rUMB to have voting power on Umbrella Network official governance proposals

#21

I’m not accusing anyone, I’m pointing out the dangers of changing tokenomics. If they can be changed so easily then what is next on the list? Please don’t read into what I write as a personal attack because it is not.

I know you mean well and this proposal seems to have good intentions but deep down it changes the tokenomics which has a big impact on future tokenomic changes. People knew from the word go that rUMB had no voting power. So way should they expect a change in tokenomics now? People that acquired rUMB from Uniswap knew this and it was part of their long term plan… as I pointed out these people have got so much more than they expected. Changing tokenomics has such a big impact on projects, usually negative. I’m sure people will not mind waiting to get their UMB out of the vault to vote… after all they got a good deal :wink:

But keeping tokenomics intact is good for UMB. Just think about this in a rational way… if rUMB has the same utility as UMB then we might as well get rid of rUMB and just give out UMB for rewards. Two tokens to the same project with practically the same utility just confuses people.

You could take this one step further and do a proposal that will allow rUMB1 to be staked on the validators when that comes live? When do these tokenomic change proposals end? Do we end up with rUMB having the same utility as UMB? You can see the dangers creeping in to allow this proposal to go through.

My main gripe is that people knew that rUMB from the word go had no voting power because the original tokenomics states so. rUMB is nothing more than a reward token, so for people to change that now just opens a big can of worms to do with tokenomics into the future. What else will be changed… like I said lets all vote and increase the max supply to 1 billion.

#22

This is what I am referring to. Regardless, no offence taken but please bare in mind other individuals are reading and can think this when it is not true, specifically because I composed the topic.

With what you are saying, you are implying that changing tokenomics and adding/changing token utilities is bad and they should remain the same. That is your opinion but I completely disagree, crypto is an ever-changing space and tokenomics should be reviewed and adapted to suit the best interests of a project.

Anyhow, you’ve made your points and I have made mine. I will stop discussing and let others chime in with their opinions.

1 Like
#23

Maybe a bad choice of words by me :slight_smile: I meant no offence to you on my part.

But I disagree with your views, sorry no offence :slight_smile: By changing the utility/tokenomics of rUMB will have negative impact because it now gives one more reason for new investors to completely ignore UMB and just purchase rUMB. It also opens up a big can of worms to do with future tokenomics… which you really not have answered, barring saying you disagree with me.

If you want to change the tokenomics to give rUMB voting power then you need to counter my views on tokenomic concerns. If you expect a change in tokenomics to go through then you need to give reasons on why this change will have no negative impact. Just by sweeping my concerns under the carpet because you disagree with me has no meaning to what you say.

If you want a change so badly then prove so because there are more people like me that will have the same concerns… I’m just more vocal. So far the poll disagrees with you at 43% and says no.

There is a Con section in the proposal that also stated potential negative impact… all I’m doing is filling the Con section out to be more fuller so people are really aware of what this vote means.

There’s no free lunch on tokenomic changes so please bring a case forward where you can put some points into the open to assure people like me that there will be no negative impact with your tokenomic proposal changes. After all I have stated my concerns that have gone unanswered, barring you saying you disagree with me.

#24

this conversation is very backwards and tiresome.

Your concerns are:

  1. changing tokenomics.
  2. it might affect price.
  3. it might make UMB less desirable and investors might purchase rUMB instead.

I will break it down even more than I have done so already.

  1. changing tokenomics.

you said the following:

My response was this:

My comment was referring to changing tokenomics in general and adding/changing utilities to tokens in general. This is crazy if you think this in my opinion, backwards thinking and means that UMB would forever be stuck with the same utilities outlined in the tokenomics regardless of DeFi innovation. I could easily name 10 projects who vote on their tokenomics and add/change token utilities with new ideas that can benefit the project and users. I could easily name 10 projects that also vote using multiple tokens.

  1. it might affect price.

My response:

As I said before:

I could not care about short-term price action as I referred to above in my comments, the project direction and the community are my priority. I want active participation and people who care about the longevity of the project. 16 votes (so far) on a poll is very poor considering the number of members in Telegram we have.

  1. it might make UMB less desirable and investors might purchase rUMB instead.

You are literally repeating what I said in the proposal:

I obviously acknowledged this in the proposal and my opinion was the following pros of the implementation:

My opinion is similar to what @GABOS has said:

If you do not think that is correct, that is your opinion, but you are one of the individuals that sold rUMB which obviously fuels liquid rUMB. rUMB is purchased at approx. half the price of UMB hence why I assigned 0.5 vote weight. People buying rUMB means there is less UMB on the market as 1 rUMB = 1 UMB.

