Restructuring and Refocus

I am not saying an investment fund. But I guess that is also another option.

Some options:
DXdao can hire other teams to build more things (based on delivery).
DXdao can incubate/support projects like Nimi and let them build outside of but next to DXdao.
DXdao can fork and own more products that other teams build.
DXdao has been gifted products in the past.
DXdao can build some parts of products.
If a dev or dev team proposes a good idea, this could be under of DXdao.

Maybe, these products could be part of the greater DXdao ecosystem. How do we get to a suite of DeFi products that can benefit each other?

There seems like a whole bunch of different paths.


Revenue, absolutely and unquestionably. DXD holders, either directly or indirectly, funded the treasury with the purpose of generating future returns - not to fund public goods that have little to no focus on being profitable. If the consensus is that REP holders want to change the structure into a vehicle to build public goods, then this needs to be decided on and some reasonable deal struck with DXD holders. I hope that this isn’t the case, but if so then REP holders must decide on it early such that we don’t end up in the scenario I have highlighted above: a slow burn to a treasury of $0 and a nasty surprise at the end for DXD holders when it turns out there was a unilateral understanding from contributors that it was completely fine to ignore revenues. This would be my second least preferable scenario; second only to the status quo.

I think a snapshot signal vote could be helpful here, but I am willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of DXD holders have a huge preference for focusing on revenues, and increasing the treasury value per DXD, either through direct market operations or generating revenue that accumulates in the treasury.

Agreed on this, the details are very important and need to be ironed out very precisely prior to anything being proposed.

I think this probably sums up my thoughts, even if unintentionally :stuck_out_tongue: - it’s not that $350k is too high in and of itself, but we don’t have (m)any products with sufficient product market fit that have shown indication of being able to sustain themselves, and that is why the non-product spend is too high. If we were to focus on the development side, prove that there is potential for a sustainable and profitable product before adding such large non-product spend, then I think the number becomes secondary. In the spirit of other posts’ sentiment RE: externalizing much more of the DAO’s operations, maybe the non-product squads could become ‘contractors’ that product squads can use for their products if they wish. This would help ensure that all spend is at least productive ex-ante: Product squad leads have asked for a limited budget from DXdao for a given period, and they will only choose to assign a portion of that to XYZ non-product spend if they believe it will benefit their product.

Not to try and be too negative on these, I think there is merit in the things you’ve highlighted, but they are essentially all qualitative and opinion-based successes, and many could be disagreed with. There is little in the way of objective & quantitative success, both from product & non-product, so I am not trying to target one or the other here :stuck_out_tongue:

Agreed, I’m very open and interested in this kind of model that allows the DAO to act far more objectively, be more nimble, and pivot when necessary.

I’m absolutely open to ideas and alternatives here, as always - but what I will say is that this group has acknowledged the issues pre-emptively, and have proposed some kind of radical and positive looking change that pushes in the right direction of being more aware of returns, sustainability, revenues, etc. I think that counts for a lot, and I think they should be given credit for that. If others have alternatives that they feel better suit DXdao, then I’m excited to listen and contribute to the formation and discussion. The end goal is the best path forward for the DAO, and as above, my absolute top priority is to minimize the chance of a slow burn to zero which leaves DXD worthless. I think it’s clear that this proposal reduces the chance of that scenario vs. the status quo. If there is a better alternative, then let’s discuss and formulate it - my DMs are open as one of many interested DXD holders and always happy to make time for a call.

All of these options seem much more attractive to me than the status quo - they allow objectivity and the ability to cut/grow operations quickly and efficiently, as and when those decisions need to be made.

Finally, I’d like to emphasize my desire for a DXD signal snapshot at some stage. I think it’s important for REP holders to have the results in mind when voting; if they were to vote in a manner that significantly diverges from DXD holders’ views, then it would clearly be to the detriment of the DAO. Not only from the angle of voting against the wishes of those who you are custodying funds/operations for the benefit of, but also in the sense that once Gov 2.0 is released, we’d likely have to then have the same conversation/votes again and the interim period would have been less productive than what would be optimal.

