OTC Buyback Proposal

🧭 TEC Strategy & Governance
1

This proposal provides an alternative path to Proposal #2 which has been in the Forum for almost 2 weeks. Since we have not received sufficient guidance from the proposer, and they have not yet posted it for an onchain vote due to differences among larger token-holders, we are presenting this proposal as an alternative.

We believe this counter-proposal represents a compromise between token-holders who wish to continue and those who wish to wind-down the $TEC token-economy. It offers a fair exit for those wishing to leave while preserving the Commons for those committed to its future.

The worst possible outcome would be splitting the vote and creating gridlock, leaving the TEC in limbo without either a fair exit mechanism or a path for renewal. This proposal is presented in good faith to ensure that the community has a constructive alternative to consider before a final decision is made.

Please note: Proposal #2 is ready to be put to an onchain vote. If the proposer wishes to move forward with it, they may.

Summary

This proposal offers an alternative to sunsetting the $TEC token. Instead of dissolving the organization and distributing funds through an indefinite claims process, we propose creating an OTC buy-back program that allows token-holders to exit the TEC economy at fair value, while preserving the Commons for those committed to continuing its mission.

Context

The current sunset proposal calls for:

  • Shutting down the Augmented Bonding Curve (ABC).

  • Moving all funds and converting the rETH in the Reserve and all TEC funds into the Common Pool.

  • Creating a claims process for $TEC Token-Holders indefinitely.

While this plan would fully close TEC operations, it does not reflect the full diversity of perspectives within the community.

Current Outlook from our discussions with Token-Holders

  • The group advocating for sunset represents a minority of token-holders (10–20 individuals), but a large % of tokens (although feared not enough to satisfy the 85% requirement).

  • A separate group of token-holders wishes to continue TEC’s work with its existing infrastructure, believing there is a path toward sustainability and the further development of a Commons.

This counter-proposal seeks to balance both perspectives by offering a fair exit mechanism for those wishing to leave, while retaining the TEC’s infrastructure and remaining resources for those wishing to continue.

Proposal

We propose the creation of an OTC Buy-Back Program, funded by the Common Pool (CP), and under the following conditions:

  1. Exit Opportunity for Token-Holders

  • Any token-holder who wishes to exit may sell their TEC tokens back to the organization at a set rate.

  • The buy-back rate will be calculated based on the current value of the Common Pool + Reserve and any Funds within TEC Control, which equates to approximately $0.20 per TEC.

  • At $0.20 per TEC, the Common Pool and TEC Controlled Funds can support the purchase of the full TEC supply.

2. No Tribute Tax

  • Exiting token-holders will not incur the standard 12% tribute tax applied to bonding curve exits, or have to compete in a race-to-the-bottom sell-off in order to leave the Commons economy.

  • This ensures that those wishing to leave receive the full, fair value of the Commons.

3. Use of Repurchased Tokens

  • All TEC tokens bought back will be reserved for the organization to use in the following manner:

    • 125k $TEC will be reserved for secondary-market liquidity boosts

    • 25k $TEC will be reserved for utility experiments and incentives for utility programs.

    • Everything beyond this amount will be burned to protect the floor price of $TEC for remaining holders. Within this proposal, no dilution of remaining token-holders exists.

  • All TEC tokens bought from this purchase are PROHIBITED from being used for Governance decisions moving forward.

4. Time-Bound Process

  • The claiming process for those wishing to leave the TEC economy will follow the same process illustrated in Proposal #2.

  • The only difference in the claims process is that instead of it being open for an indefinite period of time, the buy-back window will remain open for a defined period (e.g., 4-6 weeks).

  • After this window, the program will close, and all remaining funds will return to the Common Pool and remain committed to ongoing Commons initiatives.

Benefits

  • For Exiting Token-Holders

    • Provides a clean and fair exit without dilution or tribute tax.

    • Guarantees liquidity at a predictable and transparent rate.

  • For Continuing Token-Holders

    • Ensures TEC retains its infrastructure and treasury.

    • Consolidates TEC tokens into the organization, strengthening secondary-markets and utility.

    • Positions TEC to fund projects and initiatives with greater focus and alignment.

    • Token-Holders who do not wish to sell their tokens or miss the window remain in the same contractual agreement and setting they started with, along with no additional dilution of value with their funds.

  • For the Commons as a Whole

    • Avoids a divisive “all-or-nothing” sunset decision.

    • Creates space for both groups (those who wish to exit, and those who wish to continue building.)

    • Preserves the TEC mission for the long-term, while respecting the preferences of all participants.

Process

Use the same claiming process as the Sunsetting proposal, but with a fixed-rate of exchange and a fixed-duration for the claims contract. No reason to move the Reserve. Payment of 5k can be facilitated for the cost of developing the claims contracts (same as before).

Budget

Compensation for the Development of the Claims Contract: $5,000
Compensation for organizing funds, proposal facilitation, and closure : $10,500 (Bear, Nate, Rex, Mon)

Conclusion

This counter-proposal provides a balanced and inclusive path forward for the TEC. By allowing token-holders to exit fairly through an OTC buy-back program, we are preserving the organization’s resources and mission, and will enable the Commons to continue evolving with a new committed group of stakeholders.

