I’m not sure you understand the concept of inflation or dilution.
Inflation = new tokens minted
This is a reallocation of tokens already in circulation not a proposal to mint new tokens.
The proposal is undisputably deflationary, based on:
~4M $S frozen and taken out of circulation
10% of protocol revenue for 2 years used to buyback and burn $S (approx. 2M $S at current trajectory)
10% of Beets treasury to buy and hold S in long term reserves (another 2-3M $S)
2-year lockup for LPs providing stS/wS liquidity
Tell me how any other use of airdrop funds will deliver this kind of return? 27M $S locked for 2-years to provide deep stS/wS liquidity for the network and a further 8-9M $S taken out of circulation.
I think you are a bit wrong in one of the reasons deposit in that pool was for the apr, if you take in mind all the sS and how many of them have been used in that pool, committing to that pool have been more like a charity to enable other defi protocols to use sS in their functionality. This is like getting aave hacked, something unexpected from very time proved contracts. If it where any money making machine, all sS would be there, but that wasn’t the case… probably in most cases, investing in there was a way to make a little contribution to grow the network with low risk. If you notice how current sentiment in S looks, investing in anything after being affected in multichain you need to be very brave, and that pool was something considered very safe with little reward, I bet many invested there had their remaining funds there after multichain until something clears out, now many of the long term ftm/S holders are completely erased with empty pockets, if you think keeping some hope for that kind of users which have been in the chain for years is wasting money and diluting your tokens, maybe you have a good plan to bring users like those ones that you can explain. I would prefer a diluted valuable token with userbase than an scarce token no one plans to use because the history shows every user had ended with empty pockets in the chain. Maybe code is law, yes, but can you explain why it’s so bad to make other people whole when it’s possible to do so without any losses for you other than that perceived dilution which is not even true given this funds would be in circulation anyway?
I’m not sure you understand the concept of deflation.
Deflation = tokens burned permanently
Not deflationary, they still hold it and ‘long term‘ is not defined. At some point, these become sellable.
Not deflationary, after 2yrs they re-enter circulation, become sellable.
This 27m S is currently not circulating - it’s held in a growth fund by Sonic Labs, and cannot hit the market of sellable tokens. If you distribute it here, then it becomes sellable supply at some stage. If you don’t, then it doesn’t and you either retain it as unsellable supply (out of circulation), or for other future growth initiatives.
We have already seen public commitments from protocols to wind down Sonic operations if this passes; what an excellent example of growth you’re pushing for here! Spend 0 S, or spend 27m S and have protocols wind down. Easy choice!
The rest of the airdrop bucket should be burned, along with the amount minted for the DAT/ETF which never transpired with the $400m of demand endlessly communicated.
Yeah, Sonic has a great track record of the token being valuable after dilution. The DAT and ETF minting really did wonders for the value, which is why the FDV of Sonic is well below the purported treasury value.
The rest of your post is just speculation on peoples’ intentions.
Can you explain why this is bad for you other than the obvious fact that it’s bad for you?
That is why we vote, it’s okay to vote for anything in the future if there is good enough reasons and the tools/options to recover it. Doing something once doesn’t means it should be done the same way always, I’m pretty sure multichain should have been done different, and we are still paying a huge price for it. Anyways, don’t you think is a much better investment to recover this users and giving away 27M to “very likely” mercenary farmers? There is no news about another airdrop season, would be smart to keep those funds until market improves and they can be used as when foundation funds were used in ftm during the bull run, 60M can be a lot with higher S value, but at this price… makes much more sense to just make real users whole.
So you say better to fuck up the people that has lost money and burn it, it’s okay because it’s defi and everybody here should be ready to lose even their underwear, it doesn’t matter if they invest in a pool basically for charity to give the network any chance to grow or if they invest in “memetoken 1000%apr V3500”, right? So basically brings some happynes to you see how other people loses everything when it’s completely unnecesary? Such a nice person you seem.
And also, SL is abstaining from vote on this, is not like they are having any preference, nothing stops other protocols to submit a vote like this, if this proposal moves forward it should be because community realices the kind of holders that were affected and the value of those very long term users, it won’t be because SL is having any favoritism.
To see the importance and the kind of users, just see how the affected users are behaving… no angry comments, just sailing the waters and hoping for the best outcome, that is not the reaction you see with mercenary farmers or people just chasing quick profits… and those should be the kind of users any protocol should look after, this users are probably the ones which more clear had the risks and the ones which less pressure are putting in this, it should say something that the people voting against “without losing anything” makes more noise than the ones voting in favor.
Now SL have the right to act like a god? Make it clear, do you want centralization or decentralization? Proposals can be about anything, if a network is fucked enough to approve minting 1000% of current supply to your wallet or things like that, then that’s the netwrok you are invested in, but even if Sonic is not the most decetralized according to validators weigth distribution, it’s not so bad and any unreasonable proposal will be ommited, it’s already quite hard to get passed the rational proposals because users are lazy enough to not press a couple of buttons many times…
It would be nice to keep it clean but I really think a proposal like this is not something without some though/effort put on it and try to solve a problem for many real users.