Again, that is not to say this proposal must pass, but I think everyone with an interest in the future of the DAO should be given some amount of time to formulate their own vision and path, take some time to discuss and get a picture of where DXD holders sit on each of them via a signal snapshot, and then allow REP holders to weigh that with their own views before a vote/votes.


I will first say a few good things about John and Corkus, but then I will describe why they are unfit to play any part in the future of DXdao.

To some who don’t know me, I have been a DXdao member from the start and took part in the initial rep distribution. DXdao had been initiated by Gnosis and Martin Köppelmann has been a main driver behind. DXdao had a way to be governed, but without money nothing happened.

In the last crypto winter John/Corkus and Augusto meet somewhere and picked it up. Without them doing this, DXdao would be still a shell and long forgotten. They created a token, DXD and sold this over the bonding curve. Because this happened in deep winter and the ETH price was very low they where able to raise a lot of ETH. I also bought some DXD at this point, but was not active.

After my vampire attack article, Chris contacted me because of my deep AMM knowledge. Because have been looking for a job anyway, I joined DXdao and took over the lead over Mesa and tried to build a launchpad with Adam/Nico/Hamza/Madusha/Ross/Sky/Arhat and some others long gone. Long story short, I failed because of many reason, some clearly in my responsibility, others not. At the end I was backstabbed by John with the help of Corkus.

So why I think John is unfit for this?

My project was clearly in decline. I struggled on many fronts and people did see that struggle. And I complained about this. At one point, John told me in a public call: Stop complaining! That’s okay as an instant reaction, but what a true leader would do is something completely differently. He would ask, maybe afterwards: How can I help you? John did nothing in this direction.

So I was struggling and started to develop burn out symptoms, mostly the feeling that I was responsible for everything what was going wrong, and I have to fix everything myself. Luckily I had one week of vacation and because I did see that I had a somehow disturbed communication with John I tackled this by asking him for a call. The call was of informal nature, I did not set any agenda, it was for me to try to understand what John was thinking and what his motivation has been to play such a dominant role in the DXdao. (I made calls with others too)

The call has been revealing: John did not have any strong opining why he is doing all this. He did not say: I’m very interested in how governance work in a DAO, or how this kind of organization can grow and adapt. Nor did he mention any field he was deeply motivated about. What he did tell me, is why he did start this: He did run out of crypto jobs as many during the first crypto winter, then meet Corkus and Augusto. So his main motivation was to get a job. There is nothing wrong with this, but how should he have the leadership qualities to lead all this? He has clearly not or we would never have the situation we are in right now.

What I took from that call has been confusing, but I did understand shortly after, that John did help to collect money for the DXdao and now feels deeply responsible for the money he had raised. While Agusto was more laid back and did not care much, John felt and feels deeply responsible for the money he raised. In a way this is a good thing, but leading this organization is clearly over his head.

At the end, John did stop communicate with me, and after I did my late proposal he did not react for many days, many did endorse during that time. After some time he then did ask for a call. My next move was to post it on-chain, before the call, because I did not think that my work could be disputed this way.

The call is something to remember. I got on the call with John, Corkus was also there to support John and to try to make the call more balanced. John told me that he will down-vote my proposal. And he threatened me: “You can’t win this. I won all fights, Corkus?” Corkus agreed. It was shocking and ridiculous at the same time.

I did expect that we had some form of feedback session, and it was clear that John had reservation about my performance, but I was not expecting this to be such a clash. He had month to raise his voice, but did not. He never could give me detailed feedback why he thinks I’m not the right leader, because he did not understand what I was struggling with. So I did define winning for myself and for me winning was to be out as soon as possible.

The funny thing was, that we all have known at that point, that John nor Corkus did not have a valid proposal out there and both were late for months too. In the two DXdao wide calls as we sorted this out, nobody mention it, everybody was afraid and myself I had not interested to pour more oil in the fire. At the end I took the haircut and left, at least John was civil in the public conversation we had and I know that he did not take this lightly.

