I’m curious as to how community members, ANT holders etc. think about the currency that funding payments are made in, and also how AGP proposers are thinking about them.
1 ANT ~= 0.71 USD
Looking at the Coop DAO proposal, I noticed this split:
@osarrouy’s Aragon Black proposal asks for
- $450k paid in DAI [or any other stable assets].
- 125k ANT.
- How do proposers decide on the respective amounts?
- To what extent do voters and the AA prefer dispensing ANT over DAI? What about ETH?
- Is expressing an intention to hold ANT considered an indicator of alignment? How much do people care?
Im interested in this as well…
For flock proposals I think the expectation of splitting requests between ETH/DAI and ANT is that the ANT would be used as a long term incentivization tool using some sort of vesting process.
For past nest proposals it was similar, as ANT was typically offered as a reward offered only at the end, which is functionally similar to vesting with a 100 percent cliff when deliverables are completed.
For things like the coop it might make sense if the coop was using the ANT specifically to collectively vote in AGP process, but as far as I can tell that is not outlined in the proposal.
That being said, I don’t have strong feeling about people preferences to be compensated in ANT/ETH/DAI. Though from a practical perspective I wouldnt recommend people plan to request ANT and not hold onto it, as the proposer would likely face significant price slippage given current state of ANT market liquidity.
I think of it similar to the way as @lkngtn. ANT is used as a long-term incentivization mechanism. I don’t think it should be treated like a day-to-day currency right now (1. there isn’t enough liquidity and it is relatively volatile, and 2. I don’t want to see teams cashing out ANT to pay bills and put unnecessary sell pressure on the books). DAI is for day-to-day spending, paying the bills. ETH can also be used for day-to-day spending but is more volatile so not great for financial planning or having a predictable runway.
Authio decided not to take any ANT in their ANSP proposal, their reasoning being that they wanted to remain neutral towards ANT as an asset and that holding it may create perverse incentives e.g. to ignore or play down certain issues if they would have an adverse impact on ANT price. I can understand their reasoning and think this is a case where ANT might not be appropriate for a long-term incentivization mechanism.
Thank you both for your comments.
I’ve gone back and forth on whether or not receiving a token promotes incentive alignment with security providers, and I think the answer is, “it depends”.
Auditing a contract prior to the ICO? Taking payment in the token encourages you to ‘go easy’ on the project team for the sake of public perception. Bad incentives.
Auditing a system with a live token, whose value is presumably related to the system being secure? Holding the token seems like a good thing incentive-wise.
Accumulating a governance token for a network from which you intend to request funds… I haven’t thought that through properly yet.
For the Coop DAO funding request the ANT is twofold:
- It’s a method of benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative
- Demonstrates confidence in the overall health of the network (personally I consider ANT currently undervalued)
It’s also meant as a method for membership to gain full access and participatory voting rights in the Aragon community (many of the coop are not current ANT holders, but not all).
I’m curious too whether there’s an AA preference?
There is no preference at the moment.
The main things we currently want to use ANT for, as @lkngtn and @light mentioned, are:
- long-term incentivization of teams
- redirecting ANT to active community participants that will then be involved in governance discussions and use their ANT to vote
That being said, the ANT allocation the AA still retains, while large, is not infinite - so especially at these low prices we have to be very conscious of the amounts we can grant on each request.
The main worry that I have in including hard numbers on each proposal (wether partner, flock, other community finance DAOs, and so on) is that network participants might shut the proposal down not for its merits but instead for too high of an ANT request.
I think everyone has answered pretty clearly about the rationale.
I would just add that sizing the ANT bonus / incentivization package is quite tricky. I feel like this incentivization package should be [reasonnably] high to balance the uncertainty and risks of leaving a « regular » job for a grant-funded job but I also feel like ANT is clearly undervalued for now and could quickly rise by order for magnitude in the coming months / years so that what looks like a reasonable amount now could appear totally excessive in six months …
@stefanobernardi mentioned in our Flock Proposal that these ANT package could be decided by the AA on a near-future based on a package per year per capita ratio standard.
I think it could make sense and free proposal makers from the necessity to figure it out by themselves [which can be tricky].