I think your main concern which you do not realise is rUMB being liquid on the market that people can buy. This should be your argument which prevents people buying/selling rUMB.

If rUMB was not liquid on the market, we would not be having this conversation as there would be no opportunity for buying/selling rUMB. I said the following referring to @GABOS and that I am open to a proposal of not having liquid rUMB:

Please let’s not continue down this avenue of back and forth where you are literally repeating the same information over and over again. Your last reply said the same thing about 5 times.

1 Like
#25

Yes this is getting tiresome. You really are not answering the question of utility/tokenomic change towards rUMB1, of which is a reward token, to have voting rights, which in turn aligns it with the utility of UMB.

This now gives rUMB a utility that now competes with UMB utility. It now sends a message to future investors that this project is full of confusion on what all these tokens mean and the importance to them. To be clear you are better off purchasing rUMB in the future because you get a better APY, you still earn rUMB2 or future rUMB releases, and you can vote with it. What message is this sending out? When in fact the only token that needs utility is UMB… I don’t mind changes to tokenomics but it has to make sense and having two tokens that compete for voting makes no sense what so ever. Like I say this opens up a can of worms on future tokenomic changes.

I’m sure you are going to come back with your tiresome reply but in the end it all comes down to voting power of UMB to get this through. People that invested heavily into UMB will veto this because it effects the tokenomics by causing confusion and will probably effect the price in the long run.

The team probably spent months working on the tokenomics… there are reason why rUMB is only a reward token. You have not convinced me with your weak answers and probably other people like me with this stupid proposal that only offers confusion on what the Umbrella Network tokens are used for.

1 Like
#26

UMBmaxi does have a point. TBH this proposal gives me warning signs into my investment. Fundamentals and tokenomics are very important in the crypto space and to suddenly change them makes me feel nervous. I don’t want to get involved but I am basically worried!

#27

I don’t understand why you think that there is a significant difference between rUMB1 and UMB, as they are both part of the same max supply … other than the sequencing of conversion. The benefit of rUMB1 to all holders is that there will be millions of tokens that were created for the first year of rewards that will never be redeemed, and are available for burning, reducing the overall supply and benefiting all UMB holders.

#28

I truly hope anyone reading this knows that UMBmaxi is not holding much if any rUMB. He is trying to sway you all to vote his way so that his investment is not damaged. Do not be fooled. Ask yourselves this; how many of you are holding rUMB? That is each and every person’s reward for choosing to stake UMB and believing in this project long term. And let’s face it, it’s been a rough ride everyone. If you choose to take advantage of the new rUMB staking vault, and choose to continue taking a long term risk on UMB, you should absolutely be able to use that as some sort of voting power. rUMB is here to stay, and this will only benefit long term holders. Those only holding UMB are going to be ready to jump ship the moment they favor the price. This is why I voted yes to allow rUMB locked in staking vaults to provide governance power. Please remember that it will still have significantly less power than UMB, per the proposal. So it’s your choice whether to convert to UMB or reap the benefits of extended staking. What will you decide?

#29

Thank you @cryptolyonzzzz for this well written proposal.

I’m all in favour for giving the locked up rUMB voting power. I also believe that this will allow for more participation (and inclusion) of the community on future governance proposals, which is imo important.

I am curious to see how this proposal will be voted on.

#30

I personally think is a good proposal, people who has staked umb for rumb have shown its intentions for mid long term hold,the same way who only holds UMB what imo is beneficial for the project.

#31

People that have invested large amounts of money into UMB should be worried about this proposal to alter the tokenomics of rUMB to give it a voting utility. From the beginning of the project it was stated in the tokenomics that the only utility rUMB should have was to be a reward that at a later date can be swapped on a 1:1 basis for UMB. All good and fine and everyone knows it’s functionality from the word go… effectively everyone knew what they were buying into.

Once the project was launched people started staking for rUMB and over time a market developed on Uniswap where people could buy or sell rUMB, where rUMB was around half the cost of UMB. To begin with this market did not have much impact on people purchasing UMB because the staking APY was well over 100%, so people were more or less better off staking. But as soon as the APY became lower than 100% it became more attractive to buy rUMB or convert your UMB holdings to rUMB.

People saw an opportunity and went for it. What this actually did long term was cause a downward spiral in the price of UMB. People ignored the main token of the project enticed by double holdings… some people would say they were motivated by their own agendas of profit and not really thinking about the long term aspects of the projects survival.