We ask the community to support this proposal as a constructive alternative to sunsetting TEC.

What this Proposal Does

  • Approves the distribution of the budget and compensation for building the claims contract and the execution of the proposal.
  • Approves consolidation of all remaining funds in multisigs and grant accounts controlled by the TEC into the Common Pool.
  • Approves the conversion of all assets in the Common Pool to rETH.
  • Approves the movement of all rETH in the Common Pool into the claims contract.

Moving Forward

If this proposal passes, the TEC Coordination Team will carry forward the momentum generated through this process. We are already welcoming new ideas and fresh perspectives from individuals who have stepped up during this discussion, and the remaining token-holders can direct our collective focus toward creating utility for the TEC token, re-evaluating our token model and mechanisms, and exploring new revenue-generating pathways. This proposal references a starting point for renewal, ensuring the TEC remains adaptive and mission-driven.

Once this proposal has been in the Forum for 5 days, all feedback will be incorporated and the proposal will be posted onchain.

1 Like
2

Response to the OTC Buy-Back Counter-Proposal
In Line with Ostrom’s Principles of Commons Governance

First, I appreciate the effort to develop a more nuanced alternative to full sunsetting of TEC. This proposal seeks to acknowledge and accommodate the diverse views within the community, offering both a pathway for exit and a foundation for continuation. In the spirit of polycentric governance and collective-choice arrangements as outlined in Elinor Ostrom’s Principles, I support the direction of offering both options to stakeholders.

That said, I would like to highlight a few key points of alignment and concern based on Ostrom’s framework for governing sustainable Commons:

:white_check_mark: Support for Time-Bound Claims Window (Condition 4)

In line with Ostrom Principle #3 (Collective-choice arrangements) and Principle #1 (Clearly defined boundaries), I strongly support the provision for a time-bound exit window rather than an indefinite claims process.

This balances fairness for exiting holders while maintaining a sustainable framework for those committed to continue TEC’s mission. Once the window closes, remaining assets should rightfully fall under the governance of those still active in the Commons, consistent with Ostrom’s view that those who use and manage the resource should have authority over its rules.

:warning: Concern with Indefinite OTC Price

While a fixed rate may offer predictability for those exiting, setting a OTC floor price indefinitely poses a significant arbitrage risk. This essentially creates a synthetic price floor for $TEC which undermines market signals and creates incentives to exploit the Commons without meaningful contribution.

This is contrary to Ostrom’s Principle #8: Minimal recognition of rights to organize, which implies that participants must bear the costs and risks of participation (“skin in the game”).

A better alignment with Ostrom’s approach would be to keep this OTC rate available only during the limited exit window, after which market forces should determine the token’s value. Those who stay should accept the volatility and responsibility inherent in maintaining and governing a Commons.

:x: Strong Objection to Condition 3 (Use of Repurchased Tokens for Liquidity Boosts)

Condition 3 is deeply problematic and runs counter to several of Ostrom’s core principles:

  • Principle #2: Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs – Artificially boosting $TEC on secondary markets benefits those able to front-run or exit through inflated liquidity, rather than those contributing to long-term Commons sustainability.
  • Principle #7: Nested enterprises – Resources should flow toward nested, long-term utility-building token engineering products that drive token value in long term. Redirecting funds for short-term price manipulation undermines the integrity of the TEC Commons and risks long-term mission failure.

Artificially boosting liquidity in secondary markets effectively diverts resources from the purpose of building the Commons to enabling speculative exits, and I am strongly opposed to this element being included.

Repurchased tokens should be Governed by those who remain through transparent community governance, not used as a speculative instrument.

:warning: On Governance of Remaining Resources

In accordance with Ostrom Principle #3 and #4 (Monitoring and Graduated Sanctions), all decisions regarding remaining TEC funds must be made by those who remain, not pre-allocated in this exit proposal.

This aligns with the logic that rights to governance and use of Commons resources are earned by continued participation and contribution. Any forward strategy for TEC, including potential new token issuance must emerge from this renewed, committed governance body.

:loudspeaker: Process and Transparency Concerns

I received notice of this proposal only yesterday via email from the TEC forum, with no clear communication in official TEC announcements. Considering the significance of this decision, I respectfully request:

At least 4 more days of open forum debate
before any vote or decision is finalized.

This ensures adequate time for discussion across the community in alignment with Ostrom’s emphasis on inclusive, participatory governance processes.

:white_check_mark: In Summary

I support the balanced structure of this proposal, particularly:

  • The option for token holders to exit via a time-limited buyback window, and
  • The preservation of TEC’s infrastructure for those wishing to continue.

However, I object to:

  • The indefinite floor price, which distorts market dynamics and incentives.
  • Condition 3, which uses Commons funds to create artificial market conditions favoring insiders, and undermines long-term Commons viability.

Instead, repurchased tokens should be transparently governed by those who stay with skin in the game.

Let us ensure that any path forward stays rooted in the principles that originally defined TEC — participatory governance, accountability, and the long-term stewardship of our shared Commons.

1 Like
3

There is an active Vote up for this proposal within TAO Voting: Commons DAO

Please do go vote!

1 Like