[VSP-0] Addressing Co-founder Rage Quit and Hostile RFV Attempt - A Response to VSP-1 and VSP-2

22

Thank your for this massive overview. I think it is worth for everyone to read it. It shows the flaws/issues of every party, and tbh I don’t have much to add, so I’ll just answer or/and confirming some details

it doesn’t look like both of you have been very involved with the project!

Can’t say otherwise, even though I coded multiple potential products for Vesta, since they never saw light, I will not consider them making me involved with the project.

Again, it would’ve been nice to see more participation from you and Midnight, as you have never communicated much, even on discord.

Indeed, I was heavily active at the beginning, then I stopped to focus on building. I should have been giving some of my time to the community. For anything Curia related, I was directly poking Mikey. Rare were the times where a curia wouldn’t be visited internally before being publish, but some of them did.

So why are they still being paid if other people are doing their jobs internally??

Nobody are doing our jobs currently. I think he’s referring that people can replace us if we were to be kicked off. I do agree they would be able to do some of our job, they will also be buried in tasks, giving them an unhealthy workspace.
I can only speak on behalf of engineers side, the issue isn’t that we had nothing to do, it’s that what we were building never got shipped. I hope some team members can join on this statement, but I do understand their point of view of not wanting to go deeper in this chaos.

I think that I could also welcome such a solution if you had communicated more before. Would you mind elaborating on what you would do differently, and more importantly, explain why you think Mikey is not a good fit currently?

It was our first ever proposal we wanted to share. The day we told Mikey it was really not working and we were going for a public dismissal (since he wasn’t interested in the idea of stepping back), he started to panic and creating useless chaos around us, which kind of forced us to push something. Given this panic, we were not able to deeply think and overview all the angles of transferring ownership. So, that proposal is still not yet on the table. If it has to be online, I’ll make sure to address these points.

1 Like
23

It seems that you yourself joined 30 minutes ago, and have since provided no real tangible value or incremental improvements to the proposals set forth other than criticise recent buyers who simply bought from the LP provided by VSTA protocol, below backing defined by the treasury which is governed by the VSTA token.

May I remind you that you are invested in crypto, a hyper-capitalist market. Its unclear where you are getting these borderline communist ideas from, perhaps LaLaLand, but no you do not deserve to be placed higher up the cap-table nor should anyone else have priority in outcome or influence from the process based on the length of time they held their tokens. But if you’ve truly believed in the protocol, and Mikey’s execution, I believe your holdings will be large enough.

The principle is 1 VSTA token = 1 Vote = 100% of backing

That is extraction of value and that value could and should be given to runway, long term vsta holders, angels and way more groups long long time before its given to people who bought this week.

Recent buyers are taking governance risk, execution risk and so forth. This is by no means a free-arbitrage trade as I have mentioned ad nauseum and we shouldn’t treat it as such. But more importantly, and it would be great if you could understand this, each VSTA token had already been issued well before this news came out. The only value transfer that occurred this past week, therefore, is between prior holders who sold below backing, and new holders who bought below backing. The treasury still owes each token $0.5 at the very least

If you are angry that certain people bought I suggest you either be angry at incompetent leadership who let the token trade under-backing for an extensive period of time OR I would suggest practicsing self-awareness and review why you yourself did not buy more of the token under backing.

As previously explained here, this is by no means a risk-free arbitrage trade. The LP is live which implicitly means that the protocol welcomes new holders and owners. Also, let me reiterate for the third time why you are unequivocally wrong:

  1. Buyers have given prior holders significant convenience by allowing them to sell at close to intrinsic value . There are still people vesting and selling right now on the market at the expense of recent buyers. see: Address 0xd7d9b4f521640cfefb4279ebca256ae8cdf97e55 | Arbiscan

  2. There is ambiguity inherent in VSP1 and VSP2 proposals as well as the rift in the team means that buyers are currently taking commensurate governance risk, execution risk and so forth. This is by no means a free-arbitrage trade and we shouldn’t treat it as such

  3. These tokens were dumped below book-value by other holders. The transfer of value is from a prior holder, to a new more recent and more governance engageed buyer, not mercenary by any metric. The treausry has not made a loss that token has already been issued and that token is backed by $0.5. So again, why should recent buyers be rugged?

strange this sentence language is the same what we see on all rfv target forums if you are long time holder! can you sign some on chain message to prove that?

And no, I don’t think sunshineplaza should sign any message or doxx himself to satisfy you. This is completely outlandish.

Feel free to DM me or @ me on discord to discuss this matter further.

