Lost Boy - Firstly, a lot of people commenting about being down bad. I'll address that. When we launched the OC it was a really positive time for treasury backed tokens. Example, OHM, TIME, Klima, ROME, etc. And since that time, there's been a 95% drawdown on many of these tokens on a price basis and a 75%-85% drawdown on market cap. Which sucks. Temple suffered a similar fate unfortunately, and we regret that happening. There's a lot of things that we could have done better and that's our responsibility.
Can we agree on a narrative and stick with it? Why the change of everything so often?
Lost Boy - We'd also like this. One challenge is that the treasury back token marketing, ie. temple, ohm, time, klima, etc, has been struggling recently, so the requirement to adjust has been basically required.
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - Temple will always honour and never change its core principles: stake & chill, be a token between stables & naked risky assets, focus on development of community & dao in innovative ways, focus on innovation in the way we manage volatility and return. This has always been at the heart, will never change. What you're seeing change are the exact mechanics we implement to do this. IMO, we should want this to change. Temple is innovating in total white space - and so we have greatest chance of success if we keep our principles clear and keep moving towards it trying new experiments piece by piece learning and growing the defi ecosystem.
Thought you guys promised stable price?
Lost Boy - Yes this was our plan, vision, ie. low volatility token mechanics. This is still the roadmap. Our original mechanics didn't work out once price went below 6x IV. When OC happened, OHM was trading at a multiple much higher than 6X (I don't remember the exact figured, but 50 to 100x IV or something). The concept was to defend a 6x IV, but because treasury tokens saw a 95% drawdown in some cases, it messed with our plans.
Are our APY gains on staked OG Temple being paused? If so, why and for how long?
Lost Boy - (APY gains is not paused) OG Temple will not change. But the TEMPLE / OGtemple index changes daily. Your OG Temple is your amount of claim you have on Temple.
When do we get our 1% top up?
Lost Boy - This is my mistake. I brought this up in the last mini AMA. This isn't happening. The base APY of 0.7% is the rate, so there will be no top up.
Do you really think the price issue with Temple is related to OHM going down? You don't see other factors at play here?
Lost Boy - I do feel it is a major factor, yes. There were other factors on our side, ie. mistakes we made at the AMM launch, etc. I see it as a combined thing.
We get a lot of communication that is basically saying communication is poor, but then we see very little follow-through on actually providing substantive communication. An example of this was a post by Lux that Faith/Devotion info was in the "next several days" but then radio silence from there. Can you provide actual substantiative communication on Faith/Devotion timing, as well as other promises items (roadmap, vision, tokenomics, etc)? When do we expect these?
Lost Boy - Yeah... engineering and product development is quite hard actually, so it often takes us time to really go back and forth and finish something. This is part of the issue. We spend a lot of time in product and discussion mode, building, and then comms come after.
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - Maybe our best comms is that our comms are poor. Devotion itself has been held up because we're working on our v2 Roadmap, and want to tie in Faith. I saw a question above how we're the only one without a released roadmap update. This is true. We've written a few internally but held off posting them because we decided they weren't substantial enough. I think we've seen that in the market. The other protocols have made announcements but fundamentally don't address the problem: the market has zero love for yield tokens right now. Unless you change that, you're going to stay slammed. And if you stay slammed, yield token economics don't hold up. So we will be one of the first with a serious change that repositions us in the market entirely.
Is it true that even Fire Ritalists are down?
Lost Boy - Early fire ritualists are probably not down. Everyone that entered the treasury backed token market around the OC period is down massively from what I've seen. Ohm, Time, Klima, Rome, Temple, @cryptoverse (∞)'s whole list on Twitter.
The market is down, we get it, but saying "well they're down too!" doesn't excuse anything. There needs to be a genuine focus on transparency and bringing at least some value back to holders ASAP.
Lost Boy - We're very active. We have like 70 people on the internal channels reviewing our roadmap draft, discussing, and working it out together. These are all community members that have shown interest in being part of the team basically. we just haven't published it yet as we wanna get it 100% finalized first.
Can you talk about borrowing?
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - Yeah once we get through this product shift, borrowing is coming next. Having a firm IV makes it possible to do non-liquidating loans, which is essential to avoid the cascading collapse of other protocols. Very keen on this.
You guys choose to listen to the community, and you guys choose to appoint those you believe are right for the job. That's all fine and dandy. But if nobody in the "DAO" has the power to influence policy via representation, and nobody in the "DAO" can choose who is appointed into the positions that can, then it's not democratic and it's not a DAO. ... IMO. Autistically speaking.
Lost Boy - We basically have internal votes happening daily amongst the 72 team members around seats and roles, people getting moved into seats all the time, people being removed, etc. it's pretty democratic imo.
