I asked myself the exact the same question and wanna share here my mental model without any concrete solution.
3 years in the future, different chains will serve different users on the spectrum of great UX/(tx costs) vs security/decentralization.
I think on the one side of the spectrum, there are L1, such as Solana, Avalance, offering their user’s great UX(super fast finality, cheap gas prices), but on the cost of decentralisation. I find this very appealing for most every-day usecases.
On the other side of the spectrum are the “slower”, more decentralized chains like Ethereum. They will most likely become the settlement layer of high value transactions.
Personally, I love roll-up, since they promise to deliver both: great UX and high security. They can use the security of Ethereum, and provide great UX via operators that immediately grant finality. Though there are two hooks:
optimistic roll ups, will only become cheap if ETH 2.0 provides new shards for their data and even then they won’t be “very cheap”
zk-rollups will be take longer, until they become fully mature, as the technology is quite new/complicated. But they allow for even cheaper tx costs with solutions like zk-porta
My main concern for the gnosis chain is that it’s on neither side of the spectrum, but more in the middle and hence will have a harder time to find the right product market fit. Especially, as this “middle area” in the spectrum is well covered by BSC and Polygon.
But in general, it’s exciting that Gnosis looks into helping other buildings out chains/ chainecosystems!
We, most of the xDai token holders, are against the 14 days twap. We consider it very unfair. You can check the veracity of this by checking xDai Community Telegram, Discord and Forum.
We consider that the swap rate should be based on at least a 6 months twap.
Can’t you increase it? You have 150,000 eth, I’m sure you could make a little effort and be fair with us.
If you don’t do it, maybe the proposal will not pass, and if it passes, the fud will be heavy (it has already been enormous) so I think you are shooting at your own feet if you don’t improve the proposal hearing what the xDai Community request.
You are on the verge of being the most fudded project of 2021 if you don’t adjust the proposal, and I can assure you, that will impact very negatively both on Gnosis and on the Gnosis Chain.
Validium (StarkWare) is already online with a cost close to 0(ImmutableX). Volition lets the user choose security(on-chain data) or low cost(off-chain data) for each transaction.
StarkWare’s general-purpose Validity Rollup will also be available in alpha at the end of this month, and there is also the Solidity to Cairo transpiler, which is progressing at a crazy speed.
And ZKSync seems to be starting to move forward as well.
In short, I am a VERY old Gnosis holder, but I would vote against such a proposal, which is a waste of money from my point of view.
you literally have a quote of you saying “Negative feeback comes from some Stake holders”. that ‘Some’ implies only a minority have negative feed back. where it is blatant the majority do.
and of course the xdai projects have a positive sentiment. Seeing you admitted the gnosis team has been in talks with them long before this proposal came to light. how much insider trading was going on to pump GNO price? to then sample at the peak of that pumped price by insider trading to steal even more of the share from stake holders over the network. this is so blatantly unethical and slimy.
This shows that there has probably been insider trading, so a 14 day twap is totally unfair. Based on this, it should be at least a 6 months twap. Hope you reconsider, or this will be bad for everyone. Fud is unstoppable otherwise
As a $Stake holder (also have a small stake in GNO but nothing compared to my $Stake holdings) and dedicated xDAI Chain user I see the proposal with mixed emotions.
For sure the merger can help the chain to grow and I see the pros for the gnosis ecosystem too. But valuation is always a hard bussiness and in crypto with the huge swings even more. Therefore I would prefer not puting another conversion rate in for discussion, but like to hear your opinion of another form of merger:
Gnosis DAO receive 50% of all $Stake without any upfront payment, just for the good you offer in the proposal. The $Stake can be newly minted giving you ownership of half of the xDAI Chain and we will agree for rebranding to Gnosis Chain. Also $Stake can be renamed to fit into your System, like GNO-Stake or whatsever.
Thereby you save the 285,398 GNO, a considerable amout of money, and still get ownership of 50% of the xDAI Chain you help to grow as proposed. Also this would overcome the need to calculate a conversion ratio and all the conflicts associated with it.
The drawback is, you have to handle two tokens, but imho this shouldn’t be a big deal.
I think we all can come to a consensus that the offer is unethical and not fair for holders of STAKE token. It would only benefit Gnosis holders. So i voted for “make no changes”.
Or if it comes to a merge, a conversion rate of 0.3 for example sounds about right. At least 0.2!
If you hold STAKE vote NO. The 0.0326292707 conversion rate is just robbery. If it was around .20 I would consider. Why would I want to convert an under valued asset with an easy potential to 10-30x for a overbought high market cap asset? GNO just pumped and will have a long correction.
Either give the STAKE holders a fair premium conversion or hold off on the merge until next year.
Also there should be a 3rd party controlling the voting process so there is no manipulation like whats been going on with the price of GNO/STAKE.
the ratio is ridicoulous for $STAKE hodlers, these 2 r in 2 different wave of the bigger picture cycle and $STAKE is much more undervalued,some of us accumulated over a year and if u do this u shit on ur community and personally would get the hell out INSTANTLY!!! NO NO NO under this ratio, not even close and its a rip off
its not even close,look at the BTC chart from the bottom and calculate the difference and then the difference between circulating/total supply out and i dont care who has what in $GNO, this is straight theft for $STAKE hodlers
Xdai has done so much created so many things 5 yrs no one thought was possible , I spend almost any minute i don’t work and sleep w/ crypto and not only will the fund be deep but what is to prevent splitting the chain and having xdai1 or xdai2 / This is getting greedy with what the banks have done for years and it’s setting a future precedence , if a really great project comes out and a bigger project wants to steal it what will prevent it from buying 50% ( which on the 4 spike occasions 200% pops may be what happened with xdai ) My point is if people from xdai are not happy with this do to loss of a long lost chain that’s had love from day one till this day and gettting so little from gno per xdai is just some straight bullshit . Has anyone looked into legal issues , if you are buying the chain out could that check a few boxes showing it’s a security ? There is too much too fast and gno is offering far too little , I owned gno , but may on this dip buy every dollar i have of xdai which is only maybe 10k more but use everyone to get a fair proposal and time to see the long term problems . HOSTILE TAKEOVER are strong words and indicates. a non decentralized entity is taking over the chain by force , this will set future presidents and we do not want to be on the wrong side of crypto history.
The tokens have to be newly minted, might even be necessary to make a new contract to make this possible. The main idea behind this is to facilitate a real merger and not a plain take over. $Stake holders don’t feel happy with any conversion rate that’s accaptable to Gnosis, therefor I don’t see a solution by adjusting the exchange rate.
But I see the value in the merger and would be happy if this would happen.
The way I proposed it Gnosis don’t have to spend upfront GNO token which the $Stake holders don’t value the same way as Gnosis, and $Stake holders retain a larger part of the project. Imho a win-win.
But ofc there are more details to talk about, like vesting scedule for the tokens they will receive, also if it might be better to offer a little less so that no party holds more than 50% to keep the narrative of decentralisation. And most likely other things I am not aware of right now.
Anyway, I would favor this much more as any conversion rate adjustment.
