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.
Interesting point of view. I like the argument you are making.
Would enjoy hearing more about this quadratic method of voting. As it stands I just believe we can do much better.
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.
In the long run, we can do better. I’d appreciate it if others research some of the other methods and present their findings to the DAO. This deep dive should likely be its own thread.
Yea look forward to further deep diving on this and figuring out ways to improve!
I believe Adam answered most of these before.
Where can I find this? I’ve not seen anything that answered any of these questions. If there is something, I’d love to read it. I’m not the only one who has no real idea where BAM is headed.
Adam C answered these questions indirectly when he said token holders are not real investors, he has no legal obligation…and he does not enjoy working to timescales.
Seems like the tail is wagging the dog.
The easiest way to find older answers is to go to the TG and CTRL + F.
Surely you’re referring to the governance mechanisms that the DAO wishes to put in place, which are important to the longevity of the DAO.
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
Definitely not true and a comment that doesn’t help anyone.
This doesn’t answer any of my questions though
I also am waiting to see if a team member will give an official answer on topics outside of the DAO from the original post.
There’s a LOT of questions there, for now I’ll focus on the TL~DR:
Utility for $BAM:
- DAO Governance: We’ve obviously just started that. Migrating from PP to BAM created a malleable token that is a baseline for community governance and added utility.
- Staking: We are working on a proposal from a dev we’ve worked with before to have reviewed/voted on by the DAO
- VersaPay: reduced transaction fees for $BAM holders for Lootverse
- Liquidity Pools: Liquidity is good - but digital assets volume is the lowest in years and so may not be as effective right now.
- Integration with the mobile app - there’s a ton of opportunity in here, from reduced trading fees, access to additional features, whitelists, etc.
- Lootverse: James and I have run through a number of in-world hypotheticals
- Cross chain liquidity: I don’t know if BNB chain will ever be more than it is today, and I think it’s very important to get to ethereum and ideally other major chains
CMC Rejection: We’re not sure why, and I doubt it’s low volume as you can look at new listings and see even lower volume than ours. I’m speculating it’s because we need more clarity on our website, socials, etc. which is in progress with the re-branding. BTW - CMC (and BSCScan) - their customer service is deplorable (actually non-existent). I held Binance in much higher regard a year ago…I see them for what they are now.
Company purpose: This was posted in the Bamboo Assets Management thread but bears repeating:
Bamboo’s mission is to create trust and seamless accessibility for mainstream digital asset adoption. Bamboo’s innovative mobile-first digital assets platform is driven by a user-friendly interface with a socially engaging experience, and Bamboo’s Advisory Services partner with brands and organizations seeking support in onboarding into NFTs and the metaverse.
Thanks for the response Adam.
I noticed you’ve not mentioned the HEX - so is that no longer in the planning? Or have you not mentioned it due to it not being utility for BAM?
I’m also not sure that I would consider DAO governance as a utility of the token, but fair enough.
Also thanks for pointing out the mission statement from Bamboo Asset Management, I have seen it before, but (and no offence is meant by this) it doesn’t really say anything that clarifies things, as it’s typical business spiel without actually getting to any point (IMO), which I why I asked the question.
I do very much appreciate the response!
A hybrid exchange is still part of the business model. As to our mission statement - here’s how it ties in. To me, easy on-boarding for digital assets means the ability to use a mobile app to easily swap tokens without using slippage (spot trading) and instead having limit orders. This functionality really only exists in centralized exchanges right now.
A HEX to your point would be tied into $BAM utility - something along the lines of centralized exchange tokens where tiered holdings get you discounted trading fees (FTT comes to mind).
We understand both the functional and technical structure of the “how” - Keith drafted an infrastructure design and Karim a functional design. It’s not cheap (probably $2.5 - 3M all-in) but the hardware infrastructure would bring a lot of other benefits and I don’t see much out there in the market that competes. Not that it can’t change VERY quickly in Web3 (see DYDX’s recent move) - so we have to assess the technology market at the time.
Like anything, it comes down to capital, resources, and time. Most of that is focused right now on getting the app live.
Thanks for the reply, it’s good to know and to have a more realistic idea that it’s not something that’s just around the corner.