And we have risk of losing binance listing. While getting %100 inflation
Guys think option 3 please, so alpaca holders (us) will indirectly share fees of perp protocol i think its the most middle option for both us and team…
No one said it’s not going where it says it’s going. But did you calculate how much it amounts to and how many people are on our staff? If you don’t know, we have around 60 people.
The key points are already covered in prior posts above. Please read through the thread if you’re interested.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest there’s a chance of losing Binance listing.
Not sure this works….it piggy backs on proposal 2 + The post mentions “alpaca LYF and 2.0 will need to grow organically” - the risk i see here is that all the focus shifts to PERP and alpaca v1 is left a bit behind.
On the other hand, you basically farm PERP for free…which however means there’s somewhat a risk that alpaca whales will dump PERP on retail
Im not sure if this works…also proposal 2 basically further fragments the team as it mentions hiring new people etc. That’s a lot of overhead and a lot of wasted effort as you are somewhat launching a new business line with its own identity
Yes, the DEV team does not need to hold xALPACA to obtain most of the protocol benefits, which is why xALPACA is so easily sacrificed.
I understand dev needs more money to make things happen. But does it really need to launch a new token or release some v2 token? Personally I can take it if we need 5% or 6% inflation every year. Just call it ALPACA. Only change the tokenmics(if voted to).
1 Like
Approach #5 – Use existing revenue streams to stimulate growth
The core guiding principles of this proposal are:
- Protect the core values of Alpaca’s protocol
- Leverage existing revenue streams
- Use data to make informed decisions
- Defer business-critical decisions until proven to be necessary
- Consider the creation of new tokens as last resort
Considerations:
- We actively generate circa $30K per week that is used to burn Alpaca tokens
- We passively accumulate $ in our wallet when liquidations occur
- We have the ability to adjust ratios (%) of how much of our platform-generated fees gets destined to buyback/burn and other incentives
Proposal:
To start off:
- Alpaca won’t create a new token (or upgrade the existing contract) – therefore protecting and maintaining the tokenomics of the current token
- Alpaca will pause weekly burns – therefore starting to accumulate money in a dedicated pot that can be used as funding
- Alpaca will use the savings to self-fund/promote the launch of perps/AF2 – using the accumulated money as a way to run campaigns to promote/market the launch and create awareness in the market
- Alpaca will use the redirected revenue streams to incentivise LPs – using the weekly revenue-generated income (which in theory will also increase due to more people using the platform)
After 3 months:
- Alpaca will share the results – using the accrued data from the first 3 months of launch, the community will be provided with an overview of how the new platform is doing and its KPIs
- Alpaca will assess the outcome of the market launch – using the data, we will have enough information to assess whether we’ve succeeded to get the desired adoption/traction
- Alpaca will decide on the next best step – based on the outcome, we will go into a new proposal/decision on whether: a) to continue subsidising (if we’re getting traction but not as fast as expected), b) to stop subsidising and resume burns (if we’ve gotten enough traction) or c) to launch a new token (if we’re failing to attract liquidity providers)
Note: the suggested revenue streams/quote numbers are illustrative and will need to be refined further
Edit 1: Community suggestion to also consider using some of the warchest
Edit 2: Community suggestion to also consider using the Jan/Feb emissions
16 Likes
Love this approach Gianni. And if you read through some of the posts between me and Sam, he agreed to discuss with the team on having a presenting an option like this. Hopefully he has had time to discuss with the team and we see option 5 on the proposal which will be based on redirecting current revenue streams, something very similar to this post you just made. And by the way thank you for sharing your ideas because I think is a really good one for the herd.
1 Like
It is better to cost ourselves in missed revenues, than emitt almost 2x the current supply of Alpaca. Any increase in Alpacas supply is not why we have invested into Alpaca and what the team has promoted every week (the decreasing supply).
Alpaca emission is ending in March, so you are hardly pushing solutions which would give the team opportunity to be earning on a new token. It is quite clear from your suggestive statements like this: “If it doesn’t work well, you’ll cost yourself in missed revenues. Then don’t complain it’s due to a lack of marketing when we didn’t have the funds for marketing because you didn’t want to consider supporting new products’ growth.”
Surpsise - I am not the kind of person complaining about lack of marketing. What I really do care for is a team that can keep its word so I can rely upon it. And on the other side, I don’t like teams which are pushing deflationary narrative as long as it is advangateous for them, but when the time for ending emmision comes, they want to create new tokens (in the form of 2xAlpaca or new perpetual token) so they can again be dropping them on investors for another x years.
With that being said - I personally will vote for approach #4, despite one of the first 3 will probably pass (but I believe Alpaca team has enough xAlpacas to vote in favour of whatever they want).
1 Like
Can’t we remain sembolic burns like %10 of the revenue? 
I like this proposal a lot. I don’t think that the revenue streams will be sufficient though. I think we would need to use parts of the war chest as well so incentives are high enough in the first few months. Once the platform generates steady revenue we could then use parts of it to refill the warchest.