Anyway, during this conflict most got into hiding, they voiced support for me in private, but only a few backed me up in public. Many had been just afraid to paint a target on themselves and being the next victims of Johns temper.

The next incident I know was that the HR team worked over a long time on a new compensation structure, which John died shoot down by vote. He was asked for feedback, did not give any or only little, but then shoot down the thing as it has been put on-chain. That’s for sure not how this should be done, that’s very demotivating for everybody and a highly aggressive move.

There are more such stuff, the case with Nesa had a very similar blueprint.

One more things on what John failed:

Where is the implementation of gov 2.0?

John has been responsible for that, but never delivered. I’m sure there has been ton of other things to do and he worked hard for the DAO, but gov 2.0 is very important to make the DXD holders heard and have real influence.

Everybody is equal but some are more equal

Because we have no hierarchies and this does not work, we have an informal hierarchy with John on the top backed up by Corkus, if needed

If they have been the leaders since the start and this is the outcome, it’s time to step back. They failed on leading this, they had enough time to fix it and failed. I failed and had to go, so why not them? I tell you why not: Because some are more equal than others.

So at the end, John has been on of the founder and without him Dxdao would not exist anymore, but he was unable to lead this organization to be successful. John had enough time to fix this, and he could clearly not. In a second attempt it will be the same failure because John does not have the leadership quality who is needed to make the DXdao successfully.

John should take responsibility and leave. Organisation are very influenced who is at the top and what we see is the outcome. The fish stinks from the head. In the real world, John would be long fired by the stakeholders.

Also the no hierarchy mantra should be changed, better have visible hierarchy in the open, then hidden ones. I would prefer leaders to be elected in a secret vote.

Define winning

John, this is your exit, take it and enjoy your life. You will find another place with less hazzle. I did just reread your late proposals and for sure you have played an important role and helped DXdao a lot. But now it’s time to move on, hand this over to the rest of the active core contributor and play the elder statesman. After some transition they will find somebody with better leadership qualities. Define winning!

I don’t write about Corkus, because he is out anyway and now just here to back up John and part of some illegitimate shadow government. Very loyal, but also Corkus must understand that this way DXdao will just burn it’s money and never have a successful product.


With all due respect, I wasn’t asking for people’s opinions about the highlights. If you want to add to the list, please do so. I would love for you and others to help grow this list.

These ARE the ACTUAL highlights for DXdao that DXdao contributors speak about in public. This is not opinion. This is fact.

Let’s all try make this list more comprehensive.

The ENTIRE point is that they ALL come from non-dev squads and contributors.

I find it very valuable to hear what DXD holders think about all these topics.

I would like to hear from at least 10 more DXD holders here in the forum. I worry that we are only hearing from a very few over and over.

Can we get at least 10 more DXD holders to bring their opinions into this thread?

It’s always best to share ideas and refine the objectives and goals prior to initiating votes, and their perspectives will be highly valuable.

1 Like

Just one comment before touching on issues inside the proposal:
Such sweeping proposal by a small group of people, with a relatively large amount of REP is in my opinion a bit on the uncooperative side of things.

Now that that is out of the way, a few questions and comments:

  1. How is this different to the current situation that is clearly not very good?

Big Elephant #1: Accountability

It is very hard to create accountability in DAOs or any organization really, this is probably the main reason people get fired in traditional jobs. in my opinion this is the core issue behind much of the friction around DXdao.

Now I’m not pointing the finger at anyone here in particular, I have sinned in some of these, and I think all of us are.

