I agree, and we have a whitepaper to drop on Floor’s next product once the time is right, but it can’t be shared right now due to the risk of being front run. If required, a handful of people who have helped feedback on the draft could attest to it having the potential to innovate the NFT-Fi space significantly and drive ETH fees and yield to the Floor Wars.
I think it would be reasonable to switch off the gauge once FLOOR is meaningfully above treasury and turned on again if it were to drop.
While I’d love to think that Lux is writing his proposal with the best intentions for Floor’s future in mind, I find it very difficult to see where such an alignment is coming from given the glaring conflict of interests.
@Lux on the topic of the rage quit mechanism. I think this calculation below is the maximally objective. The amounts and values below are just for illustration, but put simply this would give everyone a pro-rata claim on all tokens in the treasury (all NFTs would be fractionalized to enable this).
This would avoid any need for selling/slippage issues and the giant complexities and differences of opinion that would come with it.
I covered some feedback in Discord but wanted to add this bit specifically here. If yes receives more than 50% of the votes it proceeds to the next stages, if no receives more than 50% then it does not proceed. There should be a >50% majority…
For future reference, Abstsain doesn’t get counted for any vote, it is there to achieve quorum without putting a vote towards a specific option.
So if there is 51 votes for yes, 49 votes for no, and 200 votes for abstain then yes would win 51%/49%.
That’s right, amend would mean to amend the options. The way your proposal was written had if No received an 80% vote it would return to discussion to go up again which isn’t the right next steps in this case
Sounds like another discussion is happening in the mean time.