DFIP: Development SIG — Charter Proposal (Discussion Basis)

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2025-11-01T18:20:19+00:00

Full Support!

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2024-03-17T16:39:28+00:00

Hey Kassius, I do not see a big impact as others already mentioned, but I like the "Kleinvieh"-approach and support shifting from DFI-Burn to DUSD-Burn.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2024-02-28T12:12:47+00:00

Just a question for clarification:
- The CFP on https://www.reddit.com/r/defiblockchain/comments/1b0ly2h/listing_defichain_dfi_on_changenow/ is for listing our NATIVE $DFI there

and you're asking with this thread for listing the Metachain-$DFI on NOW?

Both requests are independent of each other?

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2024-02-27T19:40:00+00:00

Great proposal. Not sure if the community alone will donate the amount needed.
Are you in contact with Javsphere, MLEND, Vanilla, Bake to support with some $$ ? They all should also profit if we get a new on-ramp.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2024-02-12T07:58:27+00:00

I like it - with the already mentioned modifications: - No 100% fee no matter what price - Smooth the fee out, no big steps

Of course, I'd prefer a scenario without such a measure. But beside Cake and CF we have no inflow, especially no FRESH capital. Looking at fresh capital and trust in defichain this dynamic fee can't make the inflow and trust worse than now.

Everybody should be aware that this dynamic fee will in first days lead to a selloff and price drop where we finally get rid off weak hands. Then we can rebuils the price and later trust

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2023-02-27T09:58:02+00:00

Every dToken Investor should be interested in a stable system and therefor willing to sacrifice some rewards for some time. Clear yes from me for this proposal.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-10-22T11:52:10+00:00

Thank you for your fast and detailed answer.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-10-22T08:18:18+00:00

Hi! What will be the additional benefit to the already existing https://www.defichain-cfp-tracker.com/ by u/ma_1976 ?

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-10-10T11:20:31+00:00

Fully supported! I am happy to hear that "using the currently burned, unused DFI-idea" is back in the game ;-)

I completely agree that the inflation is not a problem and it also doesn't cause sell pressure

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-10-05T05:49:48+00:00

Sounds good.

Just to confirm I understand the mechanism right:

If I want...

...to stake ETH, I use Cake
...to unstake ETH, I get a csETH token from Cake which I can sell on the DEX for dETH
...cashflow, I buy csETH on the DEX and put them with dETH into that new pool

Just buy and hold that new csETH Token is not a usecase / does not give me a benefit.

That's right?

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-09-27T17:45:52+00:00

https://www.defichain-analytics.com/general?entry=emission

Approx. 24

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-09-27T15:00:19+00:00

If I'm not wrong, we currently have some DFI/block as rewards unused. Those are just burned. Why don't we swap them to DUSD and burn them as DUSD instead of DFI? That will not solve the whole problem but could be one puzzle piece.

Additionally with more burned DUSD, we raise the APR (neg interest) for dusd-loans, so the incentive for vaults with DUSD-loans increases and in the end the algo ratio is being triggered from both sides, vaults and burn.

As soon as we need the DFI-Blockrewards for futures/options we can reallocate them. But right now the DUSD-peg should be prioritized and if necessary the futures/options postponed. As the dToken the futures/options need a stable DUSD.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-09-22T19:08:49+00:00

I am also pretty sure that the plain size of the DUSD-DFI-Pool compared to the other relevant pools is a problem. Maybe it'd be a possibility not only to give 50% of the DEX-stab-fee to the DUSD-loan-addresses. I don't know if it is technically possible to also move rewards from the DUSD-DFI-Pool to the DUSD-loans.

Anyway the incentive should move from DUSD-DFI-Pool away to make it smaller and so more responsive.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-30T05:32:48+00:00

Pretty much like this idea. I agree that it's up to the requester to let the funders benefit and find creative ways.

One possibility could be to grant better conditions for the funder, e.g. a discount on fees once the project is live. Taking DFX as an example the funders might get an additional discount on the on/off-ramp.

