Dropping the thread here to see everyone’s opinion or even the practicality of the idea.
From what I understand, ~1M ZNN are held by the bridge’s embedded contract. Is it possible and advantageous to delegate or stake them to earn network yield, thereby fueling AZ?
We’ve repeatedly discussed various strategies to sustain AZ. In my view, this proposal is far more appealing than the redirection of emissions or any other more drastic measures we’ve previously considered. To elaborate, holders of wZNN, who are not currently utilizing NoM, can at any time bridge their tokens back to ZNN and start earning yields independently. Essentially, we’re looking at redirecting the yield from idle wZNN to support AZ. Moreover, this strategy involves shifting rewards from passive participants (delegators) to active ones (AZ contributors).
In a future where multiple blockchains coexist, the supply of wZNN is expected to be ample enough to continuously support AZ, allowing users to maintain full control over their tokens by bridging back and forth as they wish, thereby claiming their share of network emissions.
I see this as a win-win, but I might be missing something really obvious. Discuss.
The best way to fuel AZ is Bitcoin merge mining. This would finally give AZ independent asset backing (BTC) and prevents to eternal tradeoff between diluting znn price vs funding projects.
Adding more znn to AZ is utterly pointless if there is no additional demand for znn that drives its price increase.
Filling AZ with BTC would immediately also increase the price of ZNN because the latter is now backed with a treasury that holds actual value independen of the zenon ecosystem
AZ is a part of the treasury. Whether or not you include BTC is beside the point. It wont matter if contributors are paid in ZNN or BTC in the long term
There is value to how the BTC was acquired, and how it’s held in custody and used. Otherwise, other projects could just mirror our approach by selling their tokens to acquire BTC and distribute it over a set of signers.
How else would it be used than to fund the growth of the ecosystem? Zenon chose the ethical path by not raising funds. In order to compete with token sale projects, it needs a war chest to support and fund ecosystem activities (which can go way beyond paying devs and marketers btw).
Just makes sense to use AZ as a blueprint for a DAO treasury that can fund anything the community wants, incl. acquiring real world assets, establishing network states etc.
You are right, AZ is an ecosystem fund. Let’s ignore the fact that ours is more ethical because it didn’t raise funds. Let’s even ignore how much better decentralized the set of signers will be.
We have a treasury, other projects have a treasury. My point is we are no better than them just because our treasury includes BTC because they can at any point convert part of their treasury to BTC. However, if the BTC is acquired by mining it, there is no trusted step before it reaches the treasury. If we now use the BTC to “pay” for ecosystem growth (devs, marketing, etc), we’ll be essentially wasting actionable, self-custodial, trustless BTC that can be used to interoperate with the base bitcoin layer (settle rollup states, closing channels, etc).
Ah I think I get it now. Thanks yeah you have a point. But ultimately that BTC can snd would eventually be used for various things the DAO wants to fund, no? E.g. Real estate, commodities, media outlets, political donations…
And it´s just a really small consideration, because even if we are able to hold “clean” btc in a wallet, anyone can go ahead and send bitcoin to the fund address, so it’s more about the principle behind how the bitcoin was acquired without any intermediaries.
I bet satoshi would be proud of our unreceived transaction feature coming up in 0.2.0
