Call to Prayer #26

Call to Prayer #26 occurred on Sunday, September 25th, 2022, at 6:00 pm EST.

For a tl;dr, you can check out this Twitter thread.  Subscribe to the new Codex newsletter to never miss a CTP summary!

CTP26 Summary

Community Q&A

As many of you have seen we've been collecting questions from the community over the last few months, and we've answered as many of them as we can in during the recent CTPs. Going forward we will be collecting those questions from Discord, answering as many of them as we can, and publish those answers in a Codex article. This will save a bit more time during the CTPs for discussing really important topics like our roadmap, upcoming products and governance.

Ascend Update

Our goal when we launched Ascend was to provide sufficient liquidity depth and a fair price so that large holders could use the festival to exit their positions if they don’t believe in the future of the protocol. As we’ve discussed before, it’s been really difficult to strike the right balance between the different paradigms of those who want to exit versus those who want to stay.

It has been nice to see the price steadily rise and this has definitely solidified Temple’s performance in this bear market, even though we know there are always going to be people who would like to see it rise even higher (so would we).

After Ascend is over we want to maintain the soft floor level up close to the average price during Ascend, to ensure the protection of value for those who chose to stay. We can’t let the price drop back down to $0.70 because that would be unfair the those who didn’t sell. The soft floor will not have the liquidity of the LBP nor will the price peak as high.

If you’re looking to exit in volume, Ascend is going to be your best bet. If you’re happy to stick around for a while there will be other LBPs, but not for some time, and they will be smaller.

Striking a balance between paradigms

We are mindful that we still need to strike a balance between the original mechanics and those seeking to exit at higher prices with new mechanics. The LBP design was created to allow the maximum input of the community/market as to the fair price. The outcome of this leads to our soft floor level, which, in order to be supported long-term, requires burning of a significant portion of DAO/Treasury owned Temple Tokens.

To maximize fairness, we wanted to maximize market participation in the price-setting. In order for this to happen we needed to keep some of our comms non-specific. Apologies if this made it a bit confusing or frustrating for some. It was a design choice to not know the specific answers so we could let the market have input on it. If we arbitrarily set the price ourselves for Ascend or the soft floor, or we perfectly described the rails of the game, the strategy would become obvious and easy to front-run. This would have ended up being either more unfair, more unsustainable, or both.

Will the Majority of the liquidity be on Balancer?

The majority of the liquidity will be where it’s most profitable to put it. We thought we had a great Balancer Flywheel strategy, to generate some bribing, grow some TVL, create a great LP game. Although we really like the Balancer Protocol, we were a little surprised about their proposal to cap the emissions that certain protocols can receive, it seems very arbitrary.

They included Temple as one of the protocols which are limited by the emissions cap because they used an incorrectly low market cap value for Temple that they took from Coingecko. So far they haven’t been willing to follow their own rules and rectify this mistake, we may need to do a little bit of lobbying in this area to get the cap removed.

Can we have a rough estimation of the remaining budget for Ascend or the number of LBPs that can still be supported?

That’s a fair question but the honest answer is that as per above it doesn’t make sense to answer that specifically just yet. We are coming towards the final stages of the Ascend Festival but we haven’t finalized exact values for all of those numbers.

How about some guidance on how many DAO tokens will be burned?

The sustainable soft floor level is set by the amount of DAO tokens burned to keep the price there. The soft floor price represents the level that the protocol can buy at indefinitely. The exact level which will represent the best outcome definitely needs to be clarified and we will be releasing a medium article soon about this subject.

The soft floor is a middle ground between IV and RFV, it will include the tokens in the DAO pool in its calculation, of which we are going to burn some while maintaining enough of a runway to allow us to continue to build and innovate.

Will the soft floor level influence your decision to pay team members in FRAX vs TEMPLE?

This comment made a few c2p’s ago was a great suggestion but its possible that now the price has risen up to the soft floor level, the benefit of paying in FRAX is no longer there. We will continue to monitor and willing to take suggestions from the community.


On the STAX side there is a big integration coming soon, but it’s still a bit too early to announce it yet. We are very excited about it though.

Another discussion that will be had will be what the timing should be around the launching of our next pool, and also what actions we should take concerning the FXS pool, if any.

The team has a ton of ideas for more enhanced staking options for this product all related to the core concept of STAX, which is building out integrations that improve the staking options for users.

At some point the priority will be launching a STAX token and getting our own ecosystem up and running. The decision was made not to launch the token quite yet because we feel that the market conditions are too bearish. The price of FXS tanking was also a factor, as it removes some of the excitement out of staking that token in our protocol.


The main focus of the CORE team was the technical side of getting Ascend up and running. This was a lot of work and a few team members took some time off after it was done.

We’re now discussing options for what is our next step, and one pretty obvious choice would be implementing longer term Vaults, which some in the community have been asking for. This would mean that people could be locked in our vaults for a longer time, and perhaps gain a higher share of the revenue for doing so.

Another big fork in the road which we are taking a look at, is which way we can go with the strategies on offer in the Temple Core vaults:

  1. Offer minimal options for vaults for users to stake their TEMPLE. Basically a synthesis of the best investment strategies that our Treasury chamber can come up with. Possibly with a few different duration options for staking.
  2. Offer many vault options and let the users do their own research and decide. This could offer users some more degen options like investing in Berachain or other protocols. This way we could offer some specific exposure to areas that the Temple team thinks are interesting, but perhaps too risky to move a large portion of our treasury to. We wouldn’t want to bog users down with too many vaults to choose from, just a few options that may better suit their personal preference.
  3. A user-owned vault method. This would allow users to set up their own vaults and would be more in the spirit of full decentralization.

