Season 2 Budget - *Temperature Check*

I fully agree with you, Tiggles. The earnestness allocation shouldn’t be considered criteria; the real contribution from day 1 should matter.

4 Likes

some intial thoughts, but i’ll try and keep it simple, theres alot of info there hehe
I’ll keep reading and digesting and add anything in time

i. 10% of supply matching S1 seems the right way to go

ii. 70/30 split for protocol / community looks like a pretty good baseline for now, would like to see what the earnest/community criteria is. Although after the statement the team make with the 50/50 split last time it maybe a 60/40 split would keep that ethos in play, depends on the criteria really

iii. The protocol interaction is where I struggle, although nothing wrong with the suggestions, but we have some massive holders of both LST and cloud which could just create the same top heavy allocation again

(Just picked one wallet from the top 20 (discounting the drift/kamino/meteora etc), has 4k+ INF, 16k+ jupSOL, 12k+ Helius and 200K Cloud that have been held/added too over the few months, something like the top 750-1000 wallets hold at least 1000 INF, and most alot of other LSTs too)

iv. If we say “CLOUD held vs. sold since season 1 awards” again we have some very large holders which dwarf the average holder, so again could result in a top heavy allocation

on a slight sidenote, it maybe a side effect that it also ends up penalizing some that got a earnest drop last time, for some it was pretty much life changing money for lots of different reasons, many are still here and continue to engage and interact with the upmost convinction to drive Sanctom, Cloud and LSTs in general forward. so would offer an potential alternative, where its CLOUD bought versus sold (which may help cut farmers/traders who don’t care about the tokens out)

4 Likes

Thanks for this mimyk, will check them out!

3 Likes

Best feedback in my opinion. I would have to say I agree with most if not all of this. :pray:t4:

However, there should be other metrics involved in determining if an s1 claimer who sold is not earnest enough. Do they remain involved and contribute to the community?

4 Likes

Agreed, there should be other metrics involved.

3 Likes

I don’t think anything from before season 2 should matter, bought, sold, held, etc, nothing matters for season 2, everyone starts from scratch from a financial perspective. But just to offer a simple solution to this issue you bring up, a reasonable maximum per wallet could solve this whale issue. I’m actually in favor of all projects having fairly low maximums per wallet as it creates a more decentralized project. When whales are constantly overallocated airdrops, they continue to concentrate power, and the worst is that the people that need it the least always get the most which ends up mirroring crony capitalism/late stage capitalism which is the whole problem with the current economy today that crypto is supposed to save us from.

3 Likes

i’m more than good with a fresh start from zero for S2, its by far the simplest and least messy, and simplest is usually best for most things

But we see it fairly regular peeps asking about retrospective points, if we start from a clean slate then alot of the isses with who holds what etc from a retrospective point of view dissappear

4 Likes

After read it all, I can say I think S2 should be a new start. Only in this way more investors will join the project for the long term. Early belivers can have a little extra allocation too.
But its important give back to people who invest in sactum and his vision.
I dont understand so much about %, but for me is important that everyone have the same possibilities to earn at the start of S2.
I also think everything should be 100% clear (maybe with examples or infographics). Also how I much Im earning, in this way everyone will check probably every minute…

I hope we can add a gacha mechanism in S2 :pray: lol

Anyway is could be really cool if we can vote the real proposal when its ready, with our $cloud.

Waiting :seedling:

4 Likes

Creator Coins & LSTs: Definitely not, APY is enough, and these are community pools

AER: Yes

New earnestness: Yes

Long standing earnestness: Yes

Initiatives: Yes

Grant pool: Yes, but we need a better way (DAO) to determine receivers

Platforms: Don’t see why they would need it, with all the capital they already hold, and again these are community pools

CLOUD/INF pool: Not sure it should be funded from community pools

Percentages are debatable.

3 Likes

I see things a bit differently.

If I understand correctly, those 300M $CLOUD are reserved for the community, right? Some proposals mentioned are not what I’d imagine community-designated funds should focus on. Incentivization of pools, for instance, seems like something that could be funded through other means, though I might be wrong. While it can benefit the community by providing the incentives, it’s also aimed at improving liquidity and attracting new users, making it not exclusively community-focused.

I believe these funds should prioritize additional Airdrop Seasons, with a significant portion still tied to Earnestness. Staking rewards can also have their share. They should also support community-driven projects, activities, grants, and rewards that sustain engagement beyond the airdrop seasons.

For example, initiatives like the Nexus Podcast, the Cloudie.so website, the Spectrum art initiative (including the Cloudie Emoji Clan and upcoming NFTs), giveaways, collaborative contests, games, and other organic projects developed by the community for the community.

Let’s allocate more $CLOUD to these kinds of efforts! If the funds are offered, I’m sure many more initiatives with show up! :blush: We do need them to grow!

5 Likes

Fabulous reasoning, very well articulated.

1 Like

:100: I like how jupiter has allocation for good cats, and it requires application. sanctum already did application based earnestness with “no cloud left behind”

It requires signficant effort and resources, but seems a great way to reward such efforts :heart:

4 Likes

When? I can not wait.

Thank ya’ll for voting and weighing in some thoughts and opinions.

Judging by the distribution, it seems a majority of those who voted liked the budget. Nonetheless, there are very valid points mentioned by @JohnnyTheClown @nicshodln along for further refinement to be done suggested by @Mimyk .

@fplee would love your take and team’s proposal in terms of the budget and how we allocate down the road, especially when we are close to on-chain voting. Hope this is helpful for that to move forward.

I’ve closed the polls in the meantime and thank you all!

4 Likes

I’m always willing to run my mouth, I’m very opinionated :rofl:
I look forward to seeing the teams proposal and offering feedback.

thanks again for putting it out there for thoughts and suggestions

going to stick my neck out on a pole and say we shouldn’t be thinking of any season 2 right now, the token is bleeding for a number of reasons, adding a new airdrop in anytime soon will just add to the selling pressure from some, i would be inclined to take the jupiter route and so seasons once a year on the anniversary of S1

we have to get some initial staking, some initial governance and subsequent votes under the belt before it time to so a S2, unfortunately without those things i can’t see further distress to CLOUD as a token which will reflect on Sanctum as a whole

Thank you @Halfa for moving these ideas forward. :heart_hands:

Just to add on, I saw this a scoring system to reward holders and punish jeeters who’s heart are not for the project.

For reference, seems relevant to the topic :slight_smile: