✅ [RFC] Gitcoin Quadratic Lands Hackey Sacks Purchase

Summary

It is suggested to purchase 3 to 5 $SACKS (7500 to 12,500 mUSD at the time of writing) in order to allocate a small portion of treasury funds towards public goods in a novel way, to make $SACKS more usable in the ecosystem, and hold the remaining $SACKS ourselves for treasury diversification purposes.

Abstract

The mStable community mentioned that we ought to do more for the public goods space on Ethereum with our treasury, so after this successful temperature check, it is suggested to do just this and allocate a small portion of our treasury towards buying 3 to 5 $SACKS from the open market.

We would kick 1 or 2 $SACKS back to GitcoinDAO to use freely as they see fit to further the Gitcoin project, kick a further $SACKS to Atlantis World to use for a tighter integration in the Atlantiverse, and retain the remaining $SACKS for the mStableDAO Treasury in perpetuity as a provable scarce asset on the blockchain.

The suggested method of purchase is to market buy 3 to 5 $SACKS from Uniswap (around 1.8 to 3 ETH at the current market rate) from the Asset Management subDAO’s surplus DAI that got generated between the resolution of TDP26 and now, and send them to the respective recipients via multi-sig transactions.

Motivation

The treasury has not yet allocated any meaningful funding to Gitcoin this year, and I feel that with this purchase, we would be able to do so in a novel way that also benefits the treasury and the ecosystem as a whole in the process.

It would also be the hope that we would inspire other DAOs and individuals to join this effort to kick back $SACKS to Gitcoin and other protocols that weave together and maintain the ecosystem, and in the process increase the value of $SACKS. The GitcoinDAO can then use them as they see best fit, while also helping the donators have their Hackey Sacks appreciate in value.

Pros

  • Diversify the treasury with a provable scarce asset (only 247 $SACKS left in existence) and judging by a similar token, $SOCKS have performed very well in the past
  • Indirectly fund public goods by allocating a portion of purchased $SACKS back to Gitcoin and also help integrate them in a novel way via Atlantis World
  • Be a good example of how other protocols could follow suit to help the Gitcoin ecosystem in a cool & efficient way
  • Nice publicity opportunity when kicking the $SACKS around to their new owners

Cons

  • Might not be as efficient as directly donating to the matching pool
  • Could be seen as too gimmicky

Next Steps

It is suggested that the community comment on this RFC in the coming days, and bearing no significant opposition or change in ideation, I would move ahead with this RFC in the coming weeks and create a formal draft proposal on Github to be used for review.

Meta Governors are encouraged to provide as much feedback as possible until then, so we can create the best possible outcome for mStable and its users.

1 Like

Not sure I would say I am convinced by this. I think public good funding is a very good idea in general, but I don’t see us having such a big war-chest as to contribute to that yet. I know it’s relatively not that much, but I would prefer the Treasury to be generally conservative. In the end, it needs to fund the further development of mStable. Additionally, we have in the recent proposals quite a bit of outflow already and with the coming emission controller, the majority will be transferred for long term emissions.

2 Likes

I love the Gitcoin ethos and so am in full support of this. The Atlantis World is also a smart play, although I’m less interested in that type of gamified experience. I really like the Tokemak gamified experience. The decision seems well balanced to exist in this ecosystem. I love the mStable product but culture doesn’t exist in a vaccum and Gitcoin is legit. Also it can straight up be a increased value asset to the ecosystem as other players seek the Gitcoin cred it provides. In summary, that would be a (3,3) move.

1 Like

Great proposal & love the idea but personally I think I’m not convinced by this. Echoing @Dimsome comments in that our war chest isn’t large & maybe the effort outsizes the outcome. I think I’d like to see a more continuous & automated source of public goods funding – perhaps the dials could play into this?

1 Like

We’ve a good conversation here! I’m personally in favour of this. We can just reallocate some of the surplus mUSD that was earnt in trading fees when we closed out the Uniswap v3 position for MTA/DAI. Uniswap Interface

I think for this small an amount its OK, and opens us up to good rapport or unforeseen benefits in the long run. Its also funding public goods which Im a fan of, and a fun idea. Why are we even in crypto if we can’t do something playful sometimes with relatively small amounts of funds?

This said, I am fully in line with heavy scrutiny for larger ticket disbursements of $$. We should be guarding the war chest now of PCV and accruing it, and I like that there are others who feel this way too.

1 Like

I am supportive of this. Funding public goods in a relatively small way with the potential for unexpected upside seems like a net positive move.

2 Likes

Thanks for the feedback everyone, it’s much appreciated!

@circlo I love the idea of a public goods dial in the emission controller for the future! What are your thoughts around the recipient for this? The GitcoinDAO?

Since Gitcoin Grants Round 12 has started yesterday, it feels like an opportune time to move this, so I’m going to draft a TDP for this now, and post it soon :sunglasses:

2 Likes