Call to Prayer #25 occurred on Sunday, September 11th, 2022, at 6:00 pm EST.
Call to Prayer 25
Q: When do we burn the TEMPLE bought from previous LBPs? Can we do it after each one?
Any TEMPLE purchased that is related to yield will be provided to the vaults and not burned. Any TEMPLE acquired by the LBPs that is not related to vault yield will be burned, either now or later, it doesn't make any difference in the tokenomics.
Also the amount of TEMPLE that we need to burn from the DAO pool will be decided by the final soft floor price and the amount of TEMPLE in circulation. Once we get through the Ascension LBPs, the team will have decided on the soft floor level.
The new metric, “Soft Floor Level” (until we come up with a better name) will be the total treasury amount divided by all circulating supply, including the TEMPLE in the LP, TEMPLE in the vaults, TEMPLE in all wallets, and TEMPLE in the DAO pool.
This is the new IV or BV. Both of those terms will fall away into this new middle ground compromise definition that's in between the two paradigms. So it makes sense to do all the burning at the end.
And what about bribes? Thin LP with high bribes mean we're capturing a tiny fraction of the bribe returns. If we go ham on the bribes, then a whole bunch of people pile into the LP, that helps the price but when the percentage of the LP that TempleDAO owns is so low say 20%, then every bribe for $1, we get 50c back. It becomes unsustainable and uneconomical. Members with opinions, please give us a bit of thought around what the right LP strategy should be.
Q: Originally the goal of our products was "RFV (at least) or more.” Have we given up on that?
We've absolutely not given up on that. Some people ask why are we not using LBPs to drive the price up to what some lobbyoors have been asking for. This is because we need to burn a stack of TEMPLE to push the price above 65 cents.
For example, if the price is to be 95% of the way towards your favorite number after starting at 65c, we need to burn 95% of the non circulating TEMPLE. This does not feel like a compromise between the two perspectives. If we don’t have any more DAO tokens left that means we can’t continue to build.
Q: If you haven't given up on "RFV (at least) or more" then why are you trying to redefine RFV to some "compromise" between iv/rfv?
We need a metric in which we can continue to buy sustainably below and mint sustainably above. It's not sustainable to do that at either IV or BV. Economically we can do it at IV, but it's not sustainable at a community level. And BV is a number that makes some people happy but distributing at that level would kill the protocol.
Q: We should buy out the RFVooors properly and make sure it is fully cleared this time.
I mean, there is an interesting game theory around this right? If we say “here's the peak price where everyone can exit at” then the dominant strategy is for everyone to leave. Even the ones that want to stay will sell and just buy back later at a lower price. This is not a good dynamic to create. This is all about bringing balance to the system.
Q: Can we get clarity on Bob’s comment earlier about vesting temple? I was under the impression that the core team bonded before fire ritual and the DAO owned TEMPLE was for the DAO as needed (salaries and whatever)
You are right, there is no vesting schedule and there was no TEMPLE given up front to the founders or core team. We just had these DAO tokens that we set aside to be paid over time for work people have done.
But now in this deep compromise we are making, a lot of these DAO tokens and value that was intended for the team will be burned in the fires of Ascension. So hopefully the next time when you’re rattling your cage, just reflect on this a little bit.
Q: DAO tokens are currently non circulating TEMPLE that will come into circulation and therefore dilute BV?
To be clear, there will be DAO tokens coming into circulating supply in the future that will dilute book value, yes. So the compromise that we have been talking about is where a whole stack of DAO tokens will be burned and now will never enter circulation. And on the RFVoor side, the compromise is that they're not getting full book value that they would if we just killed the protocol.
Q: Are there plans to remove the verification process? I think for newcomers it’s quite a barrier to join
Stuff like the verification process were really what drove all the newcomers to Temple. This is being debated in the team as well. How simple should we make some things? How much should we continue to allow community development of puzzles and games and push that kind of creative culture that was so much a part of TEMPLE originally.
But right now we've had this issue of lobbying for book value which has created an environment that is very difficult for creative ideas to flourish. So if we can get over this, we can get back to some creative stuff.
My two cents is that we could probably make it easy to get a taste. We don't want to make it a hard barrier with impossible puzzles.
Q: If the LBP ended right now would you run another one which is the same size or bigger?
That would depend on the council we’ve set up internally to make decisions pertaining to the parameters of the LBP.
On the governance side, we are getting close to launching the DAO game. Where we’re at now is we have a dope front end built, plus a Discord-based back end. Lots of people have been putting a ton of time into this, DocPeppercorn has been working hard on it, also Nico, Zodiac, Cryptoknight, Lux, Gman and others.
This will show the upper chambers of the Temple (the discord channels where we organize our workflow) as well as the MCs (managers) and the Sponsors (overseers) of each chamber. We’ll hold a fortnightly meeting where tokens from the DAO pool will be used to create a budget and all the MCs and Sponsors will vote on what percentage of it goes to each chamber.
We’ve also set up a set of discord commands which can allow us to automate this process somewhat. All of this will be transparent and the community will be able to see exactly how it all works.
We're also laying the rails within that to eventually implement bottom-up representation. It seems that the natural tendency of decentralized DAOs is to unravel slowly over time, so a solid governance structure needs to be put in place.
Vitalik even weighed in on this topic in his post about DeFi governance. He believes that DeFi needs to move past the basic token-oriented voting model, and most people agree with him that a replacement for that system needs to be found.
We think we can do this in a very decentralized way using the DAO game that will really be a first in DeFi. We'll be releasing a ton of info this week about this so stay tuned for that