One time SHARE supply increase to fund pools

With the SHARE being fixed supply now, I’d like to propose that we do a one time share supply increase to fund the LP pools.

Specifically, our SHARE total supply seems to be around 59M. We propose to increase this by 41M (roughly) to have a total outstanding supply of SHARE of 100M. All of these funds will be reserved in treasury (locked and vested) with the only purpose of funding LP providers.

Vote: https://snapshot.page/#/dollar-protocol/proposal/QmXuLAeDdPrFgFBNo9pAwx75NWzZxFwFEDm4kZhDatPLVt

1 Like

But now the more important thing is to increase the holding consensus for $share holders. We should use $share as the consensus basis of this system and give more value to the $share holders to attract more people to buy $share. , Otherwise, even if the total amount of additional $share is issued, it will only be mined and sold, which will make the price of $share lower and lower, so why do you think it needs to be mined?

Therefore, do you have to take this into consideration when issuing additional $share, and do you have a good plan to provide more value support for $share?
Do you agree with the argument that $share is the consensus basis of the currency system?
Here I have some suggestions. I would like to hear your opinion about whether we can join the Euro system or the RMB system in the future, without increasing the total amount or tokens, and also adding 40% of the additional currency issuance for $share holders. ?

Please make it clear that the primary problem now is to make $share have greater value expectations. If $share is not valuable, why should LP spend valuable $ETH to mine worthless $share? A 40% positive return profit is not enough to support the value of $share, and $share needs more value support.

I hope you will express your views on my description and let me know that you have a clear idea about the causes and consequences of the additional issuance. I will vote for what I think is more beneficial to the development of the project. I feel that my votes are very high. The voting results may be changed.

the alternative is to debase Shares from user’s, which would be a bit more complicated than just minting more shares into the LP pool contract.

I don’t have a stong preference. It’s either delete shares from everyone to make the LP shares more valuable or minting more shares to the LP contract to make them more valuable.

Prefer debase 99.9% shares. It makes the chart looks more attractive to new players.

Then I think that additional issuance or destruction may harm the interests of existing $share holders. If we want to increase the income of LP, I think we can increase the proportion of the positive income of $share-eth lp $usd, and the same can be done Realize the increase in revenue.

比如在USD>1$时,xbond获得所有正收益的30%,$share获得所有正收益的30%,而share-eth LP提供者,在抵押LP的同时获得xshare,可以获得40%的USD收益。
For example, when USD>1 $, xbond gets 30% of all positive income, $share gets 30% of all positive income, and the share-eth LP provider obtains xshare while collateralizing LP and can get 40% USD income

1 Like

In this way, LP providers can not only mine to get $share but also get positive USD。Why do we have to issue additional or destroy to harm the interests of existing users?

1 Like

In addition, the
MKR-USD
COMP-USD
LINK-USD
AMPL-USD
YFI-USD
The mining pool is removed, and all the unmined $shares are allocated to the $share-eth LP

1 Like

Because the contribution of xbond and xshare holders is relatively larger, we can vote to agree on the proportion of positive income obtained, such as $share holders get 20%, xbond and xshare holders each 40%

1 Like

I hate to say it because I still have nightmares about losing 60% USD, but I think a major SHARE debase would be the way to go if an elegant method can be established. Like other dude said, looking at SHARE as valuable while trading at half a penny is a bit ugly to passersby. Ideally we should try to aim for somewhere near $1 at least to start, because they should be seen as more valuable than even discounted USD.
If there was a good idea for a gradual cut that might be preferable to a mega debase. I like the idea of making it an active or gamified process, maybe like locking Share before a deadline, or just including at least one other preferred behavior at the same time… Maybe Burn Share for a premium amount of early EUR or something

@Robert if you decide to debase SHARE, how much of a debase would it be?

I think debase/increase supply should be put up for a vote with both outcomes clearly outlined so we know what we are voting on and the community is behind the decision

Don’t do these superficial tasks. People will never decide whether to buy or not based on the quantity. People buy it because of its expected value. Increasing or reducing the number will not help future value at all, but will harm the interests of existing holders. . We should raise market expectations for the project on the basis of protecting existing owners. The plan above seems to have achieved this goal.。

2 Likes

Adding only 41M seems too low. I would say we need to increase LP rewards x10. So 500M SHARE supply. Or something like /10 SHARE debase.

I am in favor of a share debase by 90%. so it will increase the LP rewards by 10x.

yeap, same, totally agree

even after debasing share by 90%. i still think debased USD from mining pools should be given back to the LP providers during positive rebase as seigniorage. otherwise no amount of rewards can suffice a 20% a day debase.

yep share debase 90%+. I think this solution is much better. Supply huge and scary now.