I propose (1) accounting for the BreederDAO treasury, and (2) creating a wind-down proposal to wrap up the BreederDAO assets and return them to stakers.
BreederDAO has existed for about 6 months now, with no product to show for it. This isn’t wholly the team’s fault; the market has shifted and crypto gaming has drastically changed. The model first envisioned - to breed NFT assets for games like Axie Infinity - is no longer viable. And there is no new concept in place. Ideas that make sense in the bull market might not make sense in the bear. BreederDAO is one example of this. Crypto gaming has moved strongly away from the Axie Infinity model and there is no need for an asset generation product. There has been 0 progress on any of the whitepaper items - including many items which were supposed to be completed by now.
In short, BreederDAO has made no forward progress on delivering products and the changing crypto gaming landscape suggests this is because the original concept of BreederDAO no longer works. The best option is to return user funds to stakers and allow the BreederDAO team to move on to a new project.
The next question is how best to return user funds. Many ohm-fork projects have distributed treasury to token holders. This model is flawed because it means people will buy the token on the secondary marketplace for cheap and take value from the long-term project holder who bootstrapped the project treasury. I suggest instead taking a snapshot of the staked breed tokens by a certain date, and delivering the treasury proceeds pro-rata to the amount of staked breed. This returns tokens to the most dedicated holders who contributed their funds to bootstrap the treasury. I’ve downloaded a snapshot of the staked breed holders as of 12/01 in order to avoid manipulation in the future.
One question has to do with illiquid assets in the BreederDAO treasury - such as the myth digidaigaku and various seed round deals. These can’t easily be partitioned to stakers. I suggest these assets continue to hold value especially for the VC backers behind BreederDAO, and they’re a likely good target to receive these assets from BreederDAO in lieu of liquid tokens such as USDC or ETH. I welcome feedback on this, but the thought process is VC’s invested in BreederDAO to take a bet on crypto gaming, and don’t mind the longer holding periods that come with seed round investments (which they already agreed to with BreederDAO), and so assessing the value of these assets and allowing VCs to take them would be the best solution.
I welcome all feedback, but it’s quite apparent to be that BreederDAO as presently organized has no product market fit - in fact, no product at all - and a reboot is the best path forward for all involved.
Until an accounting of the treasury is done I can’t get more granular with structural suggestions on the windup and return of treasury funds. I’m happy to run some numbers on what a windup would look like for stakers once there are some numbers. But at this point, I’m mostly interested in getting an accounting and then getting a vote for whether stakers support a treasury windup.
This is very interesting. This doesn’t mean that we’re raising the white flag, does it?
I don’t think so. I agree on some of this points, but I don’t think that BreederDAO’s goals has become that “irrelevant”.
What I think makes sense in terms of an actionable proposal is something like: “Do you agree with the proposal to have the BreederDAO team perform an accounting of treasury assets, liquid and illiquid, in order to provide estimates for potential payout schemes for a winding down of the treasury and return of assets to stakers. This is not a proposal to begin the winddown process, but merely gather information to put together a well-informed winddown proposal with estimated returns to stakers, which they can then use to inform their cost-benefit analysis.”
I agree with everything you have said.
Moreover, following numerous requests for treasury balance (which we all funded) - we still haven’t recieved any information.
This project has not fulfilled its aims/goals, and has decided to take a completely different path; instead using funds raised by investors to pile into seed rounds, and an NFT - all with no transparency. Like Mustsched, I don’t blame the team. This project would have done extremely well if it had been setup 2-3 years ago, its just unfortunate timing.
The future is uncertain, but what is certain is that this project will have a token which is being drained from all angles, and only the mystery treasury will survive, while the earliest stakers who funded the treasury will have nothing left.
Agreed. I think all of this suggests a winddown is in the best interest of everyone involved. Near as I can tell, team is spending something like $80-$100k/month on expenses, which is still probably under $1m for the year. Maybe a bit more. But the treasury is a lot more; I think something like $15-$20m. So it’s still possible there’s a lot of value left that can be distributed back to the stakers, even assuming some loss of funds. Once we get an accounting of the funds, I can do the math and share what the return would be for stakers.
Hi, I’m Jetter and I’m officially a Community Proposal Jury member.
It looks like we have low community engagement on the proposal due to the holidays. So, the period for the discussion of the first community proposal has been extended due to Christmas and New Year. This comes directly from Article V, Section 4b of the DAOstitution that states:
"Failure to meet the discussion requirement. If, upon evaluation, the proposal is deemed by the Proposal Jury to have failed to meet the discussion requirement, the discussion period for the proposal shall be extended by fourteen (14) days (“extension period”). "
Me as a Proposal Jury and other Juries officially let this extend to this point and will provide the verdict as this comes to a close. Thanks, everyone!
Sounds good. Figured there’d be an extension with the holidays. Thank you for taking a look.
We, being the Proposal Jury, agreed to reject this proposal as it currently is. We are rejecting it on two points, the first being ‘Article III - Immutable Fundamental Rules, Section 4, Prohibited Proposals, paragraph c. - Proposals that are prejudicial to the DAO or which are designed to render the DAO ineffective or inutile.’ specifically in relation to this section of the Draft Proposal that outlines ‘The best option is to return user funds to stakers and allow the BreederDAO team to move on to a new project.’ The idea of dissolving the DAO and discontinuing the projects in the pipeline as of now will affect all current holders and is contradictory to the presented article.
The second factor is related to “Section 4. Pre-Qualification. Once a proposal is deemed submitted, the Proposal Jury shall thereafter screen and evaluate the same for pre-qualification. The Proposal Jury shall determine (1) whether the initial proposal violates any provision, rule or guideline of the DAOstitution and (2) whether there has been enough discussion on the proposal to meet the discussion requirement under Section 1 of this Article.,” specifically with respect to subsection b. which states that:
‘Failure to meet the discussion requirement. If, upon evaluation, the proposal is deemed by the Proposal Jury to have failed to meet the discussion requirement, the discussion period for the proposal shall be extended by fourteen (14) days (“extension period”). If after the lapse of the extension period, the proposal is still deemed to have failed to garner sufficient discussion as to satisfy the discussion requirement, the Proposal Jury may vote to reject the said proposal within three (3) days after the end of the extension period.’
During the original period, and even after the lapse of the extension period, there was still a noticeable lack in the discussion within the DAO and the wider community.
Thus, with these two points considered, the Proposal is rejected upon meeting the required vote for such rejection in accordance with the DAOstitution. This conclusion has been reached by a unanimous decision among us, the community members of the Proposal Jury. Two other members of the Proposal Jury abstained.
Signed and voted by:
I am Jetter from the Proposal Jury and I officially sign off on this decision.
I, Max of the Proposal Jury officially sign off on this decision.
I am Hendot from the Proposal Jury and I officially sign off on this decision.