Call to Prayer #21 occurred on Sunday July 10, 2022, at 6:00 pm EST. Click here for the Chinese Translation.
For a tl;dr, you can check out this Twitter thread.
There are 3 main areas that the Temple has been focusing our efforts on recently
This is on hold until we can find a partnership to replace the one that fell through with FEI. This took a back seat while we worked on the release of CORE vaults and STAX.
We had a great partnership lined up with FEI but that fell through when they experienced their difficulties and is currently on hold. FRAX Lend isn’t ready for us yet either. Other partnerships have been explored as well but they have not come to fruition yet.
Coming soon will be STAX 1.0, along with a $STAX token and new partnerships to look forward to. We’ll also be releasing other TEMPLE/stablecoin pairs on various platforms and gauges that allow bribing and providing boosted yield.
Partnering with stablecoin protocols makes a lot of sense for us but also for them. Temple is a place that they can get really attractive yield while boosting the liquidity of their tokens for relatively low risk. This will all contribute to the Temple flywheel and bring value back to TEMPLE holders.
DAO Games Next Phase
A new structure was implemented which allows you to see in each chamber, who the leaders are and what bounty (payment) is set aside for the work to be done. It will be transparent and anyone from the community can participate. This will also be used as a mechanism for promotion and setting individuals up to have more decision making power.
I take the view of a regular company structure where being a shareholder does not give you the right to make management decisions. The people have to have the most say should be those that are most active in driving outcomes for the good of the whole community. And our community should in turn have a say as to who these people are.
And although our organization is working now, I am not satisfied and want to push this further, allowing healthy competition with promotions as well as demotions. In short get the right people to form the right teams to make the right decisions. This is a major challenge in DeFi right now and we are really pushing to do things differently. the vision from the very beginning is to set aside funds for the payment of people who deserve it when they rise through the ranks. They are not told how much they will be paid until after they have contributed and performance evaluated. And we have just released the next evolution of these payment mechanics
Q: When will longer duration vaults be released?
Releasing longer vaults is actually very simple to do since we have the architecture ready. But we just wanted see the product work to feel that everything was solid and running smoothly. The more interesting decision is on whether to have multiple vaults with different risk levels.
We are still going back and forth on this. Right now the strategy is to have all vaults use the same strategy but simply increase the reward bonus for the longer duration vaults. We think we can combine many unique strategies using DAO level leverage and run it all in a very low risk way while still getting the highest rewards possible.
Q: We are now one month into the “three month” period for deciding if “success parameters “ have been met. How close is the team to feeling that they are meeting such “targets” after 30% of the allocated time?
My view is (and this is just my view), when I brought this up in our #general channel I said we would get to the end of 3 cycles and we look at success together as a community. I understand people are looking for some clarity and certainty, and want to know if the 3 vault cycle time frame is a real marker or not. We’ve been pretty clear that our goal is to increase the value of TEMPLE holders’ stacks and we are going to give ourselves at least 3 months to accomplish that. If we feel in the future that we can no longer do that and buybacks are ultimately the answer then that is what we will do, but right now I don’t have any more specifics to give.
Also having the same question asked every day in our discord doesn’t give the impression that the person has a genuine sense of seeking an answer and it feels more like activism, which comes at the cost of community vibes. It is actually drowning out the voices of other Templars who want to start genuine community conversations which then hurts our ability to market our products.
This is not to say the underlying question isn’t important, but stimulating arguments every day when the point is already made seems to me to be counter-productive.
Editor’s note: A lot of this is paraphrasing decen’s words for the sake of summarizing. You may listen to the CTP recording yourself (timestamp 42:55 to 52:56) for full context.
Q: Can we have borrowing facility against TEMPLE through another protocol like FEI or Inverse?
As mentioned in the road map update it does not feel like the highest priority of resource usage right now. There are a bunch of pending partnerships right now that are on hold (due to the situation of the market).
Q: Bob mentioned a slowly rising IV / buyback instead of staying at 65c. Can we learn more details about this and how soon it’ll be implemented.
This is kind of an example of the lobbying (activism) speech that I noticed. I don’t think Bob has the ability or the intention of saying that is definitely something that will be happening. But let’s discuss.
There is a mechanism which the team really do not want to reveal details on. But I will say that we have an innovative approach to the buying of TEMPLE instead of just minting new tokens. You will learn more details of this soon and definitely before the end of the three-month cycle.
Q: Can we have a budget of team planned expenses. Is temple planning on using the entirety of the team pool? When will temple start reducing staff and managing costs? Temple has already built infrastructure of vaults, yet expenses are still so high.