Some clearly observable issues

  • Working groups are formed, decisions made, proposals are passed and teams execute whatever they want
  • We spend $10k-$50k on events, physical marketing, and coming to conferences without knowing what we want to achieve, or how to measure it
  • We talk to potential partners and collaborators with no clear direction for implementations.
  • Rather than collaborating and building on infrastructure and tools developed by other people in the ecosystem we “develop it ourselves” where our “shipping” works 30% of the time.
  • We say we will do something, and we simply don’t, we forget, things fall between the responsibility of people and we miss valuable opportunities
  • We don’t know who is full time, who is part time, and who is claiming their are fulltime but doing other things.

Going to update my famous quote:

DAOs are run on initiatives and they progress by accountability

How to solve??

GenesisDAO had an “Accountability Task Force” which was a group of people responsible only for making sure passed proposals actually get executed.

At points in time @JohnKelleher was a one man accountability person using mostly his social reputation around the DAO, this didn’t feel good for him, nor for the people in question.

@0xVenky and myself tried to introduce a more accountable way of moving forward, using OK-Rs a but that has failed. for two main reasons

  1. I wasn’t adamant about this
  2. extremely low participation rate from the DAO.

I think we should completely stop everything, all development and initiatives and go through a formal OK-R process and building. The first step will be to clearly define our values and the goals we want to achieve a year from now, as a DAO, then each team needs to extrapolate what do they need to do in order for DXdao to achieve its goals.
If theDXdao doesn’t reach it’s goals, DXdao members should not be rewarded with DXD

for example: DXbiz team has a quarterly budget, with KPIs, if we don’t reach our KPIs we don’t get our full salary. This is something you can implement into gnosis Safes.

Big Elephant #2: Can we ship products?

We can argue for a while whether or not, but our track record is not impressive. everything is late, by a lot, to the point that it’s irrelevant. This has happened with previous products, and it’s happening with new ideas and initiatives are the being brought on.

“Being an entrepreneur is like eating glass and staring into the abyss of death." – Elon Musk

DXdao is a shelter from risk but it’s also a blocker to success. A startup is such risky and total business that it cannot exist within a general purpose DAO. The core team of a startup needs to give it all they have, focus strictly on shipping the best product as early as possible.

How to solve??

Carrot and Nimi are the latest ones. In my opinion the only chance for these two product to succeed is if they spin out and prove themselves in the open market. DXdao should assist and help in building the MVP, the narrative, the foundation of the community, and then the core team should go out and test their ideas in front of investors and the open market, try to make it a startup of its own.

The unfortunate reality of what I just wrote is that Swapr is destined to always be sort of dead, being kept alive by DXdao, no tangible objectives or real outside validation.
Again not blaming everyone in particular, but for me Swapr is an anecdote to what happens to a product when you release a token too early / no tokenomics / didn’t think of a runway. And it’s ok because we are learning and improving as we go.

Last thoughts

Accountability and whether a DAO structure is adequate to launch successful products / protocols / startups, is in my opinion the source of friction in the DXdao, and everything stems from this.

I’m still bullish on DXdao because I believe people here have the humility and self confidence to acknowledge that WE HAVE ALL MADE MISTAKES, if we’re transparent and open about it and are willing to accept, learn, and take responsibility and the necessary steps to move forward (which is mainly being organized), I still believe we can serve as the north star of how to do decentralized governance at scale.



Lol. Excuse me?

Defensive as soon as any form of criticism is brought forward. The highlight of DXdao in a nutshell. That’s my addition.

No it’s not. You’ve put forward subjective ‘highlights’, there are no measurable figures there, just ‘we have done well’ because you say so on all points.

Lol, again. No. Let’s have a snapshot vote where all DXD can vote proportionate to their interest in the DAO, rather than ‘we can’t do anything until 10 (because Sky says 10 is the magic number? lmfao) more DXD holders post’. Is REP counted as one vote per individual, or is it proportionate? It’s proportionate, so stop trying to apply rules that suit your narrative to DXD. Classic Sky to try and delay and ‘we need more talk talk talk to the point of exhaustion’ so that nothing is ever done, and you can keep the status quo. Precisely the problem with DXdao. A snapshot vote captures all the information you need, stop trying to obstruct any progress here. It’s becoming tiring.


