[RFC] Closing Year 2 Funding Gap

[immutbl]

[Accidentally hit delete on the last one, re-posting here]

@Yakitori

You’re advocating to take from VeBal holders to match spending, I propose to adjust spending to match revenue, which is currently lacking by a great proportion.

The veBAL flywheel is being driven primarily by gauge emissions and the power to direct them, not revenue distributions.

@Yakitori

Balancer has been launched mid 2020, it’s more than two years old. It’s a long time in crypto, it has seen a full bull market which allowed it to grow, experiment and show the relevance of its protocol. Now changes are incremental. So, it’s “mature”. It doesn’t mean innovation can’t happen, just like Google or Apple continue to innovate.

Balancer is a nascent technology that even DeFi natives are still grasping. The majority of the world does not use DeFi yet and there are no mature projects in DeFi today. We as an ecosystem are positioning ourselves for future growth.

It’s a very high compliment to compare Balancer’s growth to Google and Apple’s, but I don’t think we’ve earned that yet.

Since you brought them up, the FAANG have gotten to where they are by investing in hyper-growth; they didn’t shift to post-growth mode after 2 or 3 years.

@Yakitori

An organization can’t grow forever if it doesn’t address at some points its inefficiencies.

Addressing cost inefficiencies has been a high priority focus for the ecosystem as a whole and my team in particular for the past quarter.

@Yakitori

I could say the same about you, by the way, so let’s keep it cordial, please.

You are free to say what you believe about me. I’ve been dedicated to Balancer almost 2.5 years and I believe my actions have shown that I prioritize doing what’s best for the long-term success and sustainability of this project.

I agree that forum discourse should be cordial and respectful. There were some statements in your post that honestly made me unsure whether you were being serious.

Even if we strongly disagree on things, I do welcome your views and your contributions to this community.

@Yakitori

Well, it doubled thanks to Balancer’s superior technical proposition, but also because of its veTokenomics, which we are currently planing down.

Also because of the hard work of the contributors to this project…

@Yakitori

It seems to me that many projects listed on the front page rely on Bal and veBal revenues. Cutting into it would indeed endanger the said ecosystem.

Which ones? I don’t think any of the projects on our front page other than Aura rely on the veBAL split of protocol revenues.

Aura is a super valuable part of the ecosystem and supporting the health of the project is a high priority for myself and my fellow contributors. If we enact policies that sacrifice Balancer’s future prospects, we would thus also harm Aura and all of the ecosystem players who rely on Balancer for the long term.

@Yakitori

I could say the same about the current proposal: no analysis was done on the impact of the fee reduction for veBal holders and the revenue cost of a reduction in spending.

This proposal was predicated on both of those things-- a comparison of the value/impact of veBAL revenue vs gauge emissions and an ecosystem-wide effort to reduce costs across the board.

Xeonus’s tool is a useful resource if you’re interested in digging into financial flows.