Proposal to burn unclaimed FORTH tokens

Ampleforth Governance
1

Reward those who have held FORTH and reduce the total supply by burning the unclaimed tokens.
Let us vote!

5 Likes
2

Pete, thank you for taking the time to make a proposal. I love to see the increase in participation across the space! Unfortunately I cannot support the burning of the forth dao treasury. If you would like to see the value of your forth tokens grow the best thing you can do is show support in the form of using the treasury funds to further marketing, building, and innovation. If we focus on building and growing the forth/ampl ecosystem, the price of forth will follow. There is also no guarantee that burning the forth tokens would see any increase in the value of forth tokens. No one here wants to see this project fail and we genuinely think the best way to succeed is to grow the forth dao treasury, not burn it all down. Most of the largest and most successful projects focus on growing their dao, not destroying it.

4 Likes
3

Hey Pete. I can understand your feelings but I have to agree burning is not the answer. The unclaimed forth in the treasury can be used for growth, this is how the value of the forth token and ampl increases.

Burning could even reduce the value imo as part of the value of the forth token is the control it has over the funds in the treasury.

3 Likes
4

Burning the tokens does not guarantee that the price of Forth will go up. We’ve seen many projects burn their own tokens and their prices continue to fall. This would be a short-sighted move at the expense of AMPL’s long-term growth. If you want the price of Forth to go up, you need increased adoption of AMPL, which can be best stimulated by funding projects which increase the utility of AMPL as the base layer of the elastic financial stack.

6 Likes
5

I agree with ducc’s point here. To iterate upon this proposal, I’d suggest considering a Treasury Diversification model that would enable the FORTH DAO to utilize its protocol-owned liquidity.

How so?

  • Allocate a % of the treasury’s AMPL and stake it into a Geyser.
  • Utilize ElasticSwap’s AMM → taking any earned $TIC to buyback AMPL and potentially compound into the staked position
  • Acquire yield-generating assets (e.g. OUSD) to then execute buyback campaigns on a predetermined basis (e.g. Monthly, Quarterly, Annually, etc.).

Exploring certain opportunities akin to what’s mentioned above is more worthwhile & beneficial to the DAO rather than a token burn.

5 Likes
6

Forth was airdroped to community in initial… we could also reward the community with an airdrop. Those who have held ample during those hard times. why not? It would intersting to airdrop without the fear of people selling and crashing the price… like airdrop+condition to put on geyser for x Time. Or buy Ample or something similar. Limiting the free selling pressure

Just giving ideas. Thanks

1 Like
7

We certainly don’t need another airdrop.

2 Likes
8

I don’t see any merit in a second airdrop. Although I do find the suggested incentive mechanisms suggested appealing, airdropping the unclaimed FORTH to long-standing tokenholders will only increase sell pressure, not limiting it.

There are a variety of other alternatives where these FORTH tokens could be used.

3 Likes
9

Hi Pete, I totally agree with you. Burning will benefit FORTH more than anything else, especially after the full 2% inflation minting.

2 Likes
10

Only good proposal if the project doesn’t burn the tokens, the project will burn.

Those tokens were to be claimed!!! it was not? BURN. It is the project’s obligation to develop, they have 2% every year to invest.

Are we going to be in an eternal downtrend? Do they want more tokens for them?

Spend the tokens with people on the team and line your pockets? this is all happening in front of the holders and they agree with all this lol It all smells very strange, but one thing is for sure, the project is getting bad talk and then there’s no turning back.

It’s simple, burn it all, just use your 2%, keep working and growing in honesty. it’s difficult?

2 Likes
11

This discussion reminds me of a couple of cobie quotes:

“In crypto, retail investors often seem shocked by market actors’ simple actions: the team sold some tokens, a VC sold their position, the developers did not agree to the proposal to use all of the protocol’s revenue to pump the market and burn the coins, but instead want to invest in “hiring” and “growth”. Monsters.”

“I have extremely little faith that coin-voting communities of retail investors will vote for the best medium-term outcomes, and in fact will more likely vote for damaging medium-term outcomes. I read something today that said Sushi treasury went from $1bn to $30m in a year. I don’t know if that is exaggerated, or fictional, but think this will be a common story of many failed DAOs in time.”

