Micheal, first thank you for asking. I think getting on binance or coinbase is great if it happened naturally because we meet the qualifications like in the real world exchange listings. The 7 issues I have are:
One (1) spending $2.5 million to be listed on each of their exchanges is a form of payola. I think the whole concept of paying such a large amount to gain access is questionable legally in general.
Two (2) I realize the purpose of this for a lister is to give "value" to the listing company's token, but the reality is most companies our size and scale are simply listing to get a "pump" in price. Some of those companies can translate the attention via a pump into legit customers and participants in their ecosystem; however a large % of those listing companies are simply using this as a liquidity opportunity. (either to raise funds or exit bad investments for their large stakeholders).
Three (3) I'm not happy at all at spending close to 100m SPS to get this kind of exposure. Even if I felt that the first 2 issues could be overcome, I still would be unhappy with using $2.5m in DAO funds to provide a pump so people can exit at a higher price. If they want to exit, then I think that's fine but spending $2.5m of our treasury funds to get them a higher price is not something I feel is good.
Four (4) We still haven't created a user experience that will retain the new customers we get. So I think any marketing expenses at this time are a big waste because we aren't finished with solving the problems we had the last time. We have already shown exactly what happens when we bring a lot of people in and then can't retain them at a reasonable rate. So I would be against spending any money that would result in no net gain over anything more than a short term pop in players.
Five (5) There's no analysis at all by the proposal, which gives us no useful information as to what to expect. We only have arguments such as "this is a new world, go big or go home" or "this is crypto and we have to adapt to the new rules or die". Or worse, "all the other crypto companies are doing it, if we don't then we will never gain acceptance".
On point number 5, if players were told it cost $25m or even $250m, they would still be able to apply the same logic and make the same arguments. So does that mean that any amount requested is ok to spend? Does the DAO not care about being good allocators of their capital?
Six (6) We will lose credibility to the outside world as well as to ourselves if we make a decision based on the 5 points above. If we end up getting 2/3rds to support such a proposal, then it would say a lot about our future in my opinion.
It would say to me that we the DAO don't care if this is ethical, if we are artificially creating a pump , if we waste DAO funds to do it, and if we do not do any actual real analysis. Further it would say to me that many people are looking for an easy exit liquidity event. Obviously that's not everyone, but it would be the only way I could justify such a decision (if I didn't care about the DAO funds and just wanted a higher price to get liquid).
Seven (7) Finally, I think it would rip apart the long term player base that has held this community together for so long through 2 brutal bear markets. I am positive I would sell out if this type of artificial pump occurred, and I'm sure there would be many others that would as well. They might not admit it, but I believe you would have a ton of exits created by this. IMO, this would be a far different community after such an event if it doesn't happen naturally and when the time is proper.
Again I note that I don't mind people selling, I do mind spending our precious DAO funds to get them a better price if they want to leave.
Finally if we have our act together with the new player experience and we are retaining players we get, and we are not giving away SPS at $0.03, but instead its at $1 as you suggested, then I think we would have the funds to take a chance. The reasons are #1 is less of a % of our assets, #2 we would be ready to capitalize on the investment, and #3 by definition we have proved our worth to the investment world because our token went up without any artificial means. That makes us legit imo, and THEN an investment into the bigtime would carry the proper credibility. (its why many small companies stay private before listing in the real world stock market exchanges)
So Michael, I could deal with some of these negatives if they weren't so many. But in my eyes this is clearly not the right time to do this, and I would be scared of what will happen as a result.
ps... I had some people question me about why I would "threaten to quit" if it passes. I'd like to draw the distinction versus people that routinely throw "fits" and try to extort a vote their way. . I'm not mad at anyone if it passes, nor will I lose out if it happens. In fact I think in 2024 I will make far more if this passes. I won't gaslight people and taunt them if it passes, nor will I be salty or sour.
I will simply be disappointed that it passed because I believe I know the ramifications, and for me those ramifications will be a change in what I do every day and what I've cared about for the last 6 years. But I won't be salty or negative, I will still wish everyone the best and hope I was wrong so everyone after me will still do really well.