I think what people are basically saying is…y’all need a roadmap with dates. Cant get more complicated that…..roadmap will let us know where project is headed and it will also test the core team in regards to productivity
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - I would LOVE to give hard deadlines. But we almost killed the team sticking to the AMM deadline in time for unlock season. Then, the fall out that followed launch literally put one team member in hospital for pushing so hard for days of no sleep and pressure. I'd prefer not to do that again to the team when there is so much uncertainty.
So governance does NOT happen through the temple token
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - From day 1 in CTP, we talked about this representative governance model.. so if that's why you bought into $TEMPLE hoping to be able to vote on proposals with a simplistic direct democracy model that rubber stamps what team approves and gets dominated by whales...... I'm sorry, this is the wrong house. Obv I am feel we are building something of value in a new way, breaking new ground, which we have done, and we will do again.
Temple defense requires that the temple defense wallet is funded, currently 20M is there, but there are no hardcoded mechanisms to move tokens from other wallets so that the temple defense wallet keeps being funded until there is no more treasury left. Right now we're depending on the good will of the multi sig owners for that to happen.
Lost Boy - If Temple defend kicks in, we'll move the funds into the defend wallet.
It doesn't make sense to keep 150M in there. Better to keep a good amount in there and farm with the rest.
RFV AND BUYBACKS
Can you clarify that the Treasury is for the community and you will use Treasury to support price toward RFV. If you bought back every temple today at current prices wouldn't you have like half the Treasury left over to do as you please? What ACTION are you taking to support price? The community will never be supportive or happy with price at these levels
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - Hey so this one. IMO buy backs don't work - look at time. We could buy everyone at current prices, yes, but I don't think anyone would be happy with that - prices are crazy low. If we buy back people above IV, we need to burn extra Temple tokens in addition to the Temple tokens surrendered by the person getting bought-back. This means we burn all the Temple tokens in the Treasury that can be used for runway, investment, and growth of the protocol. If we do that, its basically rewarding the people exiting while making the protocol weaker for those that want to stay around. The way some protocols are getting around this is to do tiny buy backs and hope that convinces people they're doing something. Again, look at Time, it doesn't work. The Olympus proposals are to limit buy-backs so it doesn't hurt protocol (too much) .. but it also means very few people benefit. And it doesn't really do much for price.. unless its large enough.. and if its large enough it kills off any chance of future growth (as it weakens protocol). Temple exists for long-term wealth. RFV is not wealth.. we want to deliver much more than this. But we do want to support the price higher. How? Shift to a sustainable model so people stop pricing us as a yield token and instead price us by the investment exposure we create. Be 100% sustainable so people don't worry about run-way and DAO partnerships can flourish for the long-term. ... more to say on this but this post is long enough.
Can you also explain then - what you mean by minimum sensible levels on price and how you hope to get there. This is super important.
Lost Boy - Right now we're trading at below RFV. We do a bunch of buy backs, RFV increases. What's to stop us still trading below RFV? What's to stop us trading at a level any different to now? IMO the market has proven they don't take RFV into account when pricing yield tokens - I don't know what pumping RFV will do to help people, other than increase a metric that the market doesn't value, and burn a tonne of Treasury Temple tokens that could be used to grow the protocol?
So if enough community members think that buybacks should be enacted, ya'll would "allow" that? or are only things that you believe are right up to discussion?
Lost Boy - lol this is not a dictatorship. All our decisions are made organically with the team, and the team are basically community members that keep showing up every day
Buybacks are equivalent to redeemability, also equivalent to a higher IV. Given that temple holders are in heavy losses, a buyback directly fixes that at the cost of the treasury?
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - IV is equivalent to redeemability, ser.
Buybacks at any level below RFV benefits holders!
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - I think you're missing one thing: It's not just the increase in RFV, its also the decrease of Temple tokens available (as more need to be burnt, otherwise IV lowers). I'm not sure most buyback supporters get this. But, if the buy back price is significantly below RFV, the benefit may outweigh the cost. If its at or anywhere near RFV, its definitely a net negative for holders, afaik.
TEMPLE has literally zero value..
- No Governance Voting
- No Claim to Treasury
- No Farming Rewards
- No Buybacks
The only value is the Defend mechanism that supports IV because it pegs the treasury to token value. Even though that holds peg above IV, without a claim to treasury at the end of the runway the token is completely worthless.
☀ decenmaxi ☀ - That's a disappointing take. There are a lot of protocols that have tried populist things and it has got them no where. We're trying our best to build something that creates long term value. I hope you stick around to see that, and if not, I hope we can find some kind of exit option for anyone that chooses to take it.
- Governance happens via representation and teams, if you want to be involved, join
- Claim to treasury happens via IV and guaranteed buy back at that price (what other protocol does that?)
- Farming rewards are literally happening
- We've been discussing buy backs for an hour and I'm open to it at a big discount from RFV so it helps holders So basically none of that message is true afaik.