Im kinda with Rugs on this one, 70% is a lot.
a lot of loyal holders who’ve being here through testing and launch and never sold their pre-sale (for big profit) and kept buying are the ones who might end up having to take the hit on our retro airdrop.
Im not a fan of burning anyways. But with more discussion im sure we can figure this out.
I actually think this is the best idea put forward so far. It gives a balanced approach which should please the majority of the DAO members.
support airdrop for k9 lockers
I’m not fond of a burn, let alone 70%! What about the holders who’ve been here since the beginning, helping to grow K9?
I’m with RuggRat and others!
After weighing in the pros and cons of this proposal I would have to agree in most aspects.
Airdropping 77billion tokens up front will in my opinion kill the project as not everyone has whale mentality. This is clearly shown in the sells from vested tokens
Burning those tokens will create a little price increase but will probably just get dumped by the non holders
Maybe when can allocate a majority of the airdop to those who have have participated strongly in the locking of k9. As I believe those are the holders that should be rewarded and are more likely to lock them up over selling them
I like Rusty’s thoughts on how to use the airdrops with allocating a majority of the airdop to those who have have participated strongly in the locking of k9. I also believe those are the holders that should be rewarded and are more likely to lock them up over selling them.
With that said, I don’t think the original proposal to burn should be brought to a Dao vote yet since alternatives are still being discussed.
Stakeholders impacted by this proposal include:
This needs to be read and read again…
Some believe this has not gained enough traction to reach the round table… Well I see plenty of traction. It will be the communities decision, Whether or not I support the proposal or not has nothing to do with with it going to a vote.
I think RuggRat made some solid points in the VC last night. For some it may feel like a moving of the goalpost mid game type of situation. Maybe we consider giving this one a little more time to go around the community before a vote is set. Many community members worked hard to lockup on bonecrusher early. This showed major support by those users. Many of them also worked very hard during the test phase to make sure they could maximize their airdrop potential.
The more time I have to think about it, the more I am leaning toward rewarding those types of users more. We don’t need to talk about prices but if you did lock a whales worth of supply on day 1 of bonecrusher, you are down hard now. These are the early visions of the community and may feel betrayed if the airdrop is nuked. They should be rewarded by riding this out from launch.
Regardless, I do believe this should eventually make it to a vote but only after the community has had enough time to decide. Because once they are gone, there is no turning back Fam.
Thank you Couch for a detailed proposal.
Generally I have always advocated publicly against the assumption that burns create significant price movements.
Demand is the force that does that.
If we put a simple calculation:
1000B KNINE @ 0.000003532807041093074 = 3.533M
3.533M / 951B (i.e. 1000B less 4.9% burn) = 0.00000371
So I strongly oppose burning $173k worth of K9 to get a ±5% rise in price (on a great day).
It will be wiped off by next market shake-out as a blip on a chart.
The selling pressure is not generated by supply.
(Well, it does - but the release of vesting supply - not the rewards).
To fix selling pressure we need to fix demand - not supply.
What do you think will happen if we proceed with this proposal?
All the people that are using Bonecrusher now for above-average APRs (which is in fact still not enough to attract higher demand to our product) are going to lose 70% of their rewards and in exchange we give them a one-off burn of 5% price pump (on a good day).
Do you think this will reduce the selling pressure or create an insane amount of selling pressure when people realise it’s 70% less lucrative than before? 
We will never create demand by taking away peoples rewards.
Only the opposite.
I’m sorry for not going with the flow but someone has to explain these things for what they are. People should start thinking critically what every proposal would actually do. Because projects success or failure depends on the decisions that we take.
Blessings.
P.S. It is my strong belief that it is the most dedicated members of K9 (whales) that are using Bonecrusher and form the largest part of those rewards recipients and I’m pretty sure they are not selling - quite the opposite. I’m also waiting for some extra cash in next couple of months to top up a bit more.
Remove tax its dumping on us on cex and the result coming on arbitrage to dex its enogh already team got from launching and pre sale and they have allocation its already get down to near zero
To the DAO:
After discussions had in Telegram Voice Chats, Telegram chats, and here, I have made some edits to the proposal. Everything that has a strikethrough is from the original post and everything right after the strikethroughs are the updated ideas moving forward.
Please feel free to review and provide your feedback.
Thank you,
As stated before it would feel like moving the goal post at this stage to reduce the airdrop by 70%…
And most of the airdrop will go to loyal holder anyways who most likely will lock it up. And i believe i remember reading that airdrop tokens being vested so couldn’t get dumped all at once if vested over a year let’s say.