Proposal: AmpleSense AMPL Grant

I dont think anyone is worried about if the funds are given in forth vs ampl. From everything I’ve seen it appears the major concerns are:

  • Forth DAO has little or no control over the rewards
  • EEFI token value is unknown at the moment
  • There will be guaranteed sell pressure on ampl but no guarantee of it being bought back.

I think a possible solution is, for the team to instead ask for a grant paid in forth to build out new vault functionality that works more in the favor of pure ampl/forth holders.

Thank you Sunbreather for the constructive criticism. By this above sentence are you only referring to a possible proxy contract/zap button that would automatically allow anyone to repurchase AMPLs with EEFI? Or was there some other type of Vault you were thinking about? Thanks!

I dont have anything off the top of my head, but I will think on it. If the community is worried about the vaults as they are now, and the team has ideas/plans to cover the areas of concern, I think its better to approach this from that perspective. So as I mentioned maybe a solution is to amend the proposal to focus more on building functionality to address the concerns of the vaults as is. Then the sense team can use those funds to either pay for the work itself or convert the forth to ampl (ampl buy pressure). I think this scenario will make the forth dao happy as well as help the sense team and overall ecosystem grow.

1 Like

But why have the token? Even if the EEFI is sold for AMPL doesn’t this just create another game for traders to play with the EEFI token? Remove the EEFI token and make it a real hedge by buying into something with much more liquidity so the vault won’t lose to things like slippage/sandwiches and whatever other MEV can be extracted from small tokens

1 Like

EEFI is the token that generates yield for AMPL stakers during neutral/negative rebase, with the ability to generate the yield on-demand via the auto-EEFI minting process. Very similar to other token systems that have been developed to incentivize behaviors, such as AMPL itself, or even the ElasticSwap AMM (how the TIC token is used to incentivize liquidity provision on that platform).

It serves a clear cryptoeconomic purpose/benefit in the system.


I fully support this grant.
For me, the existence of AmpleSense project is a successful step in the development of the AMPL practical use-cases in our lives. It is clear as day and night. ElasticVault does not do anything forbidden, but simply uses the possibilities of the AMPL, which its creators put into it. Isn’t that why we love and believe in this project?

About “…too many red flags for an investment in EEFI”: Speaking frankly, the whole Ampleforth project for people outside this community is one huge red flag for investment. But that doesn’t stop wise people from investing here, because we can see the bigger and deeper picture if you like. I take the third benefit (As davoice321 indicated in the initial grant proposal message) as a major target of this grant: “A strong signal that the Ampleforth community is supportive of third-party developers: …”

About “…this protocol design is simply leeching market cap from AMPL”: You can not fight only for market capitalization, by directly increasing it. There are indirect opportunities to move the project forward, and ElasticVault is one of them definitely. I personally bought a lot of AMPLs (more than I had actually) specifically for depositing into ElasticVault and locking them for the long term. I was initiated by this opportunity, as were many other users. Is this not what we are striving for in the subject of the adoption of the AMPL?

I will be very surprised if this grant is not accepted. It’s just hard for me to even believe in such an outcome. So I am very positive!
Let’s move forward together!


We have had many people air some grievance regarding the proposal, can I just say to these people; get off your arse and provide some utility for AMPL & the elastic finance ecosystem. You are all sitting here waiting for price to go up!!!

I am tired of listening to people who are trying to burn tokens, whinging about FORTH inflation… Have you read anything about the project or just, wen moon?

You are all looking so narrow minded and how ‘I’ am affected, not how does this build utility to the protocol. What does burning do?
If you understood what AMPL truely is as the recreation of the REAL Money system (eurodollar)

The eurodollar system is the combination of approx 500 Global Banks who create the balance sheet capacity to issue $$$
So AMPL being the balance sheet capacity, FORTH being the Governance of the protocol (Global Multinational Banks), EeFi being the AMPL Derivative that provides a hedge & kMPL being the governance of the derivative.

You are all looking at its current MC, what you need to do is see the much much bigger picture, so mess around however you please. I stack AMPL, currently 90% on my AMPL is in the vault so over this last 3-4 weeks AMPL has effectively sat steady while I accumulated EeFi, so who is helping the ecosystem and who is crying about the price going down!!!


TIC is a terrible comparison. They are not selling AMPL to buy their token! Minting EEFI is fine if you weren’t buying it with AMPL on the way up! TIC represents the cash flow and potentially governance of an AMM. AMPL geysers is another terrible example, because those tokens were set aside from the beginning for liquidity incentives. There’s big difference between setting aside and issuing your own token to incentivize LPs, and taking people’s tokens they deposit into your system and auto selling it to buy the platform’s token. It’s shocking to me that you can propose that as being very similar.


