Maybe the token price wouldn’t be so low and require the contemplation of a buyback if the people grifting huge salaries from the DAO could either:
Spell words like ‘attacker’ correctly.
Use a spell-checker.
Accept that they’ve built nothing of monetary value in the best part of a decade, and are clinging to the ‘public goods’ crutch as a way of masking this; conveniently omitting that they didn’t raise ICO funds in the form of a Gitcoin grant, but in exchange for fungible assets.
However, I wanted to point out the whole “grifting huge salaries” is plain wrong. I haven’t been in the day to day of the organization for a couple years, sure. But I can comfortably say that in the 4+ years that I was, and even now, people get reasonable comp. If that wasn’t the case, the treasury wouldn’t be 10x what was raised.
Also core contributors have quite small ANT packages. That needs to be fixed. That’s one of the reasons I would support a buyback.
Also in my opinion ANT cannot be an afterthought. A widely distributed token like ANT can be an incredible inventive alignment mechanism. Providing yield to wANT holders, rewarding core contributors, aligning incentives with other DAOs via token swaps… not enough is being done.
Disclosure: This is my personal opinion as an ANT holder, not representative of the Aragon Association’s opinion.
Please unban everyone from the Discord, unblock from the Twitter, and re allow forum posts from Arca and the others you froze.
As a large wANT holder I am looking to have a healthy discussion with the team so we can all win.
Nobody is looking to end the DAO, this is a completely made up narrative because of the outcome from Rook.
In reality the Rook team put up a proposal to end the DAO themselves, taking all the IP for themselves, and giving themselves the entire treasury while holders only got $5M. Those that fought back against this ended up getting $20M+ for holders, essentially securing the DAO as many assets as possible, not destroying it.