The next phase of the DAO games will basically provide a completely transparent budget. It will be like a front end which shows all the different chambers and different work areas and the bounties associated. We may end up paying some developers with particularly high value a fixed base salary which would provide them more stability to contribute full time in the Temple. I think we have gone farther than any other DAO in terms of trying to be transparent with our budget and pushing systems that allow for innovation and growth.
In terms of utilizing team pool we don’t have plans specific plans for how to spend it. That fund is there because of our mechanics for harvesting excess value when the price of TEMPLE is high as we discussed from the very first medium article.
In terms of reducing staff, we do that all the time. We have demoted people who weren’t active anymore, and we’ve had many discussions on streamlining our DAO expenses. It’s an ongoing process. If there is nothing left to build or it doesn’t make sense economically to keep people then reducing the team more and more is what we should do, but we are not at that point yet.
If your question is about if we should spend the money on investing on Temple’s future vs distributing the treasury, you know my view on that. We want to build and provide value to long term holders. As I said before, the method of discussing this is not productive, but the underlying question is valid and should be evaluated against.
Q: Could we get clarity on mechanism that will be adopted to deliver holder value i.e. increasing defend gradually, Paying out part of RFV or full RFV etc and definite timelines here after the 3 month window of when such a process could commence
I think I answered this a few months ago but will say again. It makes no sense to give out RFV as it amounts to shutting down the whole protocol before we even get a chance to release all our products and see how things go. After 3 months we will evaluate the success as a community and decide where to go from there. I think some people have taken that and twisted it to something more extreme saying that “at the end of 3 months you promised to do a full liquidation”.
Gradually increasing Temple defend, and paying RFV is all ultimately kind of the same. It all amounts to a weakened protocol. For example we saw ROME try to go for a partial RFV distrobution while they are in the middle of development phase. Ultimately it led to the death of the protocol. So while we need to take this kind of behavior and lobbying seriously, in the end it is very difficult to built things but easy to destroy them.
Q; Historically I’ve always found Decen to have good takes and seems to have good answers on the CTPs. The general chat has turned to a mess so I’m curious if the Temple leadership reads it. If so could you chime in maybe once per day yourself with clear answers for people?
We’ve tried to give clear answers wherever possible. Sometimes people will only accept what they want to hear. There is a difference between people that come into discord to create a genuine conversation and those that are lobbying for a position. Those who lobby just ask the same questions every day hoping that they will get the answer that they want. But we're trying our best to take feedback and suggestions on how the team can moderate and improve the vibes.
We know that we need to do more to lift people’s spirits especially when the wider market conditions are tough like they are right now. We think that everyone at the end of the day wants to do the right thing and wants what’s good for the community. We’re going to work towards our objective even harder going forward.
Q: Is there a contingency plan in place in the event of Frax de-pegging?
We made the decision to go with FRAX because we believe in what they’re doing. They’ve held up really well compared to a lot of the other. We do explore a lot of options though, especially for earning yield. So far FRAX has been good for us versus the wider market of stables that have decent yield. We also can act fast in the case of emergencies as we have proven in the past.
Q: Would the team please start to pay for team expenses in FRAX rather than Temple so as to better reward long term holders? $1 worth of Temple from the treasury at current market prices costs long term holders more than $1 worth of FRAX from the treasury
Interesting question that we can explore. It’s analogous to most startups that would pay equity to their team members. We originally structured the treasury to have pre-minted tokens to be used for DAO expenses like team payments. So in order to switch to making those payments in FRAX we would have to significantly restructure that side of things which would carry its own cost. This may be Safe harvest let tokens go for Dao tokens but we can discuss this in the future. The team is willing to explore this idea more and if anyone has a specific proposal of how it could be done please feel free to share that in the enclave of Logic.
Q: Can we get clarity on how Temple is looking to use STAX on a longer time frame? To my knowledge Temple was not planning to put a large portion of liquidity into STAX locked LP (instead we are defending peg), so we wouldn’t be earning STAX on the majority of our LP position which seems to put us in a bad spot. Assuming STAX is governance token it seems like something we would want to accumulate to push FXS emissions towards our LP.
We will try to have some liquidity to defend peg. There are many ways to increase our yield in this flywheel machine. In the worst case, if the peg doesn't hold, we can buy below peg which is then effectively free yield for the protocol.
Q: You’ve said that the revenue share to the vaults comes from liquidating different farmed tokens into TEMPLE. Where are those transactions for the first vault? Which wallet should we be following to ensure that this is happening?
We are buying it from the market. But we cannot reveal those details because we want to do everything we can to prevent people from front running us and diluting the value that is going into Templars’ hands.