When I first found out about PP and invested in tokens, the message was very clear:
It was going to have a DEX, with 5x leverage. It was also touted that it would have advanced tools.
There were reflections where the tax on all transactions paid holders (passive income) - this was often touted to be further extended in that PP would be the base coin of the DEX so there would be fees from trades making their way into reflections.
There was the wallet (well we have a better one coming now in the form of the app - so thats still around)
There were the regular charity donations.
Later on there was talk of the partnership with Lootverse and that PP and the wallet would be an onramp for it.
Now we have BAM… I really don’t understand what the planned utility is:
It’s been mentioned before that there will be a HEX instead of a DEX, but nothing has been said on this for a long time, so we don’t know if it’s still in planning, if development has started, if it’s been scrapped? Will it have leverage? Will it have advanced tools (stop loss, etc).
Obviously the wallet is now the much improved App and is in development and will contain a swap function.
Reflections are gone, but there has been mention of staking, but nothing on how this will work
Charity donations didn’t happen as frequently as they were originally touted to be (I think there were 3), and there has been little mention of it on the new token other than there being a Charity wallet
Does the partnership with lootverse still exist? We’ve not heard mention of them for a while. The last time I heard anything about it, PP was no longer the onramp as they were going to use one of the USD stable coins (I think it was USDC, but not sure), but versapay would be inegrated into the PP/BAM app… as far as I could tell the only ‘utility’ from this would be that BAM holders might get some discount on purchases in lootverse… which really only benefits those who want to use lootverse.
*There was also talk of PP/BAM NFTs and those providing discounts/access to stuff, I’m make no comment on that as I’ve been vocal on my thoughts on NFTs in the past, but is this still in the planning?
I’m pretty certain that the answer to a lot of these is going to be “Propose them in the DAO” - which on one hand is great, because it’s good to let the community have a say in which way somethings are going, but on the other hand makes the project (at this stage) feel a little adrift because we’ve gone from something with lots of things planned which drew a lot of us in to the project to something where so much is up in the air and theres not as much focus as before.
I also have a question about the purpose of the C-Corp - the way I understand it is, the BAM DAO token is not owned by the company, however the company holds the biggest share of it, meaning that in theory any DAO vote the company doesn’t like, they can vote it down and thats the end of that proposal. Now the company is funding things like the App (I assume to make fees from transactions/swap) - but other than that I’m not really sure what the purpose of the company is? To me when it was PP - it felt like the project was the company and the company was driving all aspects of it, however now it feels like the company is off to the side, building projects to work with the community token, so in many ways much further removed from the community than before. What is the purpose of the company?
In theory (btw I’m not that way inclined) could someone else, just form a similar company to build a competing hex/app/wallet that works with the BAM token?
What is the utility/purpose of BAM? At the moment it feels like we’ve shrugged off the memecoin thing, but replaced it with nothing (no utility), so we are now unknown with very low trading volume (which is why I assume CMC rejected the application) - so what is actually in the planning (not asking for timescales, just vague outlines of planned utility and the benefits to holders)?
I just realised my saying my understanding is that the company don’t own the token is misleading as they are the sole holders of the keys to the liquidity pool and the contract. So essentially yes they do own it, but allow the DAO to propose and vote on changes to it
If you look at the most recent vote. One wallet, who abstained, and most likely a team member in some shape or form held 32% of the vote. With a stick that big (and there are likely many more smaller team wallets) the vote belongs to the team. There is no disputing this. To say the team aren’t in control of the vote is a falsity.
This vote was by no means contentious but future votes may look to implement some fairer sort of system otherwise what is the point?
If you hold a few K Bam you are up against a 7 million bam wallet for example. If you held 100k bam which is quite a lot it would take 70 similar wallets to match the one 7 million wallet above for voting power.
We need a fairer system of voting. One that is more representational for all, not based on how much Bam wealth you hold.
I propose one wallet one vote. Minimum amount of bam being in the region of 100 bucks. Instate transfer tax between wallets to stop people splitting wallets for more votes. The system at the moment is broken and provides little to no incentive for smaller, yet substantial holders to make any proposals or indeed vote in those proposals.
I’m all for supporting the team ‘pinkpanda1’ but let’s not turn this place into an echo chamber where we all congratulate each other on how wonderful things are. Let’s make suggestions and improvements.
I agree that the future of BAM relies on a better system for calculating voting weight, but one-wallet-one-vote is not it, in my option. We had this discussion in Telegram before implementing the current system. Getting started somewhere was the most important thing for the DAO.
There are other methods of calculating voting, like quadratic voting. This article lays out a few things we can start to look into. A transfer tax is loathsome and is not the way to go, as there is an abundant amount of reasons to need to transfer tokens between wallets. No one has enjoyed having a transfer tax over the past year.
Likely no minimum based on a dollar figure should be established, either, as voting outcomes would still revolve around the financial capability of a voter.
The future of the DAO is bigger than one-token/one-wallet voting methods. Let’s research quadratic, proof of participation, holographic, etc. governance systems. The findings of the most successful use-cases should likely be put into their own thread.
This is important as well—it’s why the community wanted vote delegation paired with one-token one-vote to get us started. Delegation hasn’t really been utilized yet; we’re just now starting to have these conversations on a deeper level as well as figure out the DAOs most active. In other DAOs, Delegates are taken seriously and generally run for the position.
This is from another chat on here.
“As for my own personal intentions around $BAM, they haven’t changed at all. I fully intend to support the token utility and DAO in any way I can, whether that’s through building utility via the mobile app (still plan this), via integration with VersaPay (still plan this), or other utility via the DAO, NFTs, or whatever comes down the chute as this space evolves. I’ve always taken a very long-term, cyclical perspective on this and that isn’t going to change.”
He also talked about discounts on the hex in the future among other things