A lot of good points Dave.
Could it be as simple as give the DAO the authority to spend $ on a listing but not until certain criteria met? We have 365 days to run this.
edit: I dont understand how exchanges work and why they are able to charge the $ they do, but apparently they do.
I agree that would make a lot more sense. If the criteria were conditional, then we could alleviate a lot of uncertainty and make a more informed decision.
And the time idea is a good one too, we need to do it on our schedule as opposed to rushing something through just because it seems like a good thing at the moment.
ok so where from here?
Here's my thoughts Micheal:
If we pass it as is, then I doubt there will be much negotiation. Here's why:
The people pushing hard on this seem very motivated and any change to it will likely lead them to lose some support.
The people against this will not be angry, but instead start mapping out their reactions based upon how they think it will play out.
If we don't pass as is, then I think it will depend on how close it is.
If its close then I think both sides will try to find the reasonable people on each side to craft some compromises. Whether a compromise can be found will depend on the group of people involved doing the negotiations.
I do think there's a lot of people that are pushing for this for various reasons, but I also think the people against it (like me) are concerned for valid reasons. So if we can work together in a mature manner, then I think a gap of 5 to 10% swing either way would be possible.
If its not close to passing, ie greater than 15% away, then I think in order to get this done then there could still be negotiations, but I think it would take a serious effort by the supporters to understand why the large voters have objections (and address them).
I also think if fails and its not close, it would be a good idea to get input from Yabapmatt on the topic as well, so that we can understand his point of view too and make sure we aren't wasting our time.
I personally don't mind us talking about it and think it would be possible to find scenarios where it would make sense. I don't think all those that will vote "no" here would always vote "no". So I do think there's a chance for a compromise, but my belief at this time is we will likely need to see the vote finish before we know how best to approach a compromise.
ok. So with the proposal in its current form i'm gunna vote NO.
ok cool. I hope the proponents reach out to you for your thoughts, and feel free to contact me anytime as well about the topic. I think something as big as this should have serious discussions.
Thanks again for taking the time to discuss Micheal! And have a terrific weekend too :)
I'd be happy to make some adjustments to the pre-proposal if you feel there are some tweaks that can be made to get some current "no" or "on-the-fence" people to vote "yes".
If you come up with some concrete recommendations before the pre-proposal period is finished, let me know via another comment here.
i just read your updates provided - nice!
So i think this will fail if the 2.5 million of it has to come from SPS at 3c. At 10c i think it will pass (or just offer stable coins if we have the available budget)
Another thought would be to take out coinbase have only Binance listing on the proposal?!
On a side note possibly looking at running another proposal for the DAO to sell off SPS at 10c to build up exchange funds. These funds could then be added to help pay for this. clayboyn has some good wording on this :)
Hi @davemccoy I'm not following your logic on point #7 where you say.
"Seven (7) Finally, I think it would rip apart the long term player base that has held this community together for so long through 2 brutal bear markets. I am positive I would sell out if this type of artificial pump occurred, and I'm sure there would be many others that would as well. They might not admit it, but I believe you would have a ton of exits created by this. IMO, this would be a far different community after such an event if it doesn't happen naturally and when the time is proper.
Again I note that I don't mind people selling, I do mind spending our precious DAO funds to get them a better price if they want to leave."
I mean you just said that you were going to sell and therefore would be included in that group exiting because it's at a higher price point but then you go on to say you don't want to provide an opportunity for people to leave at a higher price point although you just said that's the very reason you would leave. I mean otherwise you would remain. Am I misunderstanding your logic here?
first things have changed since there has been changes made to the proposal.
But I think where you are missing things is I don't think the DAO should be spending money to give anyone (include me) and exit opportunity. I would've sold if we created an artificial situation where we couldn't have recovered (meaning flawed proposal).
But now with the changes made, and also discussing with others options to addressing another one of my concerns, then I'm comfortable enough to vote for this as its clear a lot of people want to see a listing on Binance.
I appreciate your response and just re-read the amendments. Also listened to your entire conversation with Aftersound. One step forward I would say!
I agree. And thank you for the responses too Shaddrak!