2 Likes
24

oh thanks then you accept the likelihood and possibility of my proposal as one that is plausible and correct for execution. if you accept risks are real then you are saying its is a legitimate direction. thanks. I propose like i said to refund wrongly informed toxic rfv radiers and then we can do this process without parasites. you can not be upset with a refund after 2 days of holding if it means you are not losing money. that is if you care actually about real token holders and not just your selfish club of radiers maskerading as heroes

last thing can you use one account and not multiple alts next time thanks

1 Like
25

I think you do a fair analysis of all proposals, here’s some of my comments on your post,

  • Snapshot date is set as the date of the actual Snapshot governance for the clear, incontrevrtible reasons I have outlined here

The only problem I see here is that many new buyers have bought in for the sole reason of being able to redeem VSTA (seeing the 100%+ value increase), leaving original holders and backers of the project with less. This in my opinion is unfair and lets raiders exploit the current situation. This is why we have taken a snapshot pre-proposals, in order to give all original holders a fair exit and exclude the anyone who is trying to arbitrage the situation. Although I do see your point in giving the remaining holder who do want to stay around, the convenience of having some liquidity and a reasonable price to sell their VSTA at. I would like to believe that new buyers are here for governance, but i have a hard time believing this. The success of the project should reflect that, not the current situation. We will take into consideration this point though. (Please correct me if I misconstrued your point in your previous comment on VSP-1) The rest of your points on VSP-1 are all fair and well thought out. Thank you.

Your points on VSP-2 are valid and I personally tend to agree with you, the tiering makes the whole process a complete mess and also shifts the playing field. Definitely a way to make this proposal more aligned for everyone.

For your final comments, current discussions internally are trying to compose a proposal that would do just that, give Vesta enough runway and a last chance to self sustain and deliver products, as well as permitting anyone who wants to exit, exit in a completely fair manner.

Thanks for the feedback, any new proposals from us will take into account what you have brought up!

2 Likes
26

Hey midnight,

As a seed investor and someone who’s bought vsta both higher and lower than todays price I think this is wrong

New buyers are not changing the circulating supply of VSTA at all. They are buying from sellers that already have circulating VSTA therefore it leaves “original holders and backers of the project” with the exact same outcome, not less. In fact, it could be more as they seem to be the ones doing a lot of the commenting and work here.

The people that are selling are saying they no longer trust the project and dont want to be part of it. The people that are buying are trusting that VSTA has value and want to vote to ensure thats the case.

Treating token holders differently because of when they bought isn’t fair at all, particularly because these recent buyers could be getting a 0 if you enforce an old snapshot, and all they did was provide exit liquidity for those that don’t trust the dao and want to leave. The original proposal with the snapshot isn’t even the final take here as co founders are still negotiating on what is going to happen. Everyone holds risk here still.

You have examples like this where someone (investor or team) is vesting and dumping vsta: Address 0xd7d9b4f521640cfefb4279ebca256ae8cdf97e55 | Arbiscan - its only because of buyers today that they can get a healthy price for their vsta.

1 token = 1 vote. it does not matter when or how it was acquired as it was always considered circ supply. If they were somehow minting new supply and diluting current holders claims then I would agree. Regardless of if you bought your vsta, got it for free by being a team member, got bribes for being tetranode, invested, or advised. You have a token and have a vote.

4 Likes
27

Hey Midnight I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Just want to clarify that you are making a mistake here because when current holders sell to the liquidity pool they are basically transferring their right to the next buyer. This is why we have governance tokens!

Furthermore, the resulting price appreciation has close to 0 impact on the treasury and circulating supply, it is almost a net net positive.

Your points on VSP-2 are valid and I personally tend to agree with you, the tiering makes the whole process a complete mess and also shifts the playing field. Definitely a way to make this proposal more aligned for everyone.

The simpler the better, so that everyone can easily understand what they will get!

For your final comments, current discussions internally are trying to compose a proposal that would do just that, give Vesta enough runway and a last chance to self sustain and deliver products, as well as permitting anyone who wants to exit, exit in a completely fair manner.

It sounds like you have been making progress collectively. This is great to hear! Again this reinforces the fact that a gatted redemption would be very bad for the future of the project, as the remaining tokenholders would majorly be arbitrators focusing more on how to direct governance for their own benefit rather than supporting the development of the project.

2 Likes
28

toxic arbitragers can get a refund and not be left with 0. they are then left with no difference and not harmed.

its funny now right how everyone getting involved is all connected together. only rfv radiers are talking and making it seem like everyone agrees in a majority. but they are not real holders. manipulation of our project and its governance is not acceptable. come on its so obvious. its the same characters are following dcf god around every project forum acting like its the whole community

2 Likes
29

Aah yes makes sense thanks for the clarifications :grinning:

The snapshot clause will be reviewed then.

1 Like
30

I dont want to get tied up in whatever would happen if we tried to rug any class of holder. you guys have done enough to muck things up try to keep this part simple

4 Likes
31

It’s really disheartening to see crypto community arguing on how to move forward like that. Almost everyone works on overdrive to create some mechanism that rugs others for their own benefit.

