MIP-13: Merit Circle: A New Era

Agree with this.
Will be voting NO .

Lets learn from this instead of setting a very bad precedent going forward.

3 Likes

ill be voting no to this proposal. the potential negative outcomes have not been thought through and in my view would affect the DAO and its operations moving forward. this action is unnecessary

2 Likes

#P2E would never be the same without the revolution #YGG… It just wont be! Not in another lifetime. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I read this from reddit 3 months ago, but I still remember how they related YGG to the California gold rush. If you think about it they really do have similarities and it explains why YGG works that way. Not sure if you can find it, but if you do that would be great especially for new or contemplating users.

1 Like

Hi all,

I respect the healthy debate, but I’m strongly against ejecting YGG or any other Merit Circle member at this point, for the following reasons:

  1. It’s impossible to weigh up individual contributions on a spreadsheet, even with the benefit of hindsight, because no one knows what contributions (big or small) turned out to be pivotal. Did ten tweets achieve more than one tweet? Did any number of tweets achieve more than a single unrecorded conversation at an in-person event? Who’s to say? Equally, looking to the future, it’s possible that a member who achieved little or nothing during Merit Circle’s launch will make a pivotal contribution during the long-haul of core activities. Again, who’s to say?
  2. Merit Circle is a collaborative effort at a very early stage, operating in a Web3 space that is itself collaborative but immature. If we need to identify a competitor, let’s look at Steam or the Google Play Store rather than YGG or any fellow blockchain project. And if we are building a new DAO culture, let’s build one that encourages cooperation and partnership rather than in-fighting. I came here to scrutinize game-fi projects, not the motivations of my colleagues.
  3. One last point, speaking as an early-stage investor (a role that often leads to insults in the DAO world): A fair investment market is what helped bring Merit Circle and many other potentially-good blockchain projects to life. If we damage the principles of such a market, for example by retroactively (and perhaps illegally) taking away the rewards from someone who took an early risk, then we may damage fundraising for many future projects, especially DAOs.

I will vote NO, even if the OP adds a clause to the YES option, as MeritLtd has requested.

Regards,

Sharif Sakr

BR Capital

3 Likes

#YGG is the future of #NFT #gaming and that is #based LOL. They have all sorts of famous #P2E games.

The proposal is now up for voting!

https://vote.meritcircle.io/#/proposal/QmT71tWtTwk6q5Cd2kvhoLzxm76SpNaQGBR9RE7pCxBM58

2 Likes

YGG has community programs too. They think of giving back to the community that helped them achieve what they have now! I do not think they have bad intentions when they decided to be a seed investor.

In my humble and honest opinion… Without YGG, Merit circle is nothing🤐 Ask gamers and they know YGG more!

Cool, vote wisely and think carefully!!! Do not let your decision be affected/hyped by others. You know what I mean. It is your money afterall! :face_with_monocle:

1 Like

Agree. Is this some kind of people power? Well, the legalities of the contract comes first, dont they?

I was reading the replies and I have read great points from those who said NO. It is like some just are crowdsourcing but really cannot point out which was actually breached. This is what happens when there is too much democracy!

GM,
Just to introduce myself, I’m a Merit Circle follower and investor since the LBP and I think I read quite everything pulished about the Merit Circle DAO. I don’t give my thoughts often but this topic is huge, for Merit Circle and as a “DAO case law”.

I’m uncomfartable about taking the right to punish YGG this quickly.
Why just YGG ? Have all the seed investors been really checked ?
I think a lot of $MC investors are really worried about the down pricing and the incoming dilution. But we knew it since the beginning !

As @DollyDali said, I think that an “audit of value-add” for all seed investors will be a prerequisite of such a proposal.
Then I think each “failing” investor should have the right to answer to this “audit of value-add”.
Hence the DAO could discuss clearly and choosing or not to creat a case law for the whole DAO concept.

Thx to all of you. I really like to see such an interest in the MC DAO !

With that - I don’t see any sense to continue discussion. I vote NO - other option is both unethical and extremely harmful for Merit Circle - both legally and reputationally. Even this discussion by itself increases toxicity around our brand and thus makes harm: the sooner we close it - the better.

1 Like

First of, this whole thing is fascinating :eyes:

I think in this case it is not just about the value add part.

It seems it is also about the fact that the community believes that the YGG brand is adding negative value to the Merit Circle DAO. Because of their questionable business practices pointed out in this thread (eternal fundraise for team - no value share with their community), but also because of the perception of a direct competitor being invested and having a share/say in MC.

There is a further underlying conflict of interest, because it is a direct competitor. Both things can affect an organization for better or worse in a very real way.

This does not apply to any of the other early stakeholders… Although I do agree, that the other early stakeholders should also be held accountable for the value-add part with the same scrutiny.

I do think we need to consider the “gentlemen agreement” part. SAFTs usually leave very little protection for the buyer, even more so with a DAO I would imagine. That doesn’t necessarily mean the MC DAO should “exploit” that. Or it should at least consider potential reputational effects of such a decision. In essence I don’t think there is any significant reputational risk to redistributing DAO incentives. As long as it can be argued fairly across a consistent framework, so decisions are not perceived as arbitrary or unfair.

3 Likes

I appreciate your post. But it is a NO for me… YGG is doing its job! Maybe you are just expecting way too much! Again, it is a no for me. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I would say that if YGG is causing Merit Circle harm by association or any other indirect way, then give them the tokens agreed upon and then cut ties. Chalk it up as a loss and learning experience and move on.

2 Likes

a lot of conspiracy theories i see, Remember not everything you read here is the truth don’t be swayed and do some research first cause YGG’s programs in merit circle carries the Metit Circle.

An official statement has been issued on this matter that can be read here;

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.