@mkoeppelmann I think this is a huge chance for Gnosis and xDai, even if the ratio could be a bit better - renegotiation would be appropriate imo (e. g. 1:0.06 ratio => 0.032 directly + 0.028 with linear vesting schedule over 12 month). I would love to see how Gnosis-Chain would become an Ethereum Alpha-Network with an implementation of a Dai-Sidechain-Module to generate Dai/xDai directly on Gnosis-Chain (atm there are validator multisig-security concerns as far as I know - but Gnosis-Beacon-Chain should fix this issue). Btw. I really like the Idea of subsidizing the bridging costs - you mentioned in the proposal. This would be a real competitive advantage over other chains (+ marketing) - maybe half of the tip fee could be used.
1 Like
If this is hostile and xdai holders don’t agree it sets a standard that any small project can be gobbled up by say egos with billions of eth , what 6.5 billion for a decentralized ( but need a license like facebook ) MAKES MY 9 YRS OF STUDYING CRYPTO AND DECENTRALIZATION REALIZE THAT 14 COINS WAS BETTER IN 2012 THEN 150000 NOW .
1 Like
always the same in mankind history: with success comes the money to ruin the morals.
1 Like
As a GNO holder and xDAI dapp creator (Kleros & Linguo), I would support the merge but I do not think that the current price is fair for GNO holders.
Stake currently trades at 0.024 STAKE / GNO while the proposal fix the rate at 0.033, a 37% markup.
The issue of fixing a price that fast is that it will inevitably result in one side overpaying.
Here the weird thing is that by looking at the comments it seems that STAKE holders are complaining while this proposal would swap their STAKE at a premium.
A way forward would be to instead of setting a fix price in the proposal, create a method to calculate this price.
We could for example make a prediction market on the price of STAKE and GNO assuming the proposal doesn’t pass and take that to compute the exchange rate.
Also I’d support the merge if it is also widely supported on the xDAI side. As if it’s just something like 51-49 with the 49 minority being highly hostile, it would lead to bad community ecosystem unlikely to yield good results.
1 Like
I like to draw your attention to a snapshot vote (excuse the typos, pls) that I did to catch the opinion of the $Stake holders about the proposal.
Most important to notice: not even one vote was against the merger at all.
Otherwise, it is a mixed outcome. 34 addresses voted with a power of 120,9 k $Stake, so participation clearly could have been better. Some voters couldn’t vote with all their holding in full because it was locked in some protocols not eligible for snapshot voting. If this might affects voters differently and thereby had an effect on the results cannot be said.
Although majority of voting power (65,6k out of 120,9k or 54,26%) as well as unique addresses (28 out of 34 or 77,7%) favor a merger without exchanging $Stake for $Gno to overcome the establishment of an exchange ratio, imho this can’t be regarded as the sole possibility taking into account the limitations mentioned above.
But it clearly emphasises the need to work on some modification of the merger conditions, whereby the path described in the proposal can be regarded as one way to go if no other consent can be reached.
I am curious about other suggestions and hope it will turn out well for all of us.
1 Like
that is a disingenuous way of framing it. by reading the stake holders concerns the issue is not the convert in value. but the lost investment opportunity many long term holders have been waiting for of stake going from a low cap gem to a mid or high cap. with this merge they lose out on that opportunity and go to being a high cap with no worth while return. most do not wish to trade their possible 100x return for a more reliable 10x, especially with the time and community investment put in. not to mention this vote dramatically reduces the stake they hold in the eco system they have been apart of, as the lose in percentage of the overall ecosystem (which is about 80% minimum) would in turn reduce their voting power and influence. so no, i completely disagree with your take and saying this is a bad deal to gno holders, especially as gno holders are really happy with this offer, is laughable.
2 Likes
After discussions with various Stake token holders.
The 2 most concrete amendments of the proposal could be
-
If a DAO would form that is controlled by current projects on xDAI some of the GNO for growth incentives could be delegated to this DAO. This DAO would have the mission to use the GNO only for growth incentives of Gnosis Chain but could establish an independent process of allocating those.
-
Guaranteed Stake/ETH ratio
The current proposal suggests a GNO/Stake ratio of 0.0326292707 GNO/STAKE. In addition to that GnosisDAO could guarantee a minimum Stake/ETH ratio.
At the time of writing the Stake/ETH price is: 0.00242 - we are suggesting to guarantee a ratio of 0.003915512484 which would be >50% bonus over the current spot price.Practically that should be achieved by making sure GNO trades at least at 0.12 ETH (thus 0.12 * 0.0326292707 = 0.003915512484) This can be achieved by using the ETH reserved of GnosisDAO to buy back GNO till this price is reached.