Honestly it is preposterous to me how you continue to bad mouth a utility for the project that has lived through two long term negative rebase periods, were you around for this? There were people complaining about there being no utility because everyone was scared of Impermanent Loss.

So the community builds and funds a way of creating utility. There are close to 1000 of us who have helped fund Amplesense Dao. To insinuate we are leeching off ampl is trash, and makes me question who you are and what your motives are!!!

Please inform us of your previous experience in running anything, for someone who has a lot to say about others has very little to provide the conversation other than spewing negativity… Laughable really, and I question your motives.

1 Like

Why don’t you comment on the advantage that EEFI can help AMPL to lock up for 90 days, thereby reducing the selling pressure of negative rebase? You are the only one in the entire forum who opposes this project strongly, and you are not objective and fair. I doubt your motivation and mental state.


This conversation is now degrading because we are not focusing on the elastic vault protocol. My comments have never been targeted at the AmpleSense DAO directly, and have always been targeted at the elastic vault protocol as it stands. The fact that you and your friend here are questioning my motives and hinting at mental health show that you do not have good arguments to refute my comments on the elastic vault and EEFI token and I shall rest my case barring additional info.

I am clearly not the only one that has this view point as there are a number of various likes on my comments, and even a few responses that share similar concerns. I recommend in the future you target the topic at hand instead of targeting individuals, as that makes your DAO feel more like a cult or tribe rather than an inclusive ecosystem partner. I will reiterate, the comments I made were all targeted at the elastic vault and its mechanics as I understand them, not at individuals or the DAO itself, as the elastic vault is the target for this proposal.

I have been involved in the community since the pilot geyser in 2020, so yes I have skin the game, been through negative rebase periods, and a passion for the Ampleforth protocol. Long negative rebase periods was something I was interested and wrote about my findings on this topic in Symmetric Rebase Upgrade Proposal. I apologize if my passion bled into my writing and I offended anyone. I can confidently say that my motivations are all targeted towards improving the Ampleforth protocol and the ForthDAO, you can see my other comments in other forums topics to this effect.


Not once did I say anything about your mental capacity, I questioned why for a name I dont see in many forums you have shown nothing but distain for the considerable effort of community to put it together.

Constructive criticism or suggestions are a far better way to get your point across. As I said many of the community that have been around since 2020 and don’t much like to be called leeches if I’m honest.

I’ve smacked someone in the nose for less… Good Day

Hey guys, long time ampl holder here. I don’t really chat or get involved with the community much but I read almost everything and like to stay up to date with what is going on.

I was debating if I should even write this, and I may be totally wrong and if I am feel free to shoot me down. I’m sorry if I offend anyone here but this is just my personal opinion that I have got from being around for a long time and keeping up with the goings on. I’m just an ampl holding anon and no one very important.

OK here it goes… I personally do not trust Amplsense as a project, again I am sorry if this offends but for me this project lost all credibility when ampl was getting lots of attention and it created its own token with a similar name (KMPL). For me I saw this as a hostile act.

I do not think spinning off your own token with a similar name at the hight of ampl popularity was a nice thing to do and I cannot believe it was only done with good intentions and no self interest. It just diluted the space and segregated the community. I even remember when this came out and people on the telegram chat were buying it by mistake thinking it was ampl. It still causes confusion even now in the community telegram (the one that used to be the official one with the rebase parties) some people still ask about it thinking it’s a token from the actual team. And it is still causing problems as we can see from the fighting in this proposal, the discussion above is clearly divided into those who are only involved with ampl and forth and those who also have interests in kmpl and eefi.

There is also lots of chatting about amplesense being friends with the core team members for a long time, but if my friend made his own token and it got traction, I would not then create a similar sounding one and take away some of his community and claim that we are representing the community now. Friends just don’t do that.

I do not know about the elastic vaults, but I have read the comments above and I am worried that the theme of taking away from ampl is continuing with eefi too.

Again I’m sorry if this upsets anyone, its just my point of view and it can be totally wrong but personally I will be very disappointed if the team gives all this money to amplesense to control.