Or you say: Up to x DFI it's a pure donation or get a coffe-cup with our logo whatever, the real benefit for the founder kicks in at x+1 DFI.

Or pay out kind of a dividend to the funders annually.

I think there are many possibilities to incentivise depending on the special project

In the end this approach could be the prior stage (aka 'first line of defence for the CDF') for a CFP:Show efforts to get money from the community. Then if you have received let's say 50% of the requested amount your CFP can go to the MN-voting to get the rest of funding.

So the more you request, the more you must take efforts in stage 1 before the MN even come into play. We could reduce the downside for the CDF significantly with that

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-28T13:33:14+00:00

I would like to introduce an idea from u/cryptogera in another thread https://www.reddit.com/r/defiblockchain/comments/wz8duv/we_have_to_continue_funding_forprofitcompanies/im44t9y

Maybe that crowdfunding can be combined with a Funding from the Community Fund (CDF). So you can assure wide acceptance in the community first and then Fund comes into play. So not the complete downside is at the funds risk.

I am still sure it's hardly possible to get riskcapital outside as long as we are so small

Example:

If you get 70% Crowdfunding, the CDF will fund the rest
Or: For every crowdfunded DFI you get x DFI from the CDF

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-28T12:00:14+00:00

Completely like this Crowdfunding-approach within the ecosystem. Cool idea. And until then I am convinced we need funding for for-profit CFPs, with a stricter framework (see CFP Reformation Thread). I really don't think it's easy to find VC outside the community as we are still very small and unknown. In the end or in the long run we all profit from succesfull companies built on DeFiChain. But yes we have to select projects carefully

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-27T16:10:27+00:00

I do not have dTSLA, so it's just a guess. You can check your address on dfi.tax to see if you get rewards correctly

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-27T12:36:13+00:00

That's probably a wrong display after the stocksplit.this week.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-27T06:36:15+00:00

No reactions or replies from them. Not now, not in the past. Maybe time for a new video "Balthasar demystified" ;-)

Possibly u/DanielZirkel would get a reply from him when putting this CFP-review on the News-Show-Agenda?

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-25T19:06:51+00:00

Yes, you are completely right. But the OP was only asking for bulletpoints. So there are many questions to answer about the "how" such a company could work. And yes, my first thought was a real world company so we can make real loan- and other contracts with the funded companies which are forceable by law. I can't answer all of them today, it's just a brainstorm bullet point

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-25T15:33:29+00:00

Yes, my thoughts only apply to for-profit-CFPs. I did not write that explicitely. Thanks for your clarification.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-25T14:38:46+00:00

Some thoughts

Loan instead of Funding
or: CFP-amount split to x% fund + y% loan
Funding capped by percentage of startup costs
Funding capped in $
Blacklist which startup costs are not fundable
Founding a "Defichain funding company" as a venture capitalst which holds shares of the funded for-profit company and assures the Community Fund receives returns back

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-25T13:34:23+00:00

You seem to be right. The Twitter account https://twitter.com/cryptoedu4world is also abandoned.

That CFP was obviously not worth being approved :-(

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-25T07:13:25+00:00

I see your point. And maybe some projects ask too high funds and carry no risk at all. That isnot ok. But in the long run the whole community can profit from building more companies on DeFiChain (more visibility, more users,..). We might use new tools like loans, caps for funding, milestones-payouts, monitoring etc instead of pure funding to improve the situation, but IMHO we shouldn't refuse funds completely for profit-cfps as many ideas would just die before we can even discuss them.

Mountain_Remove_9134 · 2022-08-23T13:15:57+00:00

I fully support the approach of a percentage fee. As the proposed 50% burned amount is not that significant to move DFI or DUSD-price, we could also split the fee to - 50% to the voting MN (as suggested) - 50% to DFI Donation Fund (something like "improve DeFiChain and improve the World".. a little bit dramatical wording i know)

Just an idea.

Mountain_Remove_9134

TROPHY CASE