DFX

[tartakovsky]

So, DFX people propose to drop us KPI tokens which represent an option to claim underlying DFX tokens if DFX project achieves certain level of TVL by Jan 2022.

The KPI themselves are not traded (afaik) and are themselves worthless. However, if the project succeeds, we can turn them into useful DFX that have a price.

However, the current proposition from DFX people is to drop KPI only to e.g. top 200 participants. That is selective and I'm not sure is a good idea, 'cause might split the community into haves and have nots.

We need to come up with an idea what to propose instead of this setup so it works for both DFX and us.

Ideas?

[IvanGBi]

I like the idea of KPIs as it makes projects think that there is some deliverable from the community(ies) that makes it look less like a dummy airdrop - that is understandable. But google forms things are 2017 so would strongly avoid that. How otherwise:

• whitelist all and make fcfs for the 200;
• just reduce the amounts but include all;
• open to discuss other ideas

[lebed2045]

it's strage position of theirs because idea of such airdrop (I assume) is to get more users/noise around their platform? And they kinda buy ads at lobsters by doing so? They (justly so) want to pay as little is possible, but they could just lower each allocation for option call, no?

[tartakovsky]

re Ivan:

Yeah, same. I'm against selecting the 200 either through the tables or fcfs, 'cause still unfair. Unless we come up with undisputably fair way to do it which I don't see.

Reduce the amount but include all is the only other option I see as well.

[tartakovsky]

Ah, yeah, there is another idea. If we use the structure from 35, then they can drop plain DFX to the DAO which we don't dump, but instead provide as a token-side of the LP stake. That more or less guarantees DFX people at least double TVL on what they drop.

longread, but important: https://github.com/lobster-dao/overview/issues/35

[kkkrackpot]

I'm against 'top 200', fcfs, and similar. The guys should drop either to all, or to the DAO. The amounts are up to them.

35 way can be an option too, if #35 itself is finalized somehow.

[kkkrackpot]

I didn't dig into DFX yet. But imo, we shouldn't be too arrogant towards new/small projects, especially if the only thing a project wants is to be noticed. We must avoid obvious scams and utter forkshit. Otherwise a project should be given a chance, if not from the DAO, then from willing volonteers.

[Raclw]

IMHO the overall idea makes sense in order not just to airdrop but to look for active participants... but I oppose the top 200 idea. Selfishly speaking (notwithstanding that I don't like entering into price discussions that much) it may endanger the floor price and as if we start adopting that dynamic we'll end up with making holding "just" 1 LOBS less appealing and therefore reducing its value appreciation. Bottom line, I think that it is on the best interest of LOBS community to get the community incentivized as a whole... So, 1. receiving transferable call options over a token subject to achievement of certain objective KPIs = YES // 2. starting competition likes, segregation of community, etc. = NOPE

[eggpanned]

In my opinion, top 200 is a terrible idea which doesn't affect the DAO positively at all. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the DAO should be a free rider and not contribute back. Active engagement from our community is, imo, a necessity to be an overall more attractive target and always has been part of our ethos. However, I struggle with the idea that we should prioritise helping a certain project (for eg coming up with the Lobster Farm which would only benefit stakers/saying that only certain "active" users like top 200 should be rewarded) over the overall interest of LOBS holders, as a pre-requisite condition for any airdrop. I just don't see how not distributing fairly to the entire LOBS community is in any way beneficial to an already small community of 1400 holders.

Maybe it might be helpful to make the distinction from the start if acceptance of a proposal should be seen as an implicit approval of a project? If we can determine which projects are DAO-supported from the get-go, it would make more sense for the DAO to overall come together to help maximise a project's utility.

[adrianmcli]

Yeah we've decided to not do the "top 200" anymore. That was originally suggested due to UMA's previous experience. They advised not distributing it too broadly, but I don't think that's too much of a concern now as we've decided on a limited number of communities.

At this point, I think it makes sense to airdrop a specific amount of KPI Options with respect to however many lobs are being held. A timestamp prior to today will be chosen.

Also, KPI Options are tradable, they are ERC20 tokens.

[amplice]

Just want to chime in here - I think I was (maybe?) the originator of the idea to include lobsters in the DFX KPI options drop. Excited to see this come to fruition!

Seems like the 'top 200' idea has already been dispensed off and therefore FCFS is off the table already, but just for color, I will add that Auctus did a FCFS KPI options drop and it was a complete disaster, it got botted to death (as with all FCFS stuff) and also broke their site immediately, and there were more people unhappy than happy in the end. As someone who did end up with some of their options, even I thought the experience was pretty suboptimal. Highly against all forms of on-chain FCFS.

If dropping all lobsters is too expensive for DFX then the 2nd best option is to drop to the DAO I guess?

[tartakovsky]

https://github.com/lobster-dao/overview/issues/36#issuecomment-951353991

The consensus have been reached. Closing.