Agree. What contributors think about this? A lot of people will be upset when REP holders starting continiusly downvote worker proposals. It is hard step but DXdao need KPIs as soon as possible and make payment AFTER work done. From my point of view until Gov 2.0 not implemented some of current REP holders/contributors even maybe can volunteer for DXdao. What is current responsibility for not delivering Gov 2.0? How DXD holders can be "compensated’'? I cant find and verify current status of Gov 2.0 work. It looks some fields of Gov 2.0 implementation far away from presenting and if KPIs work in this case how much funds were (wiil be) saved by DXdao?


I know going back and forth in the forum is not very helpful, but need to clarify a few things because they are already here.

I think you are misreading the words.

These ARE the ACTUAL highlights that DXdao contributors speak about in public.
These ARE the talking points we are able to use in all the awareness opportunities we secure.

That IS FACT. There is NO dispute or opinion involved.

Great term.

You are saying that I haven’t changed DXdao?

On actual proposals, people are able to go look at all my contributions to DXdao and how they have actually CHANGED DXdao. To say that I am not changing DXdao is not true.

In comparison, I would like for you to share your contributions and how they have changed DXdao?

So you want DXdao to move to: whoever has the most money gets the largest vote?


Lol. The people doing the stuff talk about these things in public, therefore they must be great. Are you listening to yourself? This is the big problem - people internally patting themselves on the back, while everyone externally pays no mind and gives no traction. Like… it’s time to wake up. Just because contributors are proud of their own work, doesn’t mean it’s an objective success that’s now unquestionable and NO dispute ALLOWED :laughing:

Just accept, from someone with a logic background, that you saying ‘we gave a bunch of grants and use ENS and IPFS bro’ has no quantitative measure attached to it. THAT IS A FACT.

Where did I say that? Just an observation that you like to obstruct and prolong process with more and more talking instead of action. What on earth are 10 DXD holders going to tell you, do you think? That they’re thrilled with the direction of things?

Uh, what. It’s a signal vote sweetie. To show you guys that DXD holders are fed up of your operations and the status quo. It’s clear that you don’t want to see the results, and exactly why. Because then, it would be clear that any continuation would be even more blatantly at odds with what those whos’ funds you are custodying want.

If you want some socialist DAO where 0.01 DXD counts for as much as 1000 DXD, I’m happy to send around my DXD to multiple wallets. What a joke. Of course someone with $1m+ at stake should have more say than someone with $10 - just like someone with more REP has more say than someone with less REP does. Are you serious?

Either take on board what DXD holders want, or wait for Gov 2.0 and it’ll be done for you. Simple as.

holy shit - missed this.

Show me where I’ve been paid by the DAO for any of my time spent putting forward proposals and contributing to discussion. You are an employee, it’s your job to do these things. Have I been a holder for longer than you’ve been a contributor? Just curious.

What I have done is executed probably 90% of buyback proposals for around 12 months.

What I have done is ensured that DXD holders aren’t left for dead under your operations.

Oh, and I’ve also provided liquidity for contributors to sell their vested DXD into. You’re welcome.

Can confidently say that I will not be supporting any initiative with you involved before, during, or after Gov 2.0.

You absolute muppet.

That is some value contribution to DXdao. We should do a proposal to give you some REP.

I don’t know. Since what day have you been a holder?

I am definitely not an employee. I am a freelance contractor to DXdao and I only get paid when I actually contribute value to DXdao. You can look at all the proposals. I do not have to contribute to DXdao - I choose to - same for all contributors.

You can call me a “muppet” (for those that don’t know, this basically means fool), and I can take the shots on behalf of and defend the minority group of non-dev contributors being targeted in this official signed proposal which is the whole reason I initially posted a reply in this thread.

Hey Yuri - appreciate your feedback. Just a question - do you see the failure to deliver the technical implementation of Gov2.0 as a failure of the non-product / non-technical team? Slightly confused about that. DXdao dedicated plenty of resources to technical teams to deliver Gov2.0.