Appreciate you coming forward and speaking your mind. I will have to correct you on a few things you made mention of;
You say this was created at the height of ampl… This was not launched in November 2020, which at that time ampl had spent the majority of its time at $0.80 or below, now I remember vividly being in telegram chats crying why they lose tokens everyday. None ever read the white paper or red book, it tells you how you can use it. If you read any information about the things you are investing in there would be no issue, so to me that means a lot of people are putting money in to things they dont know they are doing. Now unfortunately this is a big kids ground, ive worn a 1.1 btc loss today for stupidity on my behalf.

Now the COMMUNITY has built utility to assist with incentivising people to purchase ampl in negative & steady rebase environment, ASSISTS with sell-side pressure (as gives people a reason to hold in negative rebase environment), we now also have an option on ampl with EeFi.

I have heard Brandon & Evan speak on multiple podcasts about the community building utility, Brandon even shouted out the team. This is all proving that what is being created here is the new money!!! You all need to look way way bigger than you currently are… When the banks own all the forth, will you still be sad at the community building utility?

1 Like

So, I want to come in and provide everyone with a sense of next steps.

First, we have received some excellent and constructive feedback regarding our proposal. We are currently working on revisions based on this feedback and will submit a new proposal soon that takes into account the conversation and the advice we have received. The time frame for the new proposal is the week of April 24.

Second, I want to say something regarding the state of the community and the level of vitriol, toxicity, and hate our segment of the community (AmpleSense) has received from a small segment of their fellow community members.

1: We the founders of the AmpleSense DAO will not be deterred from developing utilities and pushing forward the Ampleforth ecosystem. We have been at this for more than 2 years, and we don’t plan to stop our efforts anytime soon. In fact, despite the impression some may gather from this thread, there are many, many community members who have reached out to us to indicate how they much they appreciate our efforts, the protocols we have developed and our focus on creating third-party-developed AMPL utilities. It is their support that helps us move ahead in the face of persistent negativity that may have deterred others from building in the AMPL ecosystem (more on this issue below). Thank you to everyone who has provided support and encouragement for our efforts. We know who you are and we appreciate you.

2: The charge that we are “taking away from Ampleforth, conducting vampire attacks or leeching” from the community and protocol is patently and demonstrably false. From the beginning of the AmpleSense DAO effort, we have been in constant communication with the Ampleforth founding team about our products, services, and even the name of the DAO and our governance token, which were created in honor of the Ampleforth team and what they have accomplished. We have been very pleased that the core team has been nothing but welcoming and supportive of our efforts (reference). And, these efforts will continue – despite what it seems like a concerted effort to undermine our segment of the community and cast doubt on our motivations.

3: Some have problems with the mechanics of the Elastic Vault, which are very much in line with the incentive structure and mechanics of AMPL itself. First, the protocol’s mechanics are designed to encourage a stable unit price, as seen below (image from the Redbook).


And a discussion of protocol incentives from the Ampleforth white paper.


The Elastic Vault is designed specifically to respond to protocol incentives – and provide additional incentives to engage with the protocol during periods where market actors have been reluctant: negative rebase and equilibrium. And, it provides additional crytpoeconomic incentives (in the form of the EEFI token), to encourage these behaviors. There is nothing unusual about how the Elastic Vault functions in general (from a traditional perspective in crypto), or in the case of Ampleforth (in terms of the vault responding to and participating in incentives the protocol itself has put in place – i.e., selling additional AMPL supply generated by the rebase. In the case of the Elastic Vault, rather than the proceeds from sales of excess supply going to traders or other entities, individuals who have locked up their AMPL into the Elastic Vault receive the benefit of their rebased AMPL being used to buy and burn EEFI from the market. Again, this is completely in line with AMPL’s mechanics as designed, and an example of how excess supply generated from the rebase is being utilized within a self-contained cryptoeconomic system.. In fact, the Elastic Vault protocol encourages AMPL stability, which is a stated goal in the Ampleforth whitepaper and Redbook (referenced above). More on how this happens can be seen in the Elastic Vault documentation.

To those who believe there should be alternative hedging mechanisms and incentive structures beyond what we have developed: I have only one message: Put the effort in developing your alternative protocols, having them audited and finding a user base. Ampleforth an open source protocol and all development efforts are both welcome and needed. Our approach is not the only one and I look forward to seeing what other members of the community bring forth.

4: I am withdrawing this particular proposal because we plan to revise it and I do not wish this to be the one that is sent to Snapshot for a signalling vote given the edits we are planning on making to the proposal.

I’ll submit a revised proposal sometime next week, which will be developed in consultation with our advisors in the community.

Finally, let me end with these words: “A house divided cannot stand.”