4 Likes
You’re diluting us it doesn’t matter what you ssy. Your reputation in my eyes is shattered. And everyone thinks the same but whatever your pride and greed will be undoing…
Those who think that if rewards are awarded in blocked form, it will save the token and there will be no pressure from sellers. I give you an example:
The DUET project had exactly the same system with the IFO on Pancake, giving only DUET bonds with a maturity of 1:1 a year, that is, with a year-long block. But they always had the opportunity to sell them 3:1
And what happened to the token? Right. All «increased» rewards that users received were sold in the market with a fine. Token was the first week at IFO price, now -99%
Moreover, we cannot rely on new users. They may not understand the (former) true value of the Alpaca and may not be interested in further retaining the token in the governans vault
Thanks for your feedback, but this isn’t a good comparison. Was DUET ever a top protocol? Their token could sell for 0, but it says more about the quality of the project than the token-lock model. Wasn’t their ecosystem also hacked numerous times? It’s like telling Mercedes, hey you shouldn’t do X because Bob’s car shop tried to do something similar to X and it didn’t work for them.
Furthermore, there are many factors at play in that, not just a token-lock model. Did you consider how the market affected that price drop? Everything dropped 50-99% across the board this year. You can create an example of any token dropping and the underlying reason in most cases is still going to be the market.
Then as a counterpoint, I can show you instances where a token-lock model has worked well (see Curve, and even our xALPACA where 50% of token supply has remained consistenly locked up).
Unlike DUET, ALPACA has been stable on the market for 2 years, with healthy revenues, not counting the new products coming soon. As long as it continues to be such, I would be happy if a new token holder sold me ALPACA at a big discount through early withdrawal, they would be offering firesale prices.
1 Like
What you described is the current option 1/2 with a different of 2-3 percentage points. As written in the post, the numbers are up for discussion.
It’s been a de-facto approach that all new products have accrued most of the revenue to ALPACA. So saying there will be no benefits is outright incorrect. Even in the case of option 2/3, it clearly states 40% of tokens go to ALPACA.
This proposal was for increased support for the new products we just announced, Perp Exchange and AF2.0, and to create a schedule for 10 years of innovation. You can say we didn’t say there would be a tokenomics change considered. But you should also say we did not say Alpaca would get a Perp Exchange and new product lines from AF2.0, that can generate revenue for token holders. Good decision-making adjusts to the situation at hand.
I’ll reiterate that the Alpaca team is indifferent to the results of this discussion. So if you don’t want to support new products and innovation on the Alpaca platform, that’s your right, but the results of a short-term oriented mindset have already been discussed enough and are self-evident.
1 Like
Greed from what? We don’t directly earn anything from any of the options in these proposals. Did you read them and my responses in this thread?
If we were greedy, we wouldn’t have launched ALPACA as a fair launch, and now, we would do like most other crypto teams do and go launch products like the Perp exchange as new protocols, without accruing revenue or token airdrop to ALPACA holders, instead of having to deal with responses like this. That’s actually the most profitable route for dev teams, and what they often do (for examples, see Macalinao brothers on Solana, and Andre Cronje).
Maybe the below post below can help clarify some things for you, but I’m giving you a warning that you’re FUDing and too combative, and the next one will result in an account suspension on this forum.
1 Like
Hey Sam, I’m intervening here even though I should not because you were not replying to me. But I kind of think is unfair you mention there are a few in the forum that “dont want to support new products and innovations on the alpaca platform”, and “short-term oriented mindset have already been discussed enough and are self-evident”.
I’m going to speak on my behalf, and I don’t think is fair to say I don’t want to support news products and innovations. That is what I love about this team, all the products/innovations and how serious you guys take security. I think is not that we do not support new products, it’s just what is the best approach to do this. With the options presented, I personally do not like any of them because they all end up diluting my Alpaca investment. I’m probably one of the newest investors here (1 year or so), and I’ve been sad this past year that i had not found Alpaca way before. For the past year after learning about Alpaca and learning all the tokenomics, I’m made alpaca 100% of my bag. I’ve become an alpaca Maxi on the premise of what i knew the token stood for. I did not care about the current price, or what the price would do in the next 2 years. I’ve been buying, buying, and buying with any spare cash i have, because I’m treating it as a store of value. Because i knew the token was deflationary. Does not matter how slow the deflation is, i was treating my investments as a retirement account with a long outlook. That is what makes this token so powerful, and most importantly the team behind it.
I mean, I’m talking on my behalf, but i would imagine all serious long term xalpaca holders who really care about the platform do care about future products and innovations, that is what has gotten alpaca to where it is today.
In terms of the other options like new token, I mean i really dont have enough experience on the topic and what it could potentially do for Alpaca holders. But reading on the proposal from Hueca Chief he even made some notes that this requires separate teams now supporting a new token. So pretty much now you have to support 2 tokens, when the main focus should always be on Alpaca. So in the next year, a new product is introduced, so what, we are creating another 3rd token. I mean i think it can get very confusing specially since the Alpaca game will have a completely different token too. I know the game is completely different, but still it will be created under the Alpaca team, so someone looking in could be confused with so many tokens.
Well regardless, once again thank you for reading through our comments and taking the time to reply to most of us.
4 Likes
That’s why I responded to that to another post and not to yours 
, because your approach is more reasonable. I was responding to lines like this “so you are hardly pushing solutions which would give the team opportunity to be earning on a new token.”
One clarification, the game is not being created under the Alpaca team, there’s a separate team.
3 Likes