[APPROVED] QPIP-5 - Reducing 2nd Billion Supply

Protocol
21

First of all, thank you Qredo foundation for listening to the community. Seeing you accepting and adapting more proposals proves your real desire at supporting the token.
Regarding the QPIP-5 proposal, it looks nice. but it lacks some enhancements:

  • I like the idea that staking fund does burn as well. to reduce later dump into market from any current holder. So, it’s good.
  • Regarding the ecosystem fund, we believe that ecosystem fund should contribute more than 120m and make it 160m tokens. so, that would help make the total burn 200m tokens. Most of dumping into the market came from this fund. we completely understand how Qredo foundation were financing their development and infrastructure using this fund. But it’s far great to show more contribution than 120m tokens.
  • I believe Qredo needs more marketing. so, dedicating some tokens into marketing and development is not bad idea. we just look for more transparency how these tokens will be used in both.

Finally, thank you all team behind Qredo foundation as long as you were supporting this token and prove you can adapt with any new challenge. we still believe we can all survive. but again, raising the burn into 200m tokens for sure:
:white_check_mark: will increase positivity sentiments
:white_check_mark: increase crypto community new joiners
:white_check_mark: will help token holders to buy more due increased scarcity.
your approval to contribute more burn here to 200m tokens. so, we expect very kind reaction from the team to all those who paid millions of $$ and became worthless

DO IT JOSH Pls

Screenshot from 2024-02-21 08-46-37
Screenshot from 2024-02-21 08-46-37665×684 345 KB

22

I think the point of burning 40M of the Staking fund should be considered. Only 9.11% of the tokens are locked, that means that only 9.11% truly believe in the project’s new plans, and in the future improvement of this ecosystem. The majority of the holders who have these tokens locked are people loyal to the project for many years. The blocking percentage is very small, and I think it should be rewarded. In addition, 40M in a total of 1,454M, I believe that its burning does not affect the project in any way, and harms the most loyal holders.

1 Like
23

Will echo the thoughts of the comments above. Striking the balance between supply and having sufficient operating capital is a tricky one, particularly with where the project is currently at. I therefore understand and appreciate the intent behind both the 160mil burn and 40mil unlock.

However,

With trading volumes thin there needs to be clear plans allocated to this unlock prior to the vote. The unlock needs to create genuine demand, such as initiatives in line with the collab with Ward… empty twitter posts will not cut it and will see the QRDO token under greater pressure, making it harder to raise capaital in the future. I am sure the team is aware of this.

Considering the underutilisation of staking, I find it hard to align with any reduction in the staking rewards - these OG’s utilising staking (and assisting the network) are historically sticky token holders and opt to restake as oppose to selling staking rewards - selling pressure is unlikely to come from here and as a result reducing staking yields only serves to hinder long term holders of the project.

All in all, deploying tokens for real demand would get my vote, but again, transparency in how this will be achieved please.

1 Like
27

Trebud, I support your suggestions, I hope they listen to you

28

All in for this suggestion! To the point!

29

The first question that comes to mind is where the development and marketing tokens will be used for. This needs to specified in detail in my opinion. What are the plans, how will the tokens be used for this etc etc. Besides this, we need a larger burn like FC specified in his proposal. It doesnt all have to be done at once but 160m is not gonna make a difference.

30

Close but no cigar.

IMO:

Burn minimum 250m tokens so that the community can get excited about something again before we end up losing all the dedicated holders.

Unlock 10m tokens for ecosystem and marketing and we will see how it goes. If it was appropriately used. then we can vote to unlock more later.

Don’t touch the staking fund. Less than 10% of holders are staking so that wont have a large effect and you will destroy the only current incentive to hold.

Make Qredo Great Again!

1 Like
31

The amount to be burnt is way too small as echoed by others, but it is a step in the right direction assuming these burns will continue and often as Josh and FC said.

We need clear roadmap and transparency about what the teams focus is now and what is being worked for any sort of trust to be rebuilt with the community.

But like I said, step in the right direction assuming we stay the course

32

Hi all,

It is great to see so many enthusiastic feedbacks about the proposal. All of this feedback allows us to finalise the draft(s) for the next QPIP votings.

First, we would like to explain in more detail the reasoning behind the QPIP-5 initiative. We fully understand the thoughts from the community of burning as max tokens as possible at this stage. Although this scenario seems easy, it’s actually fundamentally challenging at the stage we are in the history of QRDO. There are multiple teams working on providing a future for QRDO, whether it is in form of becoming an origin token for multiple protocols, in form of airdrop or migration, to include the token as utility for future dapps or protocols, etc.

Although right now there are multiple paths for the future of QRDO, and after months of uncertainty we can now see more clarity and light, as a community, we cannot sacrifice any future opportunity or requirement by burning all the cartridges now. There should be enough resources to adapt and react to any future conditions to protect and further develop QRDOs resilience.

