Flare distribution paper, "Applying Governance to the Spark Distribution"

[WrathofKahneman]

Well it looks like Flare has heard enough about the distribution they have posted something.  Is it a change? Don't know but holders will vote on what happens after the 15% drops

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, WrathofKahneman said:

Well it looks like Flare has heard enough about the distribution they have posted something.  Is it a change? Don't know but holders will vote on what happens after the 15% drops

 

I think it makes sense that they put this up for a vote. I personally think having 100Bn is a good thing and it will help liquidity in the long run, and because the tax issue is primarily US specific, I hope the proposal to  burn a bit of FLR to unlock future distributions wins. In addition, restricting the total number of tokens to the initial airdrop significantly reduces liquidity of the Flare Finance tokens unless they change up their ratios (which they probably will)

I fear that the second proposal to simply restrict the total FLR to 15Bn will likely win especially if they intend to burn the remaining tokens.

[jbjnr]

25 minutes ago, Ripley said:

I fear that the second proposal to simply restrict the total FLR to 15Bn will likely win especially if they intend to burn the remaining tokens

Quite good news for @Seouliteif that happens, since he has been stacking up on FLR IOUs and once converted into FLR when the network is launched, should they decide to burn the rest, he'll have a truck load of FLR purchased at "we thought this was 15% of the total" price, instead of "this is all there will be" price.

[Seoulite]

6 minutes ago, jbjnr said:

Quite good news for @Seouliteif that happens, since he has been stacking up on FLR IOUs and once converted into FLR when the network is launched, should they decide to burn the rest, he'll have a truck load of FLR purchased at "we thought this was 15% of the total" price, instead of "this is all there will be" price.

I mean it’s not a truck load, my holdings are likely very modest compared to some people here.

 But this certainly shakes up the IOU market. My first thought was to check the Polo price, because this has really really complicated that value proposition. My guess is that it will crater the Polo price at first as people jump out to avoid the uncertainty. I’m considering doing this myself. However there may now be upwards pressure on the price because of the possibility that the Polo distribution will be the same as the Bitrue one. It’s too complicated for me to wrap my head around at 7 o’clock in the morning.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, jbjnr said:

Quite good news for @Seouliteif that happens, since he has been stacking up on FLR IOUs and once converted into FLR when the network is launched, should they decide to burn the rest, he'll have a truck load of FLR purchased at "we thought this was 15% of the total" price, instead of "this is all there will be" price.

Frankly it’ll be great for all of our prices, initially. It’s likely to jump 6.7x assuming they reduce the total number of tokens to 15 Bn.  

But I just love the idea of a fixed income for the next three years, especially if it is coming without tax liabilities.

[Seoulite]

39 minutes ago, Ripley said:

I think it makes sense that they put this up for a vote. I personally think having 100Bn is a good thing and it will help liquidity in the long run, and because the tax issue is primarily US specific, I hope the proposal to  burn a bit of FLR to unlock future distributions wins. In addition, restricting the total number of tokens to the initial airdrop significantly reduces liquidity of the Flare Finance tokens unless they change up their ratios (which they probably will)

I fear that the second proposal to simply restrict the total FLR to 15Bn will likely win especially if they intend to burn the remaining tokens.

For me it is the fact that the distribution has been pushed back. This is going to annoy a lot of people. First significant bump in the road for flare?

[Seoulite]

3 minutes ago, Ripley said:

Frankly it’ll be great for all of our prices, initially. It’s likely to jump 6.7x assuming they reduce the total number of tokens to 15 Bn.  

But I just love the idea of a fixed income for the next three years, especially if it is coming without tax liabilities.

The thing is though people don’t know if it’s going to be reduced or not, and that’s the kind of uncertainty that makes people leave the market and just press sell.

I guess the three years depends on your personal financial situation. Considering a lot of people were clamoring to be given the whole thing immediately, they aren’t going to like waiting longer.

edit: but I agree the price on bitrue will likely rise, as either nothing has changed or it has changed for the better in terms of total supply

Edited June 17, 2021 by Seoulite

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

For me it is the fact that the distribution has been pushed back. This is going to annoy a lot of people. First significant bump in the road for flare?

I was initially disappointed too, but as I think through it, it think it’ll be a good test of the governance voting system, and also postpones inflation by a few months. By then Flare Finance, Trustline/Probity, Sparkles, Panther etc will have launched, creating sufficient demand for the future distributions. 

To me the biggest disappointment is their choice of “default”. I’m scared that neither proposal might win and I’ll be stuck with a bad tax liability.

[brianwalden]

Experience has given me a bad taste for democracy. The guys running Flare are way smarter than I am. I wish they would do what they think is best rather than leaving it up to us idiots.

The people voting are by and large going to vote for their own short-term interests. I'd much prefer the decision to be made based on the long-term best interests of the network even if that's not what will immediately serve me best on day one.

I have no opinion on which option is better, I have to wait for the detailed documents. Even then it would only be my opinion.

[brianwalden]

7 minutes ago, Ripley said:

I was initially disappointed too, but as I think through it, it think it’ll be a good test of the governance voting system, and also postpones inflation by a few months. By then Flare Finance, Trustline/Probity, Sparkles, Panther etc will have launched, creating sufficient demand for the future distributions. 

To me the biggest disappointment is their choice of “default”. I’m scared that neither proposal might win and I’ll be stuck with a bad tax liability.

But you already signed up for that tax liability when you made the claim.

[brianwalden]

I first thought this six-month delay would make a lot more people sell. Six months is like seven dog years in crypto. But then I thought the possibility of having the price 7x in six months might make people who would have otherwise sold, hold for the profits.

Then I thought the people who don't really care about the network but just want to turn a profit are all going to vote for the burn. But then I thought the sic month gap will give them a chance to be exposed to the network and and see what kind of value it brings.

So obviously I can't make up my mind one way or the other. Which is exactly why I shouldn't be voting.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, brianwalden said:

But you already signed up for that tax liability when you made the claim.

Flare gave reasonable assurances that they have a workaround, details to be provided and I could have registered/unregistered as recently as last week. 

I’m not going to be hypocritical and say I would have done that, but this is still a surprise. I’d have preferred a default of burn 85% but I can see how you cannot have a vote with just one option because there’s no guarantee of how many people will actually vote.

[Seoulite]

Just now, brianwalden said:

I first thought this six-month delay would make a lot more people sell. Six months is like seven dog years in crypto. But then I thought the possibility of having the price 7x in six months might make people who would have otherwise sold, hold for the profits.

Then I thought the people who don't really care about the network but just want to turn a profit are all going to vote for the burn. But then I thought the sic month gap will give them a chance to be exposed to the network and and see what kind of value it brings.

So obviously I can't make up my mind one way or the other. Which is exactly why I shouldn't be voting.

Mate if you shouldn’t be voting then none of us should. I agree that democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be.

[brianwalden]

I do know one thing, is most of the distribution gets burned but the Flare Foundation and Flare Network's shares aren't burned proportionally, it's really going to change the dynamics.

 

[Guest]

Just now, brianwalden said:

I first thought this six-month delay would make a lot more people sell. Six months is like seven dog years in crypto. But then I thought the possibility of having the price 7x in six months might make people who would have otherwise sold, hold for the profits.

Then I thought the people who don't really care about the network but just want to turn a profit are all going to vote for the burn. But then I thought the sic month gap will give them a chance to be exposed to the network and and see what kind of value it brings.

So obviously I can't make up my mind one way or the other. Which is exactly why I shouldn't be voting.

😆 Please vote though. Most governance votes are likely to be hard choices