And there’s a reason. Massive sell pressure. Who? The DAO itself. Also there is no revenue.
Situation:
Lalo has confirmed the DAO has aroung $10k in costs
Cloud costs + Defiants + misc ops comes out to ~$10K a month.
At these prices it means the DAO is selling around 400.000 NOM per month to cover all costs.
So the DAO itself instead of trying to keep the price or make it go higher to cover its expenses is dumping the price.
Expenses
Reduce Telegram and Discord support during the weekends.
Ask for NOMads/DAO members to moderate TG and Discord. Same reward to be offered, vested.
This will reduce the selling pression from day 1.
Revenue
A validator with 5M staked NOM with a 5% comission is getting aroung 80K NOM per month. Taken NOM a $0.03 that makes $2,4k.
Only 4 of 13 validator are in these situation with a few validators under 2M.
options: TAX validators:
Most of the validators got a grant to join the ecosystem. Atr this point we need their help.
A TAX of 1% over their means (for a 5M staked and 80k NOM) around 800 NOM (nothing)
NOMs got from taxes will be allocated/staked into the smallest validators.
This will lead to more revenue for the validators, and also the DAO will be having some revenue. More than zero is always better.
As taxes will be an increase of cost for validators is up to them to pass this cost to stakers by increasing their comission.
This Tresuary will rotate every three months and validators themselves should ask the DAO via proposal to allocate the treasury in them. What they offer to the DAO in Exchange? Up to them.
Increase fees (Temporary)
Multiply TX fees by 10.000. Allocate this to the Treasury described in the previous point.
Current fee for a TX: 0,000000000000002129 NOM
Multicurrency Treasury
Start allocating some % of NOM every month (to be discussed in other thread once the DAO starts to have some revenue) to the cryptocurrencies from the Cosmos Ecosystem.
Stake this assets to get more revenues and sell them for NOM.
There’s actually no “massive selling pressure” ever since the MOGA vote happened.
Additionally, the DAO is not selling NOM on markets nor depositing them into exchanges. NOM markets have had one of the longest periods of sideways in a while. In fact out of curiosity, I’ve been observing exchange balances of NOM. Since the MOGA vote, deposits have substantially slowed. Gate’s NOM balances have fallen nearly 1 million NOM in the past few days and you can see large withdrawals on-chain from Gate’s address into personally held wallets, so one could reason that buying and accumulating is happening here. Of course this is NFA, this is just analyzing public on-chain info that anybody can see for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
With that information, the situation you pose as the premise for your post is not actually accurate - but I commend you for voicing your thoughts and taking initiative to push Onomy forward!
That said, Defiants have already offered a 40% discount on services during Onomy’s restructure period. This was shared in the Telegram channel and is very nice of them to do.
As for validator tax, this is actually a good idea and what I will be supporting during the upgrade to Cosmos SDK v0.50. The Cosmos SDK has a community pool that takes a DAO-chosen % of all rewards generated (staking inflation). This community pool is akin to the DAO Treasury. Onomy had reason to create a custom DAO-Treasury module in past, but with this restructure the custom logic that was created is no longer used. So, with the upcoming upgrade we’ll be able to define a % of all staking rewards that enters the community pool (Treasury). It’s very astute of you to think of this and I think you’ll be happy to know that it is possible and I’ll also be supporting via a yes vote.
As for TX Fees, I think this will be more fruitful once there’s substantial tx volume to actually garner meaningful fees - but even then, I think fees should predominately come from protocol revenue on products like the Reserve and upcoming dCLOB DEX. If TX fees were increased, a global minimum would have to be set because each independent validator can set their own - so a bit more to it.
On the multicurrency treasury point - love this idea. I’ll have to look into this more to see if the community pool can handle multiple currency types (non-native). The current DAO Treasury is actually built to handle this, so we’ll have to explore carrying over that logic in the SDK upgrade to v0.50 at a later time. Something for the roadmap.
Thanks for your time and again thanks for clarifying the Selling Pressure scenario, sorry I was wrong.
About the 40% discount, I was not aware.
Other two points, I’ll let the rest of the DAO express their opinion. I think we should we moving forward about taxing validatores, I think the market will like that movement.
About increasing Tx fees, I see your point, let’s wait a while.
i think a validator tax would be better once we get to a big level of transactions again and validators become profitable. a lot had to buy NOM to join at much bigger price, and we do want to keep our set professional and good.
what im saying is that i dont know if a tax to validators would generate any meaningful revenue for the dao yet. yet is keyword here.