To have volumes, we need good exchanges and a paid market maker.But something seems to me we won’t see either the first or the second in the short term after the project’s release.
Let’s see what happens.
Wouldn’t this exactly the olympics of market making?
Or MM are generally service providers that only compete for the low hanging fruit?
First, I’d like to give you credit for taking a principled, contrarian stance and trying to solve the issues associated with high fdv / low float. It strikes me as a genuine attempt to achieve your stated goals, and this is uncharted territory.
It seems like there are two issues people have with this approach
#1 - investors will sell
#2 - team will sell
I agree with everything you said around price signal and avoiding network distortion, and personally, it’s enough to offset any issues with #1.
#2 is trickier, because it requires a high level of trust in the team. You may even end up with a prisoner’s dilemma; what happens if one member of the founding team decides they’re no longer interested in working on the project?
One potential solution is to make the team wallets public, so that there is reputational risk to defecting. Another is to set policies around how much can be sold, and when (e.g. “not more than X% in an N month period”). Even simpler would be to keep the core team on a vesting schedule, although this does feel unfair, in a sense.
3 Likes
Under no conditions will the team agree to this, and even if they do, they will prefer to keep the “investors” wallets hidden so that ordinary users cannot access this information. They will justify this by saying, “Well, you understand, this is confidential information” 
do you have any reason to be saying what you’re saying?
would be cool if you could engage in a less divisive way. being grounded in reason, imo, helps to be more productive than cynically speculative
1 Like
Gavin, is there any plans / ideas, with regards to the initial launch, for governance groups? Though what I mean here, is something that will consider previous mistakes of other chains.
I can and will expand, but before I do, just making sure im not off topic here
1 Like
hey! we (Knowable) haven’t made governance group plans, but i’m keen to know your thoughts about this topic
i was thinking we would use this forum for long-form and our Discord #general channel for real-time (and split it off into a Discord hot topic if it gets too noisy in “general”)
i was thinking that as patterns emerge, we could document these into our community handbook (which ideally will grow into our Namada Knowledge Base) and use this to develop more formal processes with a group to support them
2 Likes
Yes. I think using the forum to start with makes sense. Would be cool to see it (the handbook) ported to some web3 domain or IPFS, etc, in order not to lose em. But thats detail.
The only thoughts I keep having are more or less the same thought i try to express at every chain launch over the past 10 years or so heh.
I have seen how strong chains get ripped apart by governance many times. IMO 1 of the grave mistakes most governance groups make are wrong hierarchical order. They go to foundations or active community members, such as validators, that already propose something. They try to understand the idea and then deliver it to the community.
What sounds ok. But it leads to a grave issue. The community isnt heard. It has feedback. The feedback is delivered. But that feedback is not organic. It is feedback on already proposed ideas by foundations / validators, etc.
What lacks, is a governance group from “degens for degens”. i.e. a group that goes to the community, gathers ideas, brings it to the foundation, gets feedback and helps to structure it. Not the other way around (of course both are needed, but the latter is way more important for the health of an active chain).
I also dont think validators are particularly suited for that part, as they are entities with self interests. Usually those people emerge as the community growth. And, alas, a lot of the time ignored or guided in the wrong direction, to work only from up → down.
Anyway just some philosophical thinking here. We are happy to participate though in several ways. Finding. Being part of. Maybe even providing some ipfs back up to the docs, etc
2 Likes