11 Likes
As a Stake and GNO holder I would make the following suggestion.
Keep the .0326GNO/STAKE price and take 20% of the 150K ETH and offer it to STAKE holders.
This would make this deal (check my numbers)
30000ETH/8763000STAKE ~= .00342ETH/STAKE or
(.0326GNO/STAKE + .00342ETH/STAKE) instead of your .0039155.GNO/STAKE
This only drops the GnosisDAO treasury by 20% from 150K ETH to 120K ETH. Gives a reasonable bonus in ETH to STAKE holders to approve the merger rather than wasting the ETH to accomplish a temporary GNO price bump.
This at least gets the merger/buyout price to something more like $23-26/STAKE vs. $11-13/STAKE currently (depending on the GNO price on any given day).
I think this kind of deal gives STAKE holders more incentive to sell the ETH and hold the GNO (though hard to say) or even maybe to use the ETH THEMSELVES to buy more GNO if they believe in the merger.
6 Likes
I think the approach Maker Man stated is way better. It would be more benefitial for both projects. I totally agree with Maker Man.
mkoeppelmann that would value $stake at around 17$, which is the same price as the original proposal you offered us, at the gno price of that moment. So you are actually not changing the ratio, just trying to camuflate it as an improvement while it is not
3 Likes
I personally like the amendments and I think it is a really nice gesture.
3 Likes
Nice idea, imho as a STAKE holder full support (I mean, bags speaking, but #1 is also smart)
1 Like
Perfect! Love it. The commitment to hold GNO peg either through a commitment to buy back or through ETH distribution the way @MakerMan suggested is key IMO. As a large STAKE stakeholder, I am in favour of this amended proposal.
2 Likes
Thanks to the info, appreciate to see things are moving.
Regarding the GNO/ETH fixing to 0.12, for what period and at which market place to you plan to acheive this? Do you made a calculation how many ETH might be needed for this and like to share it (at least a max number)?
I suggest establishing a price floor of 0.12 for at least a few days. If larger buy backs are necessary to reach that price I suggest to use Gnosis Auction - once the price level is reached Univ3 seems best suited to establish a price floor for a limited time (a few days).
Really hard to tell how much ETH is required to do it. After the Stake merges total circulating supply would be ~1.8m GNO. So the theoretical maximum would be 216k ETH to buy EVERYONE out. Given that on the day of the proposal the GNO price already peaked at 0.12 ETH I would be really surprised if more than 10k ETH would be necessary.
2 Likes
thanks, seems reasonable. And this, at least a few days time period, will be at the beginning of the swap period or latter on, when beacon chain launches? It might be irrelevant to ppl. who like to go out soon but matters for all the ppl who like to stay as validator or delegator till posdao is deprecated.
We expect the bacon chain to be launched first actually. For just starting the beacon chain no vote approval is necessary as e.g. no GNO needs to be allocated. Currently we are hoping to launch a beacon chain already next week - Dec. 1st would be a cool date as this would be exactly 1 year after the Ethereum beacon chain launch.
As the vote will start in one week (and take another 2 weeks) the swap contract could be live in around 3.5 weeks - at the same time Gnosis DAO would perform the buy back.
Thinking about it: Gnosis Auction might not be required - if sufficient liquidity is added at 0.12 on e.g. UniV3 market forces will make sure that the price reaches that level already at the time GnosisDAO would add the liquidity. So practically speaking e.g. 20k ETH can be added at 0.12 in a narrow UniV3 pool as part of the proposal.
5 Likes
That’s great news, seeing the GBC launching that fast. Curious about the opportunity to participate. Regarding the swap possibilities UniV3 with 20k eth seems a good idea to me, but regarding xDAI Chain as the home of $Stake holders, imo a similar swap option on xDAI Chain should also be available.
-
Ecosystem DAO has been formed - comprised of representatives from protocols across the xDai community. We have stood up a multisig (thanks @sky) to be able receive funds and conduct DAO business until a more permanent and open platform can be established.
-
Strongly support this guaranteed ratio as amendment to the proposal.
2 Likes
Good to hear!
To determine how much GNO should be allocated to this group we would like to know:
a) what projects are part of this group/DAO
b) what is the current commitment of those projects to xDAI/ Gnosis Chain (e.g. is this their main chain/ multichain/ are they planning to migrate away/ commitment to stay/…)
c) is there already an idea of how a governance process of this group looks like
I’ll work with the group and get back to you with answers on this.