You can probably check in their monthly recaps, but probably won’t be enough, if they had enough money they would come up with this proposal…but if beets is working and they keep developing and being active is because they manage to have a healthy economy, if any working company has to pay 90 or 100% of their income, how is this company supposed to keep working in the future? You suggest for beets to go bankrupt, cease operation to pay back users? The purpose of this is to keep users believing and using the defi protocols and beets working and developing as until now, I don’t think there are many teams with same track record and persistence as beets.
If they came with this proposal is very likely because they didn’t found a way to get a loan and they lack the collateral, would be nice if some S whale or SL can borrow the USD and buy from the market, but probably that is not an option given this is the proposal presented after some long time and discussion, don’t you think? This proposal is good for the whole ecosystem and for affected users, only drawabacks are the dilution perception and the complains about people which lost nothing “and won’t lose anything” because they think this is somehow a precedent, and when you vote, it’s not a precedent, it’s an election made every time you vote, this is not a court where the results generate jurisprudence, outcome is different in every situation, and this, indeed is a quite special situation given the kind of contract exploited and the kind of users affected, and also the planed use of the funds and how they are used to improve the ecosystem.
Trust in SL is already running low due to how last few months have developed
The eco is dead. The volume is ATL. Instead of developing a robust plan to use the leftover airdrop funds to revive the volume, they are wasting time to compensate, we know who.
Let SL use different means to compensate the victims of the hack. The airdrop funds needs to be deployed to revive the eco. This was due yesterday!
I am sorry people have lost money, I too have been in this position through hacks and what not. It’s a risk of being in a cutting edge industry that has high risks, but also has high rewards. Do I expect to get funds back? No, but maybe the hacker gives some back or they catch them(slim chance)
$3m of bad debt can be fixed over time or by some other means. I don’t think it’s right to do it this way. Otherwise every builder in this situation will expect it, and they either do get it or they decide go else where when they don’t because it’s extremely unfair. It’s good for a few invested and bad for everyone else through trust loss.
To say it is highly critical infrastructure and not have contingency on issues like this balancer/beets need to take responsibility and try to fix it between them. In any fintech there needs to be contingency, it’s not communities fault and you shouldn’t guilt people to think that way, it’s not SL or communities fault.
I approve this call. The LP took a hit on this chain too, just like it did on Multichain earlier. We never made a fuss about the Multichain incident, but this one’s not the same — neutrality is out the windows once funds gott swept.
SL had already minted those tokens; they were out in the wild, circulating normally. Then Labs vacuumed them up. At minimum, those swept coins need to come back to where they belong via mint, release, from treasury, whatever. Full stop.
Anything beyond that can lean on the real strengths of what Beethoven X actually brings to the table — honestly, I’m fine with that. It just lights a bigger fire under Beets to keep outperforming everyone else.
Going forward, it’d be smart to set clear recourse rules and maybe create some kind of protection/reserve fund for situations like this with clearer rules because-
Both the Beethoven X and Balancer teams did everything humanly possible here. Throwing core, battle-tested teams under the bus when they’ve already gone above and beyond isn’t a good look and definitely isn’t good for the ecosystem.
As I said, it’s not the same expect some rescue after a hack when you deposit in a battle tested smart contract with such a low apr with more intention to help the network develop and make possible for other apps to launch in something which is not a desert than when you get hacked after investing in a new risky protocol with completely new unaudited contracts… I really think that the users depositing here, in aave or other places which builds the foundation and the base layer of liquidity to allow the ecosystem develop should get some priority.
According to your logic or other people against this proposal, it will never make sense from a reasonable point of view to deposit anything in this kind of contracts, so the chain would be dead without any TVL. Maybe, in some way, we could think about this like roads in a country, they are used by everyone, and when broken, everyone will pay some bit from their taxes, without roads or base liquidity, there is no way to use the chain. If we don’t protect this “roads” is not possible to move around.And don’t compare it with a paid highway, then instead of 0.2% fee we should have 5% trading fee and that is not an “usable road”
About the 3M loan, if beets came with this proposal I assume it’s because they already tried many other approaches, and with their resources this was the best option, I think they are smart enough to filter and analyze the situation, don’t you think? Maybe it’s because this is the only reasonable option and because in this kind of market they don’t have resources to get a 3M loan nor the collateral for it. If some Sonic whale is able to borrow 3m$ would be nice, but doesn’t looks like anyone is interested in it.
About the contingency, how is beets supposed to have such treasury in this kind of market? it’s already like a miracle that they are surviving I don’t think balancer nor beets expect a battle tested contract to get hacked and it’s not viable to have contingency for that, do you think curve or aave can have contingency for low apr “vaults”? How do you add contingency to this without completely centralized functions to lock any asset?
The thing is we have the “luck” that the hack have been pretty small in $ terms in Sonic chain, and now there is the option to use some funds intended to make the ecosystem stronger to precisely do that.
