Yes, hence why I am leaning to option 1/4 more since I believe same APR is very important.
In regards to attracting FTM investors, since BSC is an EVM too I believe it’s not too hard for them to add BSC, get some BNB and just stake on BSC, but admittedly just that extra step may deter investors.
If attracting new investors was most important, you’d want to do 100% FTM distribution since that gives the most reason to lock up more Alpaca on FTM, but that punishes existing stakeholders who have already locked for 1 year on BSC.
If option 4 were to prevail, Fantom based project GRs need to be on Fantom side so could just go back to the old school type GRs by staking ibAlpaca on Fantom.
I’m honestly still tossing up between 1 and 4 at the moment but have voted #1 just so #3 isn’t in the lead anymore since I believe it’s the worst option lol
I think that BSC may have give some headache to US investors because they would have to use binance.us and it apparently doesn’t allow an easy withdraw of BNB on a BSC wallet.
With that US citizen would have to use bridges or maybe Kucoin, making things a bit more annoying.
I’m for option #1 because it would allow to attract fantom investors while not punishing BSC investors, actually it would give them a small bonus too.
This proposal does not only impact Fantom but also sets up a template for other cross-chain networks in the future. People should think about these questions:
Whether every chain needs its own governance vault?
Besides the profit distribution, whether each chain needs its own independent governance?
If the TVL varies a lot on different chains, what problem does an independent governance vault try to solve?
Is there much difference between options on code maintenance?
Although I think it may be too late now to post this, there was what I consider a mistake in the creation of this AIP and the subsequent vote. The order of the options was switched around, changing Option 4 from the previous discussion thread, which was for a pro-rata governance pool and the most popular in the thread, to no governance.
Since no governance is now leading the vote but got little to no support in the threads, I suspect some people, particularly those who are not fluent in English, are misvoting for option 4–unintentionally selecting no governance.
Maybe if we don’t reach the quorum of 51% vote we could cast another vote to choose between the 2 options that got most votes.
In this way we can try to put a patch to how the AIP was proposed.
If there ends up being no governance vault on FTM, I believe just doing the old school normal grazing ranges should work, so there’s still utility for ibAlpaca on these other chains and still opportunities for projects on FTM and beyond to advertise on Alpaca.
The council decided to freeze this vote while in progress and redo it because we discovered some structural issues with this vote:
Some of the key information from the original thread was not present in the voting page so some voters may have missed it.
The numbering for the options had changed between the original thread and the voting page, which may have confused some voters.
The options were offered in such a way that 3 of them were for variations of how to set up governance and only 1 was for no governance, creating a mismatch.
Redoing this vote for absolute clarity and fairness, we decided to hold a series of two votes:
First vote: to determine if we should add governance for Fantom or not. If the vote passes as a yes to governance, we will have a second vote…
Second vote: Vote on options regarding the type of governance.
We are sorry for the trouble everyone, but this is early AIP that has gone to voting and it’s a learning process. We’ll keep improving our processes so that we can have seamless voting in the future.
