Btw I would like to express being on board since 2017 all the way and active daily. I have seen what Vechain team has done and personally believe they value x node holder very much with recent changes as part of VebetterDAO and Renaissance. Thank you team ! Keep it up you are doing great!
1 Like
Yes a lot of here have been here since 2017. Myself included.
Long enough to see certain community members rug their own NFT projects and come back like nothing happened 
6 Likes
Any more thought on this @vineet-codes ?
1 Like
On second thought, itâs also worth noting that users opting for the VeDelegate route are willing to pay around a 10% fee and trust the tech infrastructure provided by VeDelegate.
At the end of the day, this is a DAO. If the community feels strongly about this matter, the proposal route is the best way forwardâjust as the Foundation has been leveraging proposals for various topics. The process exists for us to collectively shape the ecosystem. Happy to review any drafts.
Then itâs important to note they are only ok paying a 10% fee because they are still receiving higher rewards while paying the fee due to:
- the misuse of the GM NFT multiplier which is taking away from valid holders AND
- receiving weekly allocation rewards and taking them away from dApps rewarding for sustainable actions
This combination allows VeDelegate to take their fees and still reward higher at the expense of many others. Highly likely that if the system wasnât being exploited in this manner and users were paying the fee and receiving less rewards than voting directly on VeBetterDAO, they would not use it.
Regarding trusting the tech infrastructure, many users have no idea what the risks are, they just want higher rewards.
2 Likes
That is a trash answer. The only reason to answer like that is there must be a kickback. Vedelegate does nothing but reward everyone the highest rewards for paying a 10% fee. At the end of the day everyone will have to use vedelegate or they will be left behind with rewards.
Really disappointed that we have people that have the thought process as you do making decisions.
The foundation should ensure that a proposal is approved to prevent vedelegate or any other similar dapp from providing rewards for any GM NFT multipliers they donât have in their own wallet.
1 Like
@vineet-codes But why have this opinion about veDelegate (its a DAO and users can decide), yet make a Foundation decision to release all GM NFTs over a monthly cadence? I didnât get to have an opinion regarding that decision. What makes something worthy of a Foundation decision?
@favo has created a great product with veDelegate. It has even become synonymous with the VeBetterDAO to many users. A lot of users donât even know that these two things are different. Might as well call it VeDelegateDAO. 
The problem is not veDelegate. The problem is with how the GM NFTs were constructed without taking into consideration pooling on a massive scale. Itâs one thing for a friend to send me their B3TR for a boost in rewards manually. Itâs another to reward over 1000+ users in this way with code and smart contracts.
The Xnode GM NFT upgrades were considered a âgiftâ to reward their loyalty, but now it is a free gift for anyone, as long as they pay a 10% fee.
This ends with all users experiencing the DAO through veDelegate in order to maximize their rewards, quite a centralization of power on the DAO, and also potentially a point of attack that could be seen as a risk to the DAO itself.
I would love to hear more from @favo and see if he agrees with any of this and would agree that curbing the way GM NFTs work to reward a massive user base would be beneficial for the DAO as a whole, even at the short term expense of veDelegate.
Because as of now, there is no reason for a regular user to upgrade their GM NFT themselves.
Itâs one thing for a user to use veDelegate because it services the managing aspect of the DAO for them. But managing for the user AND providing the highest rewards possible? Thatâs too good of a deal for anyone to pass up.
4 Likes
the unlock schedule is part of our planned deliveries according to the whitepaper.
Any mechanics changes has to go through proposal route. Itâs a DAO.
So why would anyone upgrade their GM NFT?
If I can get it for a fraction by paying 10%. It would take a long time for that 10 % to equal the cost of upgrading
GM levels will be unlocked progressively, requiring time for users to first accumulate the requisite number of B3TR for upgrades.
I see that now. I had interpreted that line differently when I first read it. I thought it just meant you can only go up levels progressively (for example, you canât go from Level 1 to Level 5).
If this is truly a DAO and you want to use that as an excuse, then stop designing things without user input and then tasking regular users that arenât being paid by the foundation to spend their time and resources fixing design flaws centrally designed without their input. I donât see where any of us in the DAO had input into the design of the GM NFT system. You shouldnât get it both ways.
Itâs one thing that it needs to pass via proposal, itâs another for us to not all work together on discourse to come up with a best solution on a proposal to put forward. You obviously have the most insight into whatâs technically feasible.
That is not correct. this âissueâ being highlighted has arisen since vote passed on the proposal to move from quadratic reward to linear rewards.
But again, its a DAO. No one has to agree with me. I look forward to a successful proposal from community. Also, my offer to review thoughtful drafts remains open.
It seems as you are butthurt that the community voted to go away from quadratic rewards. A system that didnât work either
Letâs keep it cordial, Tommy. 
1 Like
Which is a secondary effect from once again centrally choosing to implement quadratic rewards without input from users of the DAO. And in all fairness it shouldnât really matter, the reality is that the system you designed is now broken (doesnât really matter why) and will not operate as intended in the whitepaper and it would be better off not existing at all than creating a mafia where everyone uses 1 pool in VeDelegate and takes on additional risk and is forced to pay a 10% cut or get severely less rewards. Itâs disheartening to see the foundation not actively work towards fixing flaws, encourage users to come to discourse to collaborate on solutions and then not help out and put the onus on regular users, and allow devs to game the system for personal gain at the expense of users and other dApps.
5 Likes
From a technical perspective, would there be a way to restrict the GM tier of a delegation account wallet? Say, only Mercury level?
Also an idea to include in the proposal:
Tiered Max Allocation levels for supporting dApps
Reduce the max allocation allowed for dApps that do not have a sustainability focus.
Categorize dApps on the DAO in two distinct categories: Sustainable or Supporting.
- Sustainability X-2-Earn applications max allocation will be 20%.
- Supporting applications max allocation will be 10%.
This would reduce the total allocation for supporting services while allowing apps that have a sustainability focus to theoretically procure more B3TR allocation from voters.
I think itâs fine for dApps like veDelegate and BetterSwap to exist on the DAO as supporting services, but not when they can max allocate to the level of sustainability dApps who reward users through more sustainable actions.
All dApps receive the baseline 30%. This just affects the extra 70% up for grabs from voting %s.
5 Likes
Sorry I just discovered this, and have not been able to complain on here yet. What on earth has been going on? Every single thing has been backwards since the foundation moved to Europe.
The whitepaper for the DAO mentions that X-Nodes will benefit from the beginning. But the problem is, itâs NOT a shock at all that it didnât happen. The trust and transparency has been disgusting the past 2 years.
The 3.0 Whitepaper coauthored by the BCG!!! (the only thing BCG has done, but thatâs for another day) has many things scheduled for 2023-2024, but instead, joined the BYD, Haier, Mongolia, etc club.
For many years I trusted everything blindly. Unfortunately, thatâs not the case anymore and Iâm sure you all have noticed the same thing. Iâd enjoy for Vechain to be great again
Itâs funny veDelegate doesnât try to hide the fact they are doing it. Itâs actually their selling point so it is advertised. It seems vechain supports it, they have reposted veDelegateâs posts on X.
VeDelegate isnt passport voting delegation its âpoolingâ ⌠it just happens to be the only service at the moment offering it. Concerns about pooling overall:
- on chain traceability is lost
- voter eligibility is not checked from the source account
some changes to the VBD voting contract could possibly limit the impacts of pooling services i beleive
1 Like
Yes! There are direct impact apps, indirect impact apps and ecosystem support apps - different allocation tiers could exist. Direct impact apps should have the higher allocation opportunity - they are the drivers of sustainability
1 Like