We are a small community of AMPL enthusiasts. We all want the same thing: for AMPL to succeed. We may have different opinions about how best to achieve this goal, but none of us are looking to harm the protocol. Instead, we are looking to create new utilities and drive its adoption widely. Whether that be via SPOT, the Buttonwood protocol, derivatives like EEFI, a rising tide lifts all boats.

I ask those who have nothing but negativity to share, to look beyond themselves. The example you set here has a big impact on whether others will be willing to engage with the Ampleforth community to drive utility for this asset. For other developers and builders … what they have seen over the last few days from some community members in response to our efforts and this proposal, is disturbing to say the least and off-putting in the extreme. I wouldn’t be surprised if some community members looking to develop applications for AMPL are saying “no way” due to what they’ve witnessed in this thread.

As I said in a previous community call: Let’s create an attitude of abundance, open-mindedness and trust, as opposed to distrust, animosity and negativity. We should be here to to lift up each other, not tear each other down.

@Brandon: Note that this proposal, in its current form, is withdrawn pending the submission of a revised proposal (taking into account the constructive feedback we have received) scheduled for sometime during the week of April 24.


I like crypto because of the lack of trust. I think hostility goes a long way to ensuring ideas are properly assessed and the most robust survive and thrive. I don’t want someone to approach me say I should trust them for X and Y reasons, I want them to approach me and say I don’t need to trust them for X and Y reasons.

Anyway, looking forward to the revised proposal :+1:


I’ve developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It’s completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, because everything is based on crypto proof instead of trust.

Give it a try, or take a look at the screenshots and design paper: Download Bitcoin v0.1 at

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts."


I encourage people to have an an adversarial attitude toward all crypto projects, including Ampleforth, which has had – and continues to have – its share of detractors.

We have a track record, and this should be taken into account. We are not Jonny come latelys to the Ampleforth community.

But the level of hostility we have experienced, not from you, but from others, deserves a response, and is completely unwarranted and unbecoming of this vibrant, positive and diverse community. There is a distinct difference between adversarial, critical thinking and what I’ve witnessed (and experienced) over the last 2 years.

Every cryptocurrency, from Bitcoin to Ethereum to Ampleforth requires some level of trust.

After years of hard work on behalf of the Ampleforth protocol, I think our actions speak for themselves.

You provided some useful feedback, it will be incorporated into the next version of the proposal. Thank you.


Look all these words are nice, but if a protocol is crap, im going to call it crap. I don’t care who made it, what the history is, whatever. I never attacked the Amplesense DAO or any of its members, but it appears they verbally targeted me. When I said the word leech it was always targeted at the elastic vault protocol, which is what it does. It sells new AMPL to buy EEFI and burn it, and then mints EEFI on the way down. That is sucking monetary energy from AMPL and transferring it to a new token. If AMPL expands 5x in market cap, That sells about 0.3 * 0.8 = 24% of the AMPL that would have been in the vault for EEFI. Then after that what if AMPL goes down 80% in market cap? EEFI will just be printed over time. If there is no buyback of AMPL in the base layer protocol then what this has done is profited off of AMPL growth, and if EEFI holders are quick to sell before the negative rebase period, those that deposited right before the expansion are left with less AMPL, and a bunch of lower value EEFI tokens. Instead of hedging you moved the trading game from the AMPL rebase to this EEFI token, which I still have not heard any concrete reason why that is good, and does not seem like a good hedge at all.

1 Like

So according to this logic, I take it you disagreed with the AmpleForth team wanting to be on Aave? Can you point me to anything you were writing during that time when Aave as a utility was being pushed? Its current implementation INCENTIVIZES borrowers to sell near 100% of what they borrow. Not just a portion of the positive rebase. And our founders were praising this functionality last year. Just want to see something you wrote about it…

EEFI cannot be printed indefinitely. You would know that if you actually read AND UNDERSTOOD the Vault’s documentation. The Vault is designed for “buybacks” to happen during negative and neutral rebase (this includes borrowing AMPLs to deposit into the Vault). We’ve even had people openly expressed strategies about buying AMPLs during positive rebase periods too (in connection with the Vault)! And obviously we are having an on going discussion about making this process much easier to do for everyone without just assuming it. The fact that this now has been explained multiple times, we’ve told you to stop assuming a failed AmpleForth protocol (which your logic desperately relies on), and you continue to blatantly ignore it lets me know this conversation is currently in bad faith.

Look I do not know what I or Davoice did to you personally but understand these conversations are etched in history forever. Your hostility, general condescension, and ad hominem attacks on the Vault are disturbing to say the least. I’ll leave it at that for now. For now…

1 Like