The title of the post is a little misleading. I am familiar with Sanctum’s Disclaimer:
CLOUD is a functional multi-utility token which will be used as the native governance token and economic incentive which would provide the economic incentives which will be distributed to encourage users to exert efforts towards contribution and participation in the ecosystem on Sanctum, thereby creating a mutually beneficial system where every participant is fairly compensated for its efforts
It’s a little wordy, but in essence it says that if you are active in Sanctum, you get paid. I have also encountered the vote page, which implements this get-paid-to-participate model; int his model, one must buy $CLOUD, stake $CLOUD, and then vote on proposals. This is a great model for activist investors, but not so much for passive investors, not to mention the fact that this model has a time component that requires a user to vote over a period of 6 months before being able to realize the economic incentives aspect of $CLOUD. In other words, if you don’t participate in Sanctum, $CLOUD gives no economic incentives. For passive investors, this means that in order to receive the economic incentives, you should probably just skip reading the proposals and vote based on whichever option has more votes, or based on how you day is going, or based on whichever option is closer to your mouse pointer.
All of this implies that there is nothing driving $CLOUD’s value. If the only purpose of $CLOUD is to participate in the vote-get-paid system (and the payment is $CLOUD) then we’re really just paying users to use our protocol. But Sanctum is the 10th largest LST on Solana, and Solana is the 5th largest blockchain—and this should position $CLOUD to have be worth so much more than it currently is. Right?