Coherent with another proposal of token return, I agree.
Agreed. While buybacks and token burns could be a potential future strategy. The current priority of BIitDAO should be establish our reputation and network as a major advocate of Defi. This would require establishing close relationships with the market leaders and invest in innovative projects. Honestly, this would be a costly and time-consuming process but beneficial in the long term.
I agree with your proposal very much.
We can also use bitdao to participate in some game projects as their operation tokens.Players need bitdao to join games.
Bit token Holders must be compensated.I think this will help boost bit holders conviction.Along with this we should also add holders of bit tokens getting compensation in fees on trading at bybit exchange.This will create flywheel effect as bit token Holders will be more likely to trade on bybit as well as bybit will get more users which will then help grow BitDao treasury.
Burning $bit will be good for holder. We must see the potential price don’t go down when more token will release.
No dip in price after the massive Bybit airdrop
I’m newer to the community so please excuse me if I’m missing important information.
In a general setting, I can understand why introducing mechanisms to reduce the supply of a token can be useful, especially when token also has separate inflationary mechanisms. There are also benefits like seeing the price of the token go up in value, which tends to be what happens when supply goes down.
In the context of BIT though, unless I’m missing something, the supply is fixed. I would be hesitant to introduce something like this proposal in that situation without more controls around how long the burn would take place for (i.e. buy back tokens up to 1/4th of bybit income up to 10M per quarter for the next 4 quarters, at which point we will revisit this mechanism to evaluate its success).
What do others think about that?
Absolutely- it does seem inherently important to consider restrictions that would ensure that this does not result in any imbalance.
With that said, I don’t believe that the current number of tokens sent to the address is significant enough to cause any obvious issues.
I think we need to seriously consider this problem
Bit’s current activities seem beautiful. In fact, they only support short-term holding.We must introduce a combustion mechanism to ensure the significance of long-term holding.
We may be able to use bit as fuel to draw the blind box,or we can use bit as transaction deduction fee.
In fact, they only support short-term holding
I object to this (with a smile though! )
There are active, accessible, and transparent efforts within the community that are not only showing promising results, but seem to be increasing exponentially. If you hop into the Discord, and you check out the discussions happening in Governance, I think you’ll get why I feel optimistic.
I had previously vocalized my own concerns, probably upwards of a month or so ago (you can find the post if you’re curious!). That post resulted in a clear, concerted, and immediate effort towards finding a solution. I should really go back and update that post to reflect this.
As I said, hop into the Discord! There hasn’t been a single shred of short-term speculative talk about gains, and only discussions concerning how the community can improve the community, as well as how BitDAO can support value-building initiative(s).
I agree with your proposal !
we should happen at some stage, it means a lot to us
we must discuss this detail if necessary, burn BIT has been in the spotlight.
Incineration of BITDAO used in voting is one of the numerous ways.
Agree, and please more launchpool with hight APY … we have giant treasury fund and useless…
Buybacks make good sense when there is liquid capital (cash/cypto) held, as is a more efficient use of that of capital, then stagnation …are there no better opportunities available for BitDAO’s liquid capital today than buybacks?
Besides the above point (as mentioned in @deefs post on tokens sent to the contract), I agree that it would be benefit to have the framework (features in the BIT token contract), to enable these kind of options moving forward.
Good idea. That will support hodlers aswell
I think upgrade to L2, and let bit be a gas is useful for price.
Totally agree with this proposal, and I believe this is a must-be-done action which can significantly benefit the future development of Bitdao. To begin with, regularly buyback will stabilize the price of Bitdao, which can further strength the member solidarity because Bitdao members won't be bothered by the inflation and being confused by whether to sell it. Increasing sense of belonging is a very important issue in any groups. And I believe this can make members more willing to hold and join the long term project in Bitdao rather than just taking it as a short term investment. Secondly, the stabilizing price and potential can attract more influential partners joining our groups. When the price of Bitdao is stabilized, more people will notice us and even eager to participate in our activities, which can form a positive cycle. Last but not the least, the advantages I mentioned above can fascinate more potential clients for Bybit, Bidao's largest partner. Hence, Bybit can donate more money to Bitdao and help Bitdao grow even faster. To sum up, regularly buyback is a great strategy to make Bitdao and Bybit grow stronger. And this strategy has also been adopted by many coin exchange and has resulted in huge success. Hoping this proposal can passed in the near future and I believe only on that day, we can really realize our dream ''Ever Bit Counts In The Whole World.'' Thanks for your reading.
I am developing a proposal to present it to the community (A cooperation proposal with another DAO), it will promote BitDAO on a large scale, millions of people. One of the products created by our cooperation will generate a lot of monetization in the medium to long term with exploration and use of Data, as well as marketing/advertising. - Talking about Web 3 Data Economy.
The initial idea was for us to use this money generated by monetization to maintain the project and expand it, but we can change the mechanics a little bit if you like the idea and support us.
One possibility is to use this money generated by monetization for periodic repurchase of the BitDAO token which after that will be frozen in the BitDAO partner’s treasury.
This will not generate the deflation that would be token burning, but it would generate the effect that investors want is token appreciation and prevent a possible subsequent massive sale.
Model suggested here:
Bybit Commitment > Token Buyback > Token Valuation
Model suggested by me:
Bybit Commitment > BitDAO > Proposal X > Product Created > Product Sold > Repurchase Token > Token Valuation
However, we have one more issue to resolve: the lack of money that the sale of Collected Data will make in the project, the only way I found viable would be to double the amount we intended to request here.
In my opinion, it is a more sustainable suggestion in the medium-long term, but also more costly for the Treasury in the short term.
What do you think about this?
I recommend reading this Twitter thread on the subject: https://twitter.com/danrobinson/status/1175410418820554752
The conclusion is that money is not a real resource so printing or burning it does not, by itself, create any real value. In the short term, burning tokens increases the value of everyone’s holdings, but the effect is too diluted to be useful. Low entropy capital can be usefully deployed to generate a yield, but millions of small deposits are the monetary equivalent of heat death. In the aggregate, holders can’t do anything more useful with the ‘free’ value they’ve received, so they’ll sell it and the price will return to equilibrium. Burning tokens also has the unwelcome consequence of artificially increasing interest rates, in the same way that printing money reduces them. In short, burning tokens is a wasted opportunity to generate a meaningful yield with low entropy capital and therefore net-negative.