Simplify the Network Development Fund into more useful assets

[iquidus]

While the purpose of the fund is not to speculate in the volatile markets, we have been fortunate to receive many dividends in the form of forks of the bitcoin supply. While many of these may yield little value, the total sum is sizeable enough to warrant action. This proposal is to determine which action to perform with selling of all available forks and what to do with the garnered funds. We can simply leave all the value in bitcoin to allow for more project funding, diversify into ETH to provide liquidity and gas costs for things like bridging or acquire more UBQ for the NDF. There is also the option to continue holding the alternative bitcoins or to abstain from voicing opinions in the poll while still showing participation

Considered candidates 1 - Sell all forks of BTC for BTC 2 - Sell all forks of BTC for ETH 3 - Sell all forks of BTC for UBQ 4 - Retain all forks of BTC 5 - Abstain

Considering a voting period of ~2 weeks (14k blocks)

[erikrijn]

I would like to suggest a split between 90% ETH and 10% UBQ for future gas purposes. Someone with more in-depth knowledge might be able to judge if this is useful or not.

[Bullchad123]

Re-posting from Discord (original idea from Sam Biohazard): Similar to what Erik mentioned above, I would personally like to see a 50:30:20 split (BTC:ETH:UBQ) as each have their own uses in different scenarios. This has the additional benefit of some diversification in purchasing power.

I would suggest that only new funds are added at the ratio of 50:30:20 and existing funds are never re-balanced, in order to simplify the management of this process and to provide transparency.

[Bullchad123]

Just to expand on this, there are two options to for this re-balance to 50:30:20. Either completely re-balance by selling BTC + BTC Forks, or simply to sell the forks and do not touch the BTC balance at all.

Under the two scenarios you would have the following balances:

Full Re-balance to 50:30:20 (selling BTC + Forks) 11.07671378 BTC 143.886512 ETH 53,291.30076 UBQ

Selling BTC forks only 20.68 BTC 4.01982 ETH 15488.82222 UBQ

I am personally in favour of a full re-balancing, to provide a decent amount of ETH and UBQ (4 ETH isn't going to get you very far).

The numbers above also include re-balancing the marketing fund in addition to the NDF, just so that is clear. Although I am not sure if this should be separate?

[Bullchad123]

Re-posted from Matt in discord (as he is on the road): "Would it be at all prudent to also get some ETC for bounty payments? Would that possible lure other EVM devs to work on Ubiq projects?"

[iquidus]

We could perhaps handle this by instead of having a majority winner, having it split between candidates (ignoring abstain), based on overall voting weight.

[ElevenXi]

I prefer the idea to sell BTC forks to ETH at the 90/10 ratio as mentioned by Erik. 90% to ETH and 10% to UBQ.

I like the 50/30/20 split idea, but I think ETH is key for the NDF to help with interactions with that community. I also agree, 4 ETH isn't much anyway. So instead of a split or full re-blance, just go for a the 90/10 split as above.

[Bullchad123]

Bear in mind the forks aren't worth particularly much, so just selling them for 90% ETH and 10% Ubiq would still only realise approximately 6 ETH and 372 UBQ.

Unless you meant selling all of the BTC funds for a 90% ETH and 10% UBQ split, which I'm not sure I would support as I think holding a healthy amount of BTC is prudent, if only on the level of protecting the total value of the NDF in case BTC goes into a mega bull run in the future and alts get crushed.

I think I would still like to see a portion of the BTC funds sold, but no less than 50% of the total fund.

We could perhaps handle this by instead of having a majority winner, having it split between candidates (ignoring abstain), based on overall voting weight.

Personally I'd prefer to put one or two more options on the table instead of doing it that way. You could have a situation where people are constantly having to change their vote to re-balance the voting weight (e.g. if BTC had 20% of the vote, I would vote for BTC, but if it then changed to 80% over the course of the voting I would have to watch it and re-vote).

[ElevenXi]

This is a proposal for what to do with the forks. I still prefer the 90/10 ETH/UBQ split for the sale of the BTC forks

50/30/20 on the forks seems like more work than its worth, and a re-balance of the entire portfolio is extra work on top and likely something that can go deeper than just a 50/30/20 split in which case would require more community input and weight on what to do. At least that's how I see it.

[Bullchad123]

If it's just forks I would go for 90% ETH, 10% UBQ, I just don't think that puts enough ETH on the table to be worth much in the long term.

We could do this over two votes for simplicity. Keep this for deciding what we do with the forks and have another vote down the line about re-balancing the BTC.

[Saintgermaine1]

i prefer we hold UBQ and BTC. and sell everything else. Everyone in crypto will be ok with accepting BTC. and when i say bitocin i mean the true satoshi vision bitcoin..all hail our creator the one and only craig satoshi wright..troll face

[iquidus]

I think for now to keep it simple not splitting makes the most sense, as kris lester suggested we can potentially have a follow up proposal regarding splitting/rebalancing.

So if we go with that, (no splits), do the current candidates make sense, and any thoughts on timeframe for voting?

[ElevenXi]

No split for now to get this over and done with, splits in the future can be a separate proposal for sure. Also more reasons to use ESCH.

Happy with candidates

2-4 week vote period, 4 would probably be best but I feel that's a bit long for something like this. Just putting it out there

[Bullchad123]

Yep agreed. Lets get on with a vote. Happy with 2 weeks as the forks aren't a huge sum.

[Coroto17]

I like the idea of 2 weeks voting period or 14-15k blocks, or maybe 20k blocks to make it a round number. About the options, i think the considered candidates are concise enough, there is no need of either touch the BTC balance, or an split. Since the option 4 it's practically "do nothing", i think the abstain candidate isn't playing a big role and could be deprecated.

[headrushh]

perhaps with the current state of eth it would be worth trading all forks for eth. However, that could go either way ...

[sterky]

Currently the NDF has plenty of UBQ for gas costs, getting some ETH would be far more useful and this is a perfect opportunity to start having some EVM gas for the ETH machine