The underlying mechanics behind the vaults is really solid so we have a lot of options available to us and can play with different ideas.

Token minting

Randy does have the ability to mint TEMPLE tokens when the price goes above the soft floor, but this would obviously drive down the price while raising the soft floor level higher. So then the question becomes, is the goal to try and get the price to trade above book value, or is it to drive demand into the protocol and capture value for users that way?

In the past we obviously had a hard floor which was tested time and again, but now we’re dealing with a soft floor so the price may dip below that level at times. Then our bot Randy will come in and buy at random times to support that soft floor price, and occasionally we will do LBPs as well. A bit of price volatility will also help bring revenue into the DAO, which will also help us to grow the soft floor level even faster.

We would all like the price to go up indefinitely, but this is supposed to be a low-risk token, it’s not meant to pump and dump. What we learned from our original mechanics is that it’s hard to keep any token like Temple above a certain level, is you need a mechanic to do that for you. If the price simply pumps to a high level, it can just as easily dump down below that level when the market inevitably turns.

We want to concentrate on how to find a way to sustainably grow over time. By driving volatility into profits that increase the soft floor level, we have very sustainable price growth. CORE yield, as well as STAX and our other products, will certainly help us do that.

Governance and the DAO game

We have set up a new home for governance in the Temple with our new DAO game dapp. It includes all the chambers and team members displayed in live dynamic tables and takes data directly from Discord, which is where most of our work is conducted. The whole idea of this is to build a sustainable platform for organizational growth and provide more transparency to everyone else.

The intention of what is being built here is to spread more of the decisions making out to members of the community in a bottom-up approach. Some of the major decision areas that the DAO game governance will cover include:

  • Prioritization & approval on work
  • Funding of projects & individual compensation
  • Policy decisions

The first two are difficult to decentralize. The traditional best practices in the corporate would be to inherently centralize these processes, but that would not fit with our vision for what the Temple is, so we needed to come up with a new process. Another simpler option that other DAOs have tried would be to just do snapshot voting for these issues, but we believe this is no way to run an organization and has led to terrible outcomes for other DAOs.

Q: What are the downsides of the DAO games?

We’ll find out! This is an experiment and is only just starting. We must watch for too much bureaucracy and friction, as well as too little structure and focus. We must guide the system towards the right balance between the two.

Q: What are the differences between project oriented organization model and DAO games?

DAO Games is a DAO friendly and discord native implementation of a project oriented organisation. We hope this brings the focus and speed of a well designed organisation, only living within discord and with ultimately bottom up control.

Q: Will STAX be spun off or be part of the DAO games?

STAX will be part of Temple’s DAO games for now, but when STAX gets its own token, there'll be a decision if STAX should split out into its own discord and should it run it’s own DAO games.

Q: How do discord roles like like Acolytes, Disciples and such fit in the DAO games?

At the moment it’s a team voting process that rises people up from the community. In the final step as described earlier we will have a decentralized version of how that process occurs. There'll be minimum ranks required for certain things. At the moment, the proposal is something like to be a lower chamber MC, you need to be a disciple and above. To be an upper chamber MC, you need to be an Initiate and above. And to be a sponsor you need to be a Master.

Q: There are things here that may seem fun and nice for people who are getting paid and have little to no token exposure, how can holders have a say if they don't want to be spending certain places?

At the moment, the Funding Council determines the allocation. This is more decentralised than today but the process is not finished because its not bottom up how people get elected to this Council. For now, we believe transparency will add to the right kind of pressure on paid work delivering outcomes. But soon, you can compete for election to MC or Sponsorship and participate in Funding Councils directly.

Q: For epoch five, will we get a breakdown of how much of the epoch went to each chamber?

The problem is that the old system didn't work by chambers, It worked by enclaves. There isn't a chamber breakdown of funding right now. But that is what the DAO games are for, to break it down to that level.

Q: Does the funding allocated to the chambers capture everything?

Everything except for Master payments. Masters are meant to look across multiple chambers, provide sponsorship roles and direction on strategy. It doesn't make sense to make a chamber for that.

We came up with the idea of basing master payments on key performance metrics so that there is accountability for the Masters. Aside from that every other payment is through the DAO games.

Q: What are the activity scores?

I'll explain my intent behind it. I believe that transparency drives good outcomes. We don't want to create a culture where people are trying to just spam in Discord to look active. It's hard to check everything in Discord, you can’t read all the discussions that are going on across all of the Chambers. So how are you meant to do you know who's active where?

Our idea was to create a metric that represents some level of activity (not just via volume of activity) but similar to the mechanics used to whitelist people during the fire ritual days - the formula is meant to capture both quantity and quality of the engagements. Points get added up from things like length of posts, and if it was replied to, or if emojis reacted to it.

The idea is that it's not something that directly ties to compensation or rank or anything, it's just another metric that is transparently reported. MCs can look at it and if we get it right, it should help them make good decisions.

It’s a very imperfect metric for now and we will see where the experiment of reporting on it goes.