Trying to force two founders to dump on market or buy them out at arbitrary price.
Trying to create arbitrary snapshots to segregate and exclude certain holders.
Trying to create arbitrary rules of who has priority to redeem and at what price point.

It’s all the same. It’s all immoral. It’s all against anything crypto stands for. It’s just greed.

There is simple, crypto native, solution to such disputes. Where there are two groups in organization that have two different visions they don’t need to fight against each other. They can just fork and follow their own paths. Mikey wants one path. Atum and Midnight want another. Everyone should vote which path they want to go with and take their share of treasury with them. After that one group can RQ and another can build. Or both can build. Or both can RQ. Whatever they decide after it’s theirs to decide.

Stop being greedy and stop devising abusive mechanisms. Fair is simple.
1 VSTA = 1 share = 1 vote

5 Likes
32

I won’t argue about who is more worthy than the others in this conflict. Please talk together you heard tons of good feedback so find a solution and make it quick. :pray:

Please @mikey present us some perspectives of how V2 can be successful and generate returns (in layman’s terms, I can’t understand complicated stuff and I’m sure most of us can’t…) because if there is an option to keep our tokens I’d like to hear about it.

3 Likes
33

Hey everyone,

just wanted to update ya’ll, we are prepping a new proposal which you will see in the coming week. All your feedback will be taken into account to this next proposal and we’ll also release a snapshot vote by the end of the week to evaluate which finalized proposal should be passed.

Take care all.

1 Like
34

wrote my perspective as an employee here

2 Likes
35

I’ve added a portion into the original post addressing legal problems with [Proposal] VSP-2 - Dissolve and [Proposal] VSP-1 - Rage Quit. I’ll copy it down below as well.

2 Likes
36

Thanks Paul, this is really interesting.
As a holder, I am a bit stressed though, ngl…
It looks like at this point, nearly everything is going to change : the team, the product, etc.
It kinda raises the question of whether the current state of the product is bringing value to the future of the project, or whether it will follow us as an anchor, dragging everything towards old considerations and slowing development…
At this stage, might be wiser to shut down the project, make sure the team gets enough to get a clean start, and start over.
Since the treasury is greater than the MC, I think it’s a rare case where this wouldn’t be seen badly by the community, but more as a mark of courage.

2 Likes
37

Will the proposal have the options to:
1/ keep everything as they stand
2/ allow co-founders to rage quit
3/ allow anyone who wants it to rage quit
4/ close the project
?
Think it makes sense to have those possibilities.

1 Like
38

Wow theres a lot to unpack here. Firstly I’d like to say that I am an early investoor but have not been actively engaged in governance. I had pretty much wrote off this investment so was happy to yolo the rest in the hope that it would recover however after reading through this discussion I think that there is so much discourse between members of the team that I would rather take whats on offer than continue with this project.

Mikey, Atum and Midnight are clearly at an impasse and the only way to do it is a clean break by letting them out and by way of fairness all other token holders.

I’ve always thought that Atum was the brains behind the operation and with him gone I would like to also leave the project as I don’t believe that without him what this project set out to do can be accomplished.

As for suggesting that not all token holders are treated equally, this sounds pretty crazy. I paid more for my token than the angel investors yet Preto is suggesting that he gets priority. For what reason? Cus he’s down bad and thats it, were all down bad. It’s just pure nonsense 1 token one vote whenever it was purchased.

Given this is still in discussion and nothing has been approved it makes no sense for the snapshot to be at a previous block, I personally have been able to derisk a little thanks to these so called raiders so wouldnt feel right to me to cut them out given exactly nothing has been fleshed out for reals yet.

1 Like
41

Understandable.

I am all for either dissolve or continue building depending on what majority of stakeholders want. However my concern right now is that potentially a bunch of voters are not actually supporters of Vesta. i think existence of governance tokens create a financial game where if you don’t play that game well could have negative consequences. Like this situation where there is potentially mercenary capital arbitraging price with dissolve price. And its a game of if we collectively buy enough tokens and vote for dissolve we all profit at the expense of a team trying to continue building. That is just speculation and I do not know for sure.

So we might be getting gordao gekkoed.

2 Likes
42

So we might be getting gordao gekkoed.

I think a few things are pertinent here. I am in favour of an Opt-in Rage Quit option, as outlined multiple times earlier. In this way, Mikey and team can continue to develop a crvUSD/Anja fork on Arbitrum if they so wish, but with a downsized treasury ($5m even if 50% of the token supply choose to leave) that would still be much larger than what could conceivably be raised in a Series A in this environment and will still afford the team generous runway.

The most equitable treatment of all VSTA holders that want to leave, along with the co-founders who do not want to continue is a fair buyout of their tokens, which the treasury luckily can afford and which ,of course, is governed by the token itself.

2 Likes