenced by the following proposals:
#113 - “The Fledge”
#74 - $1 Gambit for $1,000,000 Goldilocks Orogeny
#109 - The Bolshevik’s Gambit fork with Revolutionary Opening Price and Iron Curtain Conviction Voting
#124 - Montaña Rusa: The Communist Roller-Coaster
In large part, our Hatch was based on the premise that Hatchers are commitment the long term, mission driven goals over short term individual gains. So I’m advocating for a longish thaw. One that will give the TEC a floor above the Hatch price for the entire first year. Kudos to The Fledge (#113) for the “hatch, fledge” analogy. Hatch, fledge, fly!
Did you know that from hatching to leaving the nest a bird can increase its weight by as much as 10 times?
With the freeze/thaw at 39/65, Hatchers tokens begin to thaw at 9 months and by the end of the first year, 20% of Hatchers tokens will be unfrozen.
We are not greedy. We envision a world where ethical and resilient economic systems benefit societies. We know it will take us time to make that happen and that having a secure floor for one full yer will provide needed security to take our next bold steps. This gives us a year to build our reputation, strategies and agility in whatever market conditions we face.
The psychological impact of 1M in the Commons pool is no small trifle. That’s 1M allocated directly to funding proposals that serve our mission. With a must-have of 1M in the Commons pool, I looked to find the right balance between the Commons Tribute (sourced from existing Hatchers) and Entry/Exit Tribute (to be sourced from future TEC token holders).
Unless we are setting the entry/exit to near-zero we should expect that future TEC token holders are here for the impact to be made and a belief in what we are doing. Any non-zero tribute will be a deterrent to the average speculator.
I see the wisdom of #74 with having the entry/exit adjust over a scheduled amount of time and will propose the same. Entry: 16 - 12 - 8 - 4 and Exit: 5 - 6 - 7 - 8, with and adjustment happening every 6 weeks.
There is a conversation about the TE Academy proposal that shapes my thinking here. Knowing their longer financial runway facilitates funding roles to execute their vision. So, for example, requesting a grant for 6 months out versus month-by-month would be the difference between only being able to assure someone’s role month-to-month versus offering a longer term assurance of compensation to a new hire. This is big for our bootstrapping projects!
Low spending limits act as a sort of check-and-balance on projects as they will need to prove continuous delivery by requesting small amounts periodically. There is a real advantage to that but I feel that makes it administratively difficult for larger, more ambitious projects like the TE Academy to depend on funding from us. And for the voters, it will exhaust our attention to have a constant stream of smaller proposals.
High spending limits here might pose a risk but as #124 points out, we have Celeste. We should be able to rely on Celeste to arbitrate anyone acting in bad faith. In the end, I believe it will better serve our goal of advancing Token Engineering than a low spending limit.
Finally, that any proposal will require > 24 hours to pass is a courtesy to the entire community.
|Token Freeze||39 Weeks|
|Token Thaw||65 Weeks|
|Opening Price||1.5 wxDAI|
*This is an output. Learn more about the Reserve Ratio here.
|Vote Duration||6 day(s)|
|Delegated Voting Period||3 day(s)|
|Quiet Ending Period||2 day(s)|
|Quiet Ending Extension||3 day(s)|
|Execution Delay||1 day(s)|
|Conviction Growth||14 day(s)|
I you all.