🧊 [RFC] Acquiring amount of Pooly NFTs to support DeFi ecosystem against bad actors

Simple Summary

It is proposed to purchase a number of Pooly in order to support the legal battle of PoolTogether
The number and type of pooly should be agreed upon in this RFC or to be conducted via Snapshot.

Motivation

The lawsuit was clearly conducted with malice against the founders, without understanding the protocol (or even what a protocol is) and is a clear “attack” to all DeFi ecosystem. Showing support with words is important, but actions matter the most.

Quoting the Pool Together page:

The Wall Street Journal has said, the lawsuit “appears to be a deliberate effort to put some of the DeFi communities core doctrines to the test”. The allegations lack merit but a thorough defense is still needed.

The money collected will be used for legal defense. You can read all the original files in the Minting site

This proposal is to agree to purchase a number of “Pooly - Lawyer” (1 ETH each) that the community and DAO feel comfortable with, or, in the other hand, to acquire a single " Pooly - Judge" (75 ETH).

Pros

  • Support DeFi ecosystem.
  • Show support to an individual (public goods)
  • Eventual airdrops and benefits (example)
  • Potential investment.

Cons

  • Risk that future price decreases. (Therefore, action should be taken as a donation)

Next Steps

Snapshot vote with the amount of Lawyers or single Judge should be enough to decide on this.

I would advice to do this as fast as possible to be able to “get in” before the goal is reached, and of course before the time is over (18 days and 16h at the time of writing)

Personal Note

I would also advice fellow community members to purchase the 0.1 ETH Pooly to show your individual support to the ecosystem. We also get airdrops, alphas, etc, why not give something back? Now it’s the time!

As usual, I’m going to make the unpopular/contentious take.

Firstly, this isn’t an attack on Juan. I think his proposal is perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with individuals wanting to support PT, and I think it’s great that he brought it up.

However, I feel like this litigation (as low merit as it is) is a symptom of the real issue: PoolTogether shouldn’t have had a legal entity to sue to begin with.

It seems to me that, in order for DeFi to toughen up against regulation, project founders are going to have to feel heat and pain to understand decentralization principles:

  • Stay anon, be transparent in dealings
  • Build loss of admin control into contracts directly
  • Methodically, inevitably, place governors in control or (better yet)
  • have no governance to begin with (Liquity).

This suit, should PT lose, will have a chilling effect on legal-entity projects. I don’t enjoy this outcome. However, I think it could be necessary.

DeFi is in a pivotal place in it’s growth. A significant number of projects are attempting to rush into the arms of regulators. Just look at who attended Davos, or the recent Permissionless conference, and what they spoke about. They’re doing it because they want institutional buy-in. Instead of disrupting and replacing the corrupt and sclerotic thing DeFi was meant to fight to begin with, some people are trying to join hands with regulators.

This would be a defeat. I have genuine fear at the thought of blockchain-powered shackles from government.

A loss for PoolTogether in this suit would make the split more clear for projects; decentralize for real, or eventually bend the knee to governments.

For these reasons, I cannot personally support PT. I encourage the governors to think about what a victory or a defeat for PT will mean for the industry beyond the individuals at the heart of the suit.

Thank you.

1 Like

I think this is an interesting bigger question. Personally, I minted one and I am fully supportive of defending Defi against bad lawsuits. But I am not sure the Protocol should take a stance.

Let me explain:

The mStableDAO consists of MTA stakers, and some choose either to participate actively in the governance process, others do not. What is the commonality among everyone that chooses to stake MTA and be therefore a participant in the mStableDAO?

This is the cause that everyone agrees upon on why the mStableDAO exists in the first place. Everyone’s idea of the mStableDAO converges towards being the steward of the Protocol. How we do this is up for debate, but the fact that this is the chosen commonality that we converged upon is important.

Here we have something is more tangent to this goal than other proposals. This now diverges a bit from the initial role. The mStableDAO has an official opinion that goes beyond just the protocol steward role. This opinion gets voted in by the active governors and the governors that have the majority of the stake. So it changes from the initial steward role to an added opinion that is governed.

I think a very relevant post is this:

Screen Shot 2022-06-08 at 19.09.55

Also very relevant to this:

I would rather have mStableDAO goal-oriented and neutral, but I am not. I see that personally, we could do more if we choose so, why not create a new structure with everyone that wants to participate, rather using the existing one to form an opinion into the DAO?

1 Like

Great point and I agree. It makes total sense.
I also think that creating a new structure would be ideal, but given that we are not that big , it might add more overhead.

Maybe this RFC was enough to push some into personally purchasing a Pooly :slight_smile:

If enough people are interested we could create a new RFC for this new structure, otherwise, I will close this after a few days (gathering more opinions).

1 Like

Thanks a lot for this proposal @juan and the useful material @dimsome

I agree that the Forum, as a governance agora proxy; makes it harder to raise contributors’ awareness on topics? I also think that mStable DAO should remain neutral as its role is to foster the smooth running of the protocol following the vision of its governors. However how noble (and how personally I am in support of PTogether) the cause is, we can’t set a precedent and extend the purpose of the DAO to fund DeFi lawsuits. Especially as regulations are very likely to come.
1- Maybe we could have a section of the forum which would be about such topics (MTA governors awareness without governance actions)
2- Maybe Discord is the most suited place for such cases

Thanks a lot for raising this though Juan

2 Likes

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I’m going to extend my comment that I previously had in a pretty long conversation with @dimsome and will take the opposition on this (surprise surprise) :sunglasses:

I think if we define the mStableDAO as the conglomerate holders of staked MTA tokens, I think every and any proposal should be allowed to be discussed, in-depth, in the forum, no matter it’s intent or purpose.

If we position ourselves as strictly neutral, in my humble opinion, we are making the same move that Coinbase made back then and cancel all form of free speech from the forum and governance that is not related to mStable alone. You say you remain neutral as regulators and other actors influence the very foundation on which you stand. Do we really want to be like Coinbase in this regard?

I feel we have to broaden our horizon and see the bigger picture that this is but the first taste of a LOT of heat that will come our way as an ecosystem, and by putting a blind eye to it, we’re simply avoiding the issue at hand.

Agreeing that maybe buying a NFT will not be the best option here, but if anything, we should see this as a big opportunity to see how we would act if our team was hit by a lawsuit tomorrow, and how we could handle this moving forward.

This precedent marks a clear attack on DeFi as a whole, which mStable is also a part of, so we should have a plan on how to act in such cases, especially if it hits a protocol we have actively integrated or that have integrated us.

Granted, PoolTogether isn’t this, but how would we feel if Aave, Compound, Superfluid, Ethereum, Polygon, Gnosis, or other critical partner would stand here instead? Should we still remain neutral as core infrastructure mStable relies upon faces a potential shutdown and simply look for alternatives, all the while remaining neutral?

Many things are to ponder as a result of this RFC, and it goes beyond minting 1 ETH to support PoolTogether in their legal fight in my opinion.

Personally, I’d welcome a new formation inside the mStableDAO that @dimsome hinted at that is tasked with brainstorming and evaluating exactly such scenarios and opportunities to prepare for in this ecosystem.

1 Like