DXD holder here and I support these changes. No idea if they are going to work either, but I also share the feeling of running out of patience i.e. hands are getting weak from these bags. I mean nothing of value is gained in owning the token, no dividends, no governance rights still, except for slow grind up vs ETH in an illiquid market because of buybacks. SWPR airdrop tho. :upside_down_face:
In another world where I don’t care about turning a profit, I like the decentralization and I understand the struggle. Also sometimes I feel like being one of those “devs, pls do something” guys who is ungrateful and not doing any work, but then I also am reminded in discussions like this, that I gave my contribution to this organization with my funds and I am not wrong in expecting something better and sooner to come out of it.


I think this is important to outline some background here given that Gov 2.0 is such a large focus of this proposal.

Also, because on the calls this week, some people seemed to have forgotten how events over the past two years went with regards to the Gov 2.0 initiative.

For some detailed background:

After DXdao passing the proposal for Gov 2.0 in March 2021:

Nothing was happening on it. Not even talk about it. (we didn’t have many resources, but no one was asking for diverting resources to Gov 2.0)

Knowing this is such an important initiative, I thought the only way would be to find MORE resources to start progressing towards Gov 2.0.

In June 2021, I found an outside awesome small team fully focused on building a Governance platform involving liquid token AND reputation based governance. They were very interested in helping to build this for DXdao.

I pushed for the dev team (there was no DXgov team at this point) to speak to this group so they could help DXdao achieve Gov 2.0.

Augusto spoke with the team and said it “brings nothing new”.
Other devs were hesitant to even speak with the team.

Following this push for action by a non-dev, still nothing on Gov 2.0 for a while. But at least it got DXdao thinking about taking some action towards Gov 2.0. This is what kicked DXdao’s ass into even making a gov team.

Finally, in September 2021, “gov_dev” was launched “putting together a team for the new governance development team”.

The first mention of ‘DXgov development’ I can find is here in Ross’s post in Sep 2021: Ross Worker Proposal 18/8/2021-18/10/2021 - #5 by ross

Many assumed that DXgov’s goal was to build Gov 2.0.

And it became “DXgov” dev team in Nov 2021.

In Oct 2021, the DXgov team decided to start focusing on helping build tools for Augur. WHY would we start building anything for Augur???

“Augur partnership - Although not something I was super involved with I was happy to be part of the conversation with Augur where we informed them of our governance and what we could build for them now and in the future. Both @JohnKelleher and @AugustoL took the main lead on this I still feel I was able to provide value and will do more in future.”

“Working with Augur team on their announcement to work with DXdao. They first reached out to me in October and I worked with them and the DXgov team during this time, during which we had high hopes.”

I’m not sure, but I think this is largely where the idea for Guilds came from.

I will stop here for now, but I think this gives some background on why we are nowhere close to Gov 2.0 yet.

If needed, we can go into more details.

Many of us have wanted Gov 2.0 for a long time but few have taken action to try to make it happen.

1 Like

I cannot speak a lot about where the initial ideas for guilds came from except that they existed before DXgov was a team. The main goals of DXgov were to build guilds for swapr as well as the supporting work leading up to gov 2.0 and the end goal of delivering gov 2.0. No goals were set for this and I do believe this is part of the problem we have at DXdao, we need more justification of budgets from a high level, clearer goals, detailed plans and the ability to reflect on if those goals were met.

This original “attack plan” can be seen in my worker proposal linked by Sky and was shown on plenty of calls too. It highlights at a high level some of the steps needed to even begin to support gov 2.0, it is by no means a simple process. It also shows the goals of having Guilds for swapr before gov 2.0 work. Guilds were not a product of the augur partnership in any way.

