Thanks all for the engagement here! I’m a big fan of web3privacy now personally, and I would happily contribute to this Donor Drop if it does happen, but I also think that all the concerns raised in this topic are valid, looking forward to @Gavin and @almostFitz’s synthesis.
A few thoughts that come to mind from my end (which probably don’t impact the decision of whether to do this specific Donor Drop or not and with what parameters, but might help us craft a sustainable long-term plan):
- If we want to continue to do Donor Drops in the future – personally, I do, although I’m not quite sure what form that should take yet – I think it may be helpful to try to come to agreement separately on (a) the economic parameters (which are where I see questions here) and (b) the specific recipient (which so far seems uncontroversial in this case). Economic parameters are – understandably – a more contentious point of debate, since they impact everyone, whereas you can just choose not to donate to a particular recipient if you’re not super enthused about them. Economic parameters are also something that it might be helpful to come to a more general agreement about (governing more than one Donor Drop).
- To me, the goal of Donor Drops is to give people a way to both (a) support deserving public goods-oriented projects and (b) invest in Namada. I don’t want Donor Drops to attract people who only want to donate in order to receive and then sell the NAM (as a way to make this argument really clear, if we wanted that kind of system, we wouldn’t need to bother going through all the trouble of running a program, Namada could just sell NAM and send the proceeds to the org directly). Part of why this mechanism works now is that NAM is not tradeable, but this will change soon with phase 5. In the future, I think we might want to consider a non-tradeable reward for Donor Drops, such as Namada shielded bonds.