54 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
54 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
- Cerulean ecosystem fund, largest REGEN holder
|
|
- Tokenomics ~~DAO~~ Working Group
|
|
- Reason for DAO vs engineered design
|
|
- Decentralized process recommendation by Sam Hart
|
|
- Regulatory concerns: Wells notices are showing up, but if DAO then less liability
|
|
- Sam Hart
|
|
- Ecosystem lens
|
|
- Decentralized process as much as possible
|
|
- Two phases
|
|
- Phase 1: interesting stuff out the door
|
|
- Phase 2: larger scope modeling & neater stuff to upgrade
|
|
- Regulatory concerns
|
|
- Legal counsel recommended non-direct action on the design by Regen Foundation
|
|
- Stakeholder groups:
|
|
- Sam Hart
|
|
- Sacha from
|
|
- Validators
|
|
- Scientist/eco folks
|
|
- Community staking DAO
|
|
- Where is the discussion?
|
|
- Discourse on Regen Network CommonWealth
|
|
- Three facets of token design
|
|
- Utility Economics (fee splitting, etc)
|
|
- Financialization (Defi modules)
|
|
- Monetary economics ()
|
|
-
|
|
- Where could BSci be most helpful?
|
|
- Formalizing processes around community exploration of governance of Regen monetary system
|
|
- Group for progressive decentralization of ideation around token design
|
|
- Community convening process
|
|
-
|
|
- Role of
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
- A few notes from our call with Regen on Friday:
|
|
- Long story short, Regen is in need of some updates to their token ecosystem. Some of their updates are minor, low-cost & near-term, and some are more in-depth & long-term.
|
|
- With an eye to regulatory action lately, they want to be particularly careful with any token ecosystem updates that appear overly "centralized", such as direct actions by Regen Foundation/Network in suggesting and implementing those updates.
|
|
- This is the main reason they have been talking about a "Tokenomics Working Group" (much better than the DAO idea mentioned earlier) to discuss and make these kinds of decisions along with key stakeholder inclusion, as well as community input & feedback.
|
|
- Thus far, "emergent" input on the community forum has gotten an F grade by Greg Landua, but private stakeholder conversations (e.g. with Sam Hart or Sacha) are fruitful for ideas, though none of those stakeholders have the cycles to "run" the working group
|
|
- The Regen team has a list of near term updates in mind already, but it seems they need this working group on order to discuss, feed back on, prioritize, and vote to execute on those ideas without assuming undue liability
|
|
- Regen's near term needs:
|
|
- 45-90 days to show progress on low-hanging fruit initiatives
|
|
- Requires: Mapping & operationalizing Tokenomics Working Group
|
|
- Requires: Gathering, organizing, & stack ranking current proposals in terms of cost & temporal feasibility
|
|
- Requires: establishing discussion forum, proposal process, & decision making tools for tokenomics WG
|
|
- Longer term needs
|
|
- More thorough modeling and design work
|
|
- Higher budget availability is likely if early results were promising
|
|
-
|
|
- Phase 1: $15-20k possible from Regen. If delivery...
|
|
- Phase 2: $50k+ possible from Regen + stakeholders. If still delivering...
|
|
- Phase 3: Up to $200k possible from wider network for longer term work
|
|
|
|
- Needs: operational coordinative role - Max Semenchuk? |