Maintaining a token in exchanges has also associated costs, from market making services, to liquidity provision, to marketing campaigns, legal opinions, etc. These are not necessarily costs per se and could be in the form of loans or security deposits. Any new listing will require massive allocations as deposits and more massive allocations for marketing with them before happening. Again, burning everything will reduce all future opportunities in this area. We shouldn’t close this door now, the QRDO token will live on, even after upcoming airdrops and swaps. We are diligently preparing for this future.

This does not mean that as time evolves, future burns could be done to adapt to any scenario. I think this has been clearly demonstrated over the past years by burning over 545M tokens, with this 160M being the 3rd largest burn in QRDO history.

Listening to the community feedback we clearly see the necessity and requirement of separating QPIP-5 into two different QPIPs.

QPIP-5

Removing the unlocks and just focusing on the proposed burn of 160M QRDOs.

In addition we propose 1M QRDO tokens from public goods to be distributed among the participants of QPIP-5 and QPIP-6 based on voting power with a cap of 1M (for this specific QRDO airdrop from Public Goods). This will enable to incentivise participation in Governance, rewarding participants as suggested by some community members.

QPIP-6

A detailed draft proposal will be published once QPIP5 has been finalised not to interfere with the actual voting. This proposal will include the detailed plan and reasoning for the allocations for the resilience and growth of QRDO plus the schedule for these releases. To be clear: allocations are not for selling, they are required to keep options open for future growth.

If there is alignment in the forum, we will proceed with QPIP-5 for voting next week and publish afterwards the draft for QPIP-6

Hope to continue shaping the future of QRDO together.

2 Likes
33

Hello everyone,

Thanks a lot for your participation and inputs. Please find below some updates:

  • We will remove the unlocks for QPIP-5
  • We will keep the burn of 160M as explained in the original post
  • We will allocate 1M QRDO tokens from Public Funds to distribute as an airdrop for participants in QPIP5, QPIP-6
3 Likes
34

QPIP-5

I think it’s most important you leave the 40M from Staking Fund out of the burn. It’s the only incentive / utility for holders right now. Either burn more from Ecosystem Fund or keep it just at a 120M burn.

Also, you say you’ve burned 545M tokens, but let’s not forget you’ve also minted that 2nd billion tokens way ahead of what was originally planned.

Also, what happened to the increase of staking APR to 40% that was voted for during a previous QPIP?

QPIP-6

Looking forward to reading detailed plans. I suggest you split the allocations in small chunks so that the community can vote for each of them separately when needed. This will give a lot of clarity and will help restore trust. Also makes for an involved community!

3 Likes
35

Thank you Luis - great to see such clarity and splitting of the votes.

36

Can you please state if this is the 2nd draft of the proposal to be discussed?

QPIP5 is now:

  • QFL will burn of 160M (40M from Staking Fund, 120M from Ecosystem Fund).
  • Staking Fund Optimization: Reducing by 41.9% to ensure sustainable staking rewards.
  • Ecosystem Fund Refinement: Decrease by 40.9% and expedite unlock of 40M tokens for development and marketing initiatives with focus on high-impact projects that boost the presence and utility of QRDO in multiple ecosystems.
  • QFL will also allocate 1M QRDO tokens from Public Funds to distribute as an airdrop for participants in QPIP5 and QPIP-6
1 Like
37

Yes. This is exactly it.

2 Likes
38

"Hello everyone,

Thanks a lot for your participation and inputs. Please find below some updates:

  • We will remove the unlocks for QPIP-5
  • We will keep the burn of 160M as explained in the original post
  • We will allocate 1M QRDO tokens from Public Funds to distribute as an airdrop for participants in QPIP5, QPIP-6"

so in QPIP5 there should be no unlocks! So what is the final truth?

39

QPIP-5

  • Burn of 160M (120M from ecosystem + 40M from staking fund
  • 1M airdrop from Public Goods to voting participants on QPIP-5 and QPIP-6

You paste it yourself :slight_smile:

40

It’s still not clear to me why you want to decrease the staking rewards while it’s the reward going to active holders who take the 21 days lock risk to participate in voting and add value. The 1m qrdo airdrop for voters isn’t much in comparison.

1 Like
41

ok so again big NO on the vote :slight_smile:

42

I’m sorry I don’t fully understand. Can someone please explain to me why we still haven’t increased the staking rewards from 30% to 40% as voted on in QPIP4 and how reducing the staking fund by 41.9% will ensure sustainable staking rewards? Its an honest question. I’m not trying to be funny,

2 Likes
43

Agreed.

Will be voting NO if Staking Fund gets decreased. Leave as is or increase burn from Ecosystem Fund.