I don’t have input for all questions but below are thoughts on some:
That said, have some thoughts on below questions.
- What asset would you prefer as an LP pairing asset next to MC; ETH, WBTC, USDC or something else?
I think the comments about a USDC/ETH LP pool are good and I would like to see one. However, I think we can easily have two pools (an ETH/MC pool and a USDC/MC pool). The manner in which they could operate is that the the awards attributed to the LP pool (in the current system the 80% of the 100% that goes to the LP stakers) would be rebalanced daily to the stakers pro rata share of the total LP.
As an example let’s say there is $10M worth of ETH/MC + $10M of USDC/MC = $20M of total LP staking. From the perspective of the staking site, it symply sees $20M staking that awards need to be distributed pro rata between according to the $ value that is staked. In this scenario, the ETH/MC and USDC/MC would each get 50% of the 80%. This would rebalance daily (or you could have it rebalance every minute even in theory). The point is regardless if you so ETH/MC or USDC/MC you are sre still getting your pro rate share of the total LP staking rewards based on your pro rata size of the total LP $'s staked.
This would allow individuals to chose for them selves if they want to take a position on the relative value of ETH or USDC and prevent the DAO from self-selecting out individuals that would have otherwise been interested in LP staking. If ETH rises dramatically, that share of the total pool will rise as well and increase the liquidity. Visa versa, if ETH drops dramatically in value, the USDC relative size of the LP pool will become larger and the total liquidity the DAO has will not be as impaired. From my perspective it seems like a win-win for the DAO and the staker to allow both types of LP to co-exist.
What is the preferred platform for LP tokens? (currently uniswap v2 50/50 LP tokens)
I think we should continue with what is already in place (uniswap v2)
Should the staking subsidy be fixed or partly variable?
I don’t feel I have proper experience to have a strong opinion here. I guess I would say if the rewards are all $MC come out of the tresury or community incentives etc. then fixed is ok.
However, over the longer period, I would assume it makes the most sense for staking subsidies to be variable accoring the the DAO’s performance. For eampple, many public companies (especially ones that have investments and therefor revenues are lumpy and inconsistent year-to-year will target dividends as being x% of net earnings. This keeps the business from not becoming over committed if they have a rough patch and everyone remains happy when the business is performing well.
Should the DAO, outside of locked MC, also distribute ETH, WTBC or USDC from revenue to stakers with longer locks?
I think it would likely detract from the DAO’s value to distribute ETH, WTBC, or USDC. If the DAO reports treasury vale of non-native tokens only, then you are are directly impeading the hard floor asset value of the DAO.
How long should staking rewards be locked for?
I wish I understood all the U.S. tax implications for these. I believe these technically become income at the time of the unlock. As such, if I believe $MC’s token value will appreciate, I would prefer an unlock earlier even if I have no intention in selling.
Something I think would be interesting is to do is make the unlock/vesting period run inverse to the staking period. For example, if I stake for 12 months, my vesting is only 6 months from time of claim vs. if I’m doig flexible staking then vesting is 12 months. I think this would create a vey interesting dynamic where it the long term stakers likely are already committed to holding $MC so the shorter vesting may not lead to sell-offs, makes the choice of which staking option is better skew to the long-term liquidity staking, and in tandum, if the $MC appreciates during the longer vesting period, might convert some of these less committed stakers to actually become long term holders of the token.
Thanks