2nd Snapshot Proposal - Should option to mint more $JUSTICE be closed? Start date Feb 23, 2022, 4:55 PM UTC for 3 days

The question is:
Should the ability to mint more $JUSTICE be closed?

-Yes, close the minting option.
-No, leave the option open.

Voting system Single choice voting
Start date Feb 23, 2022, 4:55 PM
End date Feb 26, 2022, 4:55 PM

https://snapshot.org/#/assangedao.eth

3 Likes

I propose changing the options to the following:

Should the ability to mint more $JUSTICE be closed?

-Yes, close the minting option.
-Maybe, only if it protects equity, and does not cause price deflation ^(see footnote)
-No, leave the option open.

^footnote

I believe people are more worried about price deflation, more than they are about the issuance of shares. For example if the current value is $0.001355 USD, and the DAO is willing to issue additional justice tokens at a price of $.002 USD each, for a second round of NFT auctions, then the previous investors should see an increase in their investment value of their already held tokens.

There can be a problem with token liquidity, if there are not enough tokens on the open market, to satisfy the demand of investors, because some members simply neglect their wallet. The question is whether that absence of liquidity should flow directly to share price, or instead whether it should flow into the DAO treasury through selling tokens, which should then flow into the share price which is a proxy of total DAO value including its treasury.

be opposed to. You didn’t consider the market cap of the project. Additional tokens are issued, even if the token price remains unchanged or increases, the total market value will increase. The growth of the total market value of the project will reduce the growth of the token price. This is common sense.

Yeah I just think that the DAO Treasury could always buy tokens with ETH when it gets an NFT to auction for ETH. (If token holders voted for this).

Perhaps this should be one of the first things it does after an auction? (Not to pump the price of the token, but to have tokens in it’s possession for future use as determined by voters?)

This would satisfy initial contributors (I think?)

I just don’t see how a maybe option would be much different than a leave the option open.

If option is left open, could vote on what cases the DAO would mint more tokens (reimburse people who burned tokens by mistake, etc)

1 Like

If we create an internal market for $JUSTICE such as the civil rights org proposal, because people use $JUSTICE to bid on assignment rights to a particular type of legal claim, or doing something like JuiceboxDAO does with its subDAO’s, then we need to regulate the supply of justice, according to the an IS/LM or other macro-economic models.

if the entire point is to use fractional ownership of NFT’s, then there doesn’t really need to be any micromanaging of the supply of currency, you can hypothetically just issue additional tokens at the same price as current spot price, and nobody will have their equity diluted.

However if you had a large NFT auction, I think the possibility of buying enough shares to offer in the auction, and have those shares be the same as the value as what you want to offer, would be impractical, because of the second order effects of the buyback plan on the market, however you could try to use a gradient / ascent descent algorithm to approximate it.

如果我们为 $JUSTICE 创建一个内部市场,例如民权组织提案,因为人们使用 $JUSTICE 来竞标特定类型的法律索赔的转让权,或者像 JuiceboxDAO 对其 subDAO 所做的那样,那么我们需要监管正义的供给,根据 IS/LM 或其他宏观经济模型。

如果重点是使用 NFT 的部分所有权,那么实际上不需要对货币供应进行任何微观管理,假设你可以以与当前现货价格相同的价格发行额外的代币,没有人会拥有他们的股权稀释。

但是,如果您进行大型 NFT 拍卖,我认为购买足够的股票以在拍卖中提供的可能性,并让这些股票与您想要提供的价值相同,这是不切实际的,因为二阶效应市场上的回购计划,但是您可以尝试使用梯度/上升下降算法来近似它。

1 Like

Congrats everyone.

Yes, CLOSE the minting option
4.7B JUSTIC
99.87%

The minting of JUSTICE tokens will now be permanently closed.

1 Like