And of course, would have been much nicer to get a $ nomited loan and pay it back, but will you find an entity to borrow that money without enough collateral? I would love SL making a loan with good conditions if they have enough $ treasury, that would make perfect sense, but if after teams talking this is the only proposal there should be some reason.
And for the ones that say that this is for restoring funds from some big whale, just take a look into the affected users list, there is only one big wallet, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to wind this proposal down because of that, kill many small investors to teach a lesson to a single big one which will almost not care? To those complaining about the affected wallets being from foundation or big figures, please, attach some proof and then I will change my mind, but doesn’t looks like that, for me it looks like average investors leaving their funds almost idle in a place to at least give the chain some liquidity and allow it to grow.
Callous, but any other protocol can create an staked Sonic LST, doesnt need to be stS.
Again I ask, why should the Sonic Community subsidize this exploit when none before them were covered and pull the 27m S from the Ecosystem Fund? Balancer should cover this exploit, or BeethovenX (via WAY MORE than 10% of revenue, seems extremely low, not a good look, how about 50% etc).
Doesnt really matter what the community thinks, Beets wouldnt put this forward without already having the votes for it.
Sentiment is overwhelmingly negative from what I can read but they are going to push forward with a Snapshot vote anyways. It’s already been decided, GG to those who actually replied and care. Sham governance.
All I see is a vocal minority of competing eco projects opposed as they think they are entitled to the airdrop funds instead.
It’s a blessing this is even up for debate. Was there a gov vote on allocating season rewards? A gov vote on Kaito? A gov vote on market buying and holding Shadow, Metro and other eco tokens? Clearly the nuance here is the reallocation of airdrop funds to recover exploited victim losses. This still meets the airdrop mandate of boosting the eco since Beets is the no.1 driver of economic activity on this chain via Beets DEX and stS. Therefore this could go ahead without a vote.
Where possible Sonic Labs have always tried to do right. This is why I’ve stuck around for years despite down only price action. People quoting Multichain as a reason for rejecting this proposal.. what? FF / SL have spent millions in legal fees pursuing recovery. People quoting Polter - this was an Aave fork that hadn’t stood the test of time with a team that has long since ghosted the chain. Completely different circumstances to what’s happened and is being proposed here.
Hey, you know when your post includes lots of these kinds of hyphens, ‘—’, then it’s really easy to see that it’s an AI slop engagement farm that’s being used to sway community sentiment inorganically.
More disingenuous projection. It’s pretty clear there is a large swathe of rejection from holders with no affiliation to any other project. Holders of S that are sick and tired of having their value eroded by dilution aren’t in support, no matter how many times you try to spin the accounting in a positive way with disinformation.
100% disagree. I was not compensated for Polter in the same circumstances so no way there is a different treatment just because the insider team tries to make money for themseves and does not care about users.
Circulating Supply would increase… That’s Dilution.
Sure FDV remains the Same, but circulating market cap/Free Float would increase after the 2 years.
Kind of rich saying “numbers aren’t your strength” to one of the most prominant RFV traders in the space. Guy manages multiple millions onchain calling it his “tank money.” Fairly certain he has a firm grasp on tokenomics and numbers.
From the genius who says that giving out 27M S is somehow deflationary just because it’s delayed? Hilarious.
There is dilution, it’s not even difficult to understand; the only indisputable fact is that you require some adult supervision before you hurt yourself.
>Losing a debate and has to divert to throwing around AI slop comments and either intentional or misinformed definitions about inflation and dilution.
Let’s get back to the basics to help you understand.
Remaining airdrop fund is approx. 92M $S. This has already been minted and presumably locked up somewhere safe.
This $S is going to hit circulating supply at some point, whether that’s part of this proposal or other airdrop campaigns in the future.
If you want to attempt some mental gymnastics to claim that reallocating a portion of the remaining airdrop funds to this proposal constitutes dilution, then all future airdrop campaigns are also dilution.
The only grounds which this could possibly constitute dilution is on circulating supply. Given this $S is going to hit the market at some point there is no incremental dilution whatsoever.
So give it a break with the misinformation, no one’s buying it.
The only way this would be dilution is if the proposal requested Sonic Labs to MINT an additional 27M $S which is clearly not the case.
That is exactly what dilution means, an increase in the circulating supply. As @Paintball26 mentioned, I think I would know a thing or two about this topic.
Not the case, and it’s very telling who is doing the mental gymnastics here to fit their narrative. The airdrop and incentives campaigns in their entirety were definitively paused pending review, you are making these misinformed assumptions about that portion of supply. Try to stay on topic with indisputable facts only, please.
This is from the person that is frantically trying to cover up the AI bot farms supporting the proposal. If you paste the text in question into any AI scanner, they all confirm extremely high likelihood that it was written by AI.
Maybe you should just leave it there, I’m sure it’s quite clear for everyone reading how strong or weak your points are, and it’d be nice to hear from accounts other than yours and AI bots about the merits of the proposal - there are some, despite the issues!
