During the recent spat of failed and almost failed SIPs, it is obvious that hitting quorum is quite the task despite it being a seemingly low threshold.
My suggestion is to give Premium LANDs a proportionate VP to that of its sale price, which is 1:4. Meaning that Premium LANDs will come with 18k VP. This will increase the VPs of many small holders who hold Premium LAND but only currently receive 4.5k VP, thereby giving them more say and from a broader perspective, improving the communityās ability to hit quorum when desired.
The total supply of SAND sits at 3b, with about 23% still yet to be unlocked. That means there is a float of about 2.3b SAND/VP. (according to CoinMarketCap)
Similarly, there are a total 166,464 LANDs, with only about 122k floating, out of which, according to OpenSea, thereās 108,879 regular LANDs, and 13,158 Premium LANDs. That adds up to a float of 549m VP at the current flat rate of 4.5k VP.
With the adjustment, weāll see LAND owner VP collectively add up to 727m VP, which is an increase of 32% in VP for LANDs.
Iād love to hear what the community thinks about this.
I am completely against this idea as it is creating a classification between the one that are able to buy a premium vs a person that can afford only a common.
I would first suggest the DAO to get in touch with the maor holders of VP. Out of the 20 major holders of VP only 3 of them have voted for more than 50% of the SIPs. Most of them have voted only for the 3 firstā¦ and not for the others. What is the reason behind? Are they using the non vote as a way to block a SIPs or are they not feeling engaged or do not want to be engaged?
Based on the answers they are different solutions:
decrease the quorum as currently to a lower level (eg 15 M or for example fix the quorum to the half of the voting power used of the last SIPs)
increase the advertisement on the delegation and make it simple. Eg me who is part/following the DAO since the beginning I do not know if delgation is now possible, where to do itā¦
last but not least an easy way to fix the issue is putting out a clear transparent rule that if quorum cannot be meet TSB will vote 1/3 1/3 1/3. But do it in a transparent way and vote like that even DAO council opinion is negative. (this will avoid any tentative of blocage by lacj of quorum)
in case you give more VP to premium land owner it should certainly not be 4 times as currently the price on secondary market is only 2 times the standard lands.
Hi @KCL, I appreciate your feedback. The reason I suggested boosting premium land VP is because I believe that most premium lands are held by small holders. Most whale sized VPs are typically XL or multiple L sized estates that consists of normal lands.
Adding more VP to premium lands will see small holders get a boost in their VP, thereby closing the gap between the top 20 holders with, say, the bottom 3-400 holders cumulatively.
This is but 1 measure of many, including what you suggested, that can be implemented.
As for the rationale of giving premium lands 4x the number of VP compared to regular, this is in line with how much normal land costs Vs premium during raffle. This should also give premium land sales a boost
About you statement āmost of premium lands are held by small holdersā. Would you have supporting data on that? If that is just an assumptions your argument of giving more voting power to small holder is difficult to back up. And if you would do so how would feel a small holder that acquired 4 normal lands vs a holder that acquire a premium on secondary market currently. In order to assess this you will need to compare the number of single premium land owners vs single normal land owners to know if this is really benefiting small holders.
I got your resoning behind the 4 times but VP vs standard land but here this is just a potential external benefit of this SIP but should not be the driver for the decision.
It will be difficult to substantiate the claim āpremium lands are held by small holdersā with data at this juncture because I canāt access said data due to legal reasons(enquired about it). The next best option I have is to prove that they arenāt held by large holders.
Iāve scanned through the top 100 wallets according to Dune Analytics and most wallets do not contain more than 2 premium lands as they are typically made up of XL and L estates. While it isnāt the most reliable form of proof, it does narrow down the possibility towards small holders.
Another fact is also that premium lands are won via raffle, which means distribution is typically to singular KYCed accounts.
I also do find that proposing a 4x VP for premium land may be doing it a disservice since itāll make no difference to purchase 4 normal lands with the same amount of SAND spent. Now, it isnāt within the DAOās scope to change the plans TSB has for premium, which may be nada, but we can change itās benefits within the DAO. Iād actually like to propose that we increase beyond just 4x to give premium land itās fair value.
Thatās a pretty good start. I think it wouldnāt be super hard to figure out, and I suspect youāre right about Premium Land holders being more spread out among the landowners, versus concentrated like estates are.
Thanks @Lanzer, with the recent controversy about not meeting quorum and having TSB step in, the next options we have to consider is to increase VP within the community, and what better way to start than to add more tangible benefits to land owners who have previously invested more into the platform by acquiring premium lands.