Here are this week’s forum threads to watch:
Arbitrum is debating whether to grant voting rights to ARB tokens in liquidity pools or posted as collateral. Currently, ARB holders can only vote with ARB tokens in their wallets. Governance does not extend to tokens in liquidity pools or collateral. This proposal from the QiDAO team requests that Arbitrum extend voting power to QIDAO’s ARB contract. QiDAO points out that ARB in their contracts cannot be used to short. QiDAO also points out that as ARB can be used to mint MAI at QiDAO, allowing collateral ARB to vote could help teams that received ARB to use it to mint MAI, participate in governance, and hold their ARB rather than sell.
This is an important thread to follow; if it goes to vote and passes, it will further integrate ARB into the ecosystem.
Everyone’s favorite network is again struggling with deciding the level of inflation for their POKT token. Pocket Network’s current inflation is around 10%-12% or about $750K monthly. This proposal recommends reducing inflation to a more sustainable 4.55%. According to the proposal, the original inflation level has caused downward pressure on the token’s price. Inflationary pressure can put the network at risk as node operators cannot afford to operate. Additionally, the original level of inflation for Pocket Network would require the network to have 3.81B paid relays per day to break even – something the proposal claims is not structurally feasible at this time.
This proposal will be controversial. Node operators won’t like to see their rewards cut in half overnight. But the market can sometimes respond positively to reductions in supply, which may offset the issue. Regardless, this thread is critical if you have been following Pocket Network.
One thread that I found interesting is the recent discussion from PsyOption around accelerating vesting tokens. PsyOption has 76.5M tokens vesting as part of investor SAFT agreements – roughly 7.5% of the supply. This proposal proposes releasing these immediately rather than maintaining the 4-year vesting schedule. In the proposals estimation, releasing vesting tokens allows ‘weak hands’ to exit their positions and removes large supply overhangs from dissuading future investors.
I would’ve thought the community would be against instantly increasing the supply by 7.5%, but the few comments in the forum seem supportive or at least open to the idea. To me, however, this doesn’t seem reasonable. Teams invest with agreed-upon terms and vesting schedules. Changing vesting schedules because of market conditions would be a horrible precedent to set and would damage the relationship of a project with the community. However, I will follow this to see if they actually go through with it.