# [BIP-XXX] BAL Tokenomics Revamp: ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

Governance
8
  1. Yes, I agree. I quickly dismissed it because the premises were wrong, but that’s my opinion. Every community member is encouraged to have its own. More clarification is always good.
  2. I’ll address it on point (9). The “absurd treasury expenses to payout some while others are neglected” is below (3)
  3. “the preferential treatment some vebal holders would get against others” can you clarify what is the pref treatment you’re seeing? Afaik all veBAL can wind-down at the same time, and the buyback is not until 12-mo. The NAV price floor will apply to all and mitigate risks of arbitrage (35% of circulating supply: there’s no BAL liquidity for that without huge price movement). So I’m not sure what you are talking about here.
  4. Are you taking Aura moderators and Balancer TC members as same people/protocol? This didn’t make much sense. The risks (or fiduciary duties) of mandates and DAO service providers are bounded by the DAO Standards (BIP-702)
  5. There is not a question here.
  6. Six was skipped.
  7. I can’t speak for Tetu’s motivations to build a permalocked system, but these risks were disclosed in the original proposal. veBAL was not built this way. Check 2022’s Introducing veBAL tokenomics by Fernando.
  1. This doesn’t make sense either; that’s not how the DAO Treasury works and emissions are sent straight to liquidity providers. However: since the market is pricing BAL at NAV, we can say that every USDC spent, or BAL minted, has a direct effect on the token price. Essentially, the market is pricing BAL itself at $0, what’s valuable is the redemption against the Treasury assets (the buyback portion on the Revamp proposal).
  2. Re: MiCA/US, Balancer DAO is not a US/EU company, nor is the Balancer Foundation and its subsidiaries. If your legal opinion is that this new tokenomics triggers higher regulatory concerns (veBAL vs. liquid BAL), you are asking a legitimate question despite heavily amplified budget estimates. The Cayman/BVI structure continues to offer governance and tax alignment. Clarity on TC-level versus DAO-level decision rights is needed and advised by our legal counsel, which was presented on [BIP-XXX] Operational Restructuring for Balancer. Basically: day-to-day operations and product development is mandated to OpCo service providers, and governance remains with BAL holders. I do agree resources are limited, but I gues your suggestion wouldn’t be to increase the laywer burn.
  3. I have no idea what you are talking about “misleading marketing campaign” or “expedited approach of having code done at the same time of the proposal”? What?

I understand I’ve asked you for some clarifications to better address your concerns, and I’ll try to respond to all the pending (3, 4 and 10) to the best of my abilities if they are legit. But like I said, my goal is to push the bill forward with a healthy discussion. If this becomes just bashing nonsense, I will refrain from meaningless participation and let the community address the issues as they best see fit.