So we zip forward to the point when conversion is nearly here for rUMB1. This conversion process favours small holders of rUMB on the day to day allocated UMB amount to be released. The best rUMB whales can do is to lock up their rUMB1 in a vault for 6 months or 1 year, and get rewarded by better APY on rUMB2.

What this situation has done is caused a split in the Umbrella community. On one hand you have the people that have truely supported the project by buying UMB which directly effects the price and on the other hand you had people that had agendas of doubling their holdings.

Now the people that truely supported the project, that only bought UMB, see that the people that were only interested in rUMB for doubling their holdings seem to be better off in the long run because they now get a higher APY for rUMB2. While UMB holders, the ones that don’t stake, seem to be second class… these grass roots holders are the ones that are actually holding the price up but that is their choice. Or the ones that bought UMB and staked for the good of the project.

I’m not putting blame on anybody because the free market of rUMB made this happen but we now have a situation where true UMB holders that kept buying UMB to support the price in good times and bad times, now have to accept a proposal that gives voting rights to mostly people that own more rUMB than UMB.

You have to ask yourself is this fair to the people that actually supported the price of UMB? Especially when this proposal wants to alter the tokenomics of the project to allow rUMB to have voting rights. I’m not going to go into the dangers of why giving rUMB utility is bad… just read my posts above on it.

So we are at a crossroads where this community will not be so happy. The side of the people that bought UMB, that supported the price, are pretty pissed off that the people that were only thinking about doubling their holdings want to change the tokenomics of the project to suit themselves.

Like I said at the beginning, people from the word go knew the only utility rUMB had was a reward token, nothing more and nothing less. If you cared so much about your voting rights then you should have supported the price and bought UMB.

#32

I think you’re making a broad, sweeping argument here. Those of us who invested in UMB back in March of last year have taken a significant loss. Those who invested later in the year after the chainswap hack are close to BE or in profit. Buying rUMB1 is a way to help investors DCA and stay committed to the project for the long-haul. As I stated earlier, all of the rewards tokens are part of the max supply … and when you stake or lock up, you’re showing your true commitment to the project instead of day to day focus on price. The fact that 55 million UMB are staked shows that the reward system has incentivized people to look at the long-term …

#33

All fine with what you say but don’t alter the tokenomics. And yes the reward token is part of the max supply but you basically want to queue jump and have voting rights on it by changing the tokenomics of the project. You are effectively watering down someones voting power early… the investors that bought UMB and supported the price seem to be second class.

My posts are no longer for the people that want this proposal to happen… it’s for the people that bought UMB. They need to know that this proposal will alter the tokenomics and will have a bad knock on effect to their investment.

#34

You have every right to be worried.

#35

Please don’t spread rumours and lies by suggesting that I would jump ship because I own more UMB than rUMB. I certainly did not jump ship in July after that 3rd party hack. This sweeping statement also insults UMB holders that have no intention of selling and are in it for the long haul.

#36

Had the team not come up with the ability to stake rUMB1 directly to get rUMB2, I would simply convert to UMB and stake that for rUMB2. In either case I’m going to be staking and hodling, continuing my commitment to the project, even if the price of UMB drops. By staking rUMB1 I will be taking a bigger risk than someone who can cash out their UMB at any moment, so I still think at its core rUMB1 is worthy of governance voting.

I think we just see the reward tokens differently … I think maybe you see them as coupons or stock warrants, or something of lesser value than UMB, whereas I see them as one and the same as UMB, just on a delayed basis. At some point, every reward token over the next four years will be redeemed for UMB, and those that were minted but never earned through staking will (hopefully) get burned, reducing the overall max supply. I’m sure we will have millions of rUMB1 that were minted and never earned, and therefore available to burn.

#37

I agree with the proposal.
$rUMB takes time to be converted to $UMB, but it will eventually.
So $rUMB should have $UMB utility, as simple as that.

Except there will be a new policy (which is impossible) that $rUMB can be converted to $UMB instantly.

#38

I think the problem comes in with rUMB being tradable. If rUMB was not available on the markets, then there would be less confusion. If there could be a away to do away with rUMB and just have UMB to focus on this would be less confusing and less problematic, just my opinion. Whatever the community decides on I am good with as I plan on staking away anyway. However if we decide to utilise rUMB in the vote process, or even the rUMB that is going to be locked and staked, then I believe we should give holders of that token a voting right, especially if they are locking up the tokens for staking.

#39

All,

This proposal has been voted on via the Snapshot below:

https://snapshot.org/#/umbnetwork.eth/proposal/0x25cbbce714cc649934f267746cb99ba7781dfc154c43e4770a8bc1b92a1a979b

This topic will now be closed.

#40