5 Likes
12

I agree with Brix here. Alot of Forth investers believed the max supply ended at 15 million and that was the main reason alot of people invested originally. It also brought curiosity to the everyday buyer and motivated them to look further into the ampleforth project and learn how ampl works. Now all the unclaimed forth is locked in a DAO and people look at the max supply and see 300k more forth tokens have been minted just doesn’t look good. The team is getting butchered on twitter and alot of people are unhappy and feel scammed. This is bad because once your project gets riddled with fud its hard to recover from a bad reputation. I say bring good faith back to the project and burn the unclaimed Forth tokens.

2 Likes
13

I hate to say this it was clearly stated from the get go that FORTH would experience annual inflation. The logic behind it is sound too - the token is intended to govern AMPL and if there’s no inflation then the ultimately result will an ever dwindling circulating supply and people lose theirs to forgotten keys or whatever and a progressively greater obstacle for newcomers acquiring some and engaging in governance.

There hasn’t been a formal decision on it yet but one of the more popular suggestions has been for the annually minted FORTH to be distributed to the community, eg. geyser rewards for liquidity provision perhaps. This would then provide a way for active members to grow their share of voting power at the expense of inactive members - a steady shift of governance from those who are uninterested to those who are engaged. I personally think this makes a lot of sense, and goes a long way to ensuring that decades from now the DAO will still be thriving.

As mentioned before, burning the unclaimed FORTH is daft. It tosses away the DAO’s ability to do anything. Twitter users are bashing the project? Who cares? The DAO will use its treasury wisely, grow real value, and suddenly everyone on twitter will be left wondering why the price goes up despite all their FUD.

The last thing to mention: what’s done with the unclaimed FORTH is now the prerogative of the DAO. If the DAO votes to burn it, then it gets burned. To everyone who so eagerly clamours for this result, organise a vote and vote it through. If you collectively hold a majority of the vote power you win. If you don’t, then you’ll just have to buy more FORTH, right? :wink:

3 Likes
14

Whoever spoke well of the project is now speaking badly.

The team is being selfish.

They want to bite most of the pie and leave investors and holders with nothing.

This will be irreversible.

The project will lose confidence if it runs out.

It’s in our faces that these little projects they want to spend the tokens on are for the benefit of others and themselves.

I hope everyone can see what’s going on with Forth.
Infinite downtrend.
The team wants all the dao tokens.

Burn it all down and be a good project as it should be, otherwise it sinks.

1 Like
15

This burn won’t happen, OG $Forth holders are disappearing and won’t interact. Most of the people interacting are the $AMPL only boys who only care for $AMPL. If this DAO fails and we reach $0 $Forth I wonder what they’ll pull out their ass

16

Let me get this straight, so because the unclaimed FORTH was allocated to the FORTH DAO treasury and is now under community control suggests that the team is being selfish?

Rather than burning - which will serve 0 benefit to the overarching community - why not propose a more long-tail proposal that would generate yield for the DAO treasury which, in consequence, benefit all FORTH holders(?).

Burning is an extremely myopic bandaid to a long-term problem.

1 Like
17

Can’t blame $Forth holders for not caring about the DAO and want the burn, After Down Only for 365+ Days and counting and not being heard no one cares about the “community”. The AirDrop foul play and dumping on the community’s head has been ignored to this day :skull:

18

I think you’ve fundamentally missed the point of the FORTH token.

2 Likes
19

Burning decreases the supply.
The price goes up.

We will see the price go up after 1 year and counting down.

Using the token to ‘buy’ ‘test services, not sure something will work’, whoever gets the tokens will sell.
Supply increases, price continues to fall.

Math is simple.

The tokens go to selected people, you know they will sell and dump them into the holders.

If the project is good, it doesn’t need it to attract investors.
Just get on with the project.

20

We’ve got a beefy DAO now. No point in burning these tokens. The DAO held FORTH increases AMPLs likelihood of success by providing capital for community development.

3 Likes