Lots have changed and the team has had plenty of struggles in the time since its inception. I do believe if you read back that there were plenty of updates both in my own proposals and particular update posts made in daotalk. I am more than happy to make a big list or history for people who have not followed. However, I would hope since DXgov has been one of the most communicative teams in DXdao with beyond quarterly updates that people involved would know.
(We have not been perfect here, so many ways we can improve, generally I am a big fan of what @nylon is suggesting above)

The most recent post seen here is I think one of the best representations of all the work we have been doing. As of now, we are preparing for the next audit which would complete the work to begin a parallel deployment of DXdao and migration over to the new DAO in preparation for gov 2.0. This means that the new voting machine could be updated on its own. This is a big change from the original plan but a crucial one for security. This is alongside several other upgrades to security and flexibility are needed for 2.0. These have also been gone over in detail but I understand they are complex so happy to cover them on any calls if people have questions.

WHY would we start building anything for Augur???

We did not build things explicitly for Augur, these tools were already being built for us and had applications for Augur. It was part of the realisation that what we are building could have traction beyond just our own governance. Traction which considering the governance space right now could absolutely have revenue for DXdao in the future. This is a post I made in the DXgov notion where all other non published stuff is also posted about some ideas surrounding revenue via the DAVI application, read here.

It was an opportunity for us to use something we were already building for ourselves but saving a large amount of treasury spending due to Augur paying for an audit. The partnership fell through due to issues on the augur side, beyond conversations with them I do not think we wasted any time on it. If anything it lead to productive conversations about governance.


Thanks for more details Ross.
This proposal calls to “Emphasize Gov 2.0 delivery”. I support, as I have in the past (one of the few who has pushed for this early on).

What are the proposed changes in plan?

1 Like

(post deleted by author)

I see you’ve deleted your post, but wanted to address the unedited version.

You keep referring to my comments as the biggest problem of DXdao, but not to the fact that DXdao has failed to deliver a return on $1m invested in the 2+ years that the civil-discussion-to-exhaustion route has been happening.

I posted in response to Sky’s comment about DXdao’s highlights in an extremely civil manner, stating that many were not backed up with any quantitative measures, and was met with the same arrogance as has always been displayed in response to this kind of criticism. ‘I wasn’t asking for opinions, it’s not up for debate.’, ‘Let’s hear from 10 more DXD holders first before we do anything’ (There aren’t even 10 REP holders ITT, lol).

I, and many other DXD holders (not contributors FYI, unpaid by the DAO), have run out of patience. If you think me calling Sky a muppet is the main problem at DXdao, then I would contest that you may be part of the thin skin culture that is actually the main problem here. Gaslighting an external investor for finally having enough after over two years, meh.


This has been a long thread with a lot of different tangents, but I wanted to level set the conversation.

DXdao raised 25k ETH through the bonding curve from May 2020 to September 2020. The current value of the treasury is 23,980 ETH (38,000 ETH if you include DXD) all the while returning 2,900 ETH to DXD holders via the buyback. The treasury currently has $11.5m in stablecoins PLUS 14,000 ETH+staked ETH.

The 35,000th DXD was minted of the bonding curve on August 20, 2020 at $302 DXD, which means that the vast majority of early DXD holders are above water even in the depths of this bear market. Obviously, the appreciation of ETH in the treasury is the primary driver, but the simple truth for any investor is that DXD has outperformed most other DeFi tokens over the last two years.

So, I think it’s important that DXD holders specify their complaints on DXdao’s performance outside just the price of DXD - these opinions are very much welcome in the DXD Token WG, first meeting on Thursday!

@hughesconnor, I very much value your perspective and not everyone realizes how much effort goes into executing all of those buybacks.

But, you were not facilitating those orders for altruistic reasons; there was a financial incentive to execute and fill each order. Just doing the math, a 3% price premium on 90% of the $8m in buyback orders is ~$200k. Of course, sourcing liquidity across three chains is costly so it’s not exactly pure arbitrage, but it’s safe to say that has been a profitable exercise.

That is on top of the appreciation in the ETH/DXD price, which has almost doubled for the ‘000’s of DXD you’ve acquired over the last year.

1 Like