Proposal to revise VeBetter tokenomics & governance structure

General
1

I asked my new AI Agent ATHENA to revise the tokenomics and governance structure of the VeBetter Platform to make it more sustainable and to support the B3TR price going forwards. Here’s what it came up with, your thoughts?

1 Like
2

I like some of the ideas in this proposal, particularly the concept of tiered dApps that would contribute a percentage of their revenue to the treasury based on their tier.

That said, the proposal covers a lot of different topics in one pdf file. It might be easier for the community to review, discuss, and ultimately support if it were split into several phases or separate proposals. This would allow each component to be evaluated on its own merits and make feedback more focused.

One possible approach would be:

  1. First, break the proposal into distinct sections/topics and post them individually in the forum (not as pdf but as text - you can attach the pdf with it for example) so people can comment on specific parts more easily.
  2. Afterwards, share those discussions in the VeBetter DAO Discord community (VeBetter DAO Community HUB) to gather broader feedback and encourage participation from members who are more active there.
2 Likes
3

Thanks for the suggestions Monkey!

1 Like
4

Just some things that need to be considered with this.

  • Who would develop it? VeChain certainly wont.
  • Significant changes like this will require MiCA compliance updates and legal review.
  • Would these changes risk us being catergorised as a CASP? Which would require mandatory KYC/AML etc.
  • A security audit would need to be arranged.
1 Like
5

All valid points, thanks. I also assumed that VeChain would have neither the inclination nor dev budget to tackle proposed changes on this scale, which is a shame as the current VeBetter platform is simply not sustainable. At this stage I am not formally putting this proposal to a vote but I think it is important that we raise concerns and propose potential solutions, hence my post.

6

I stopped reading after first AI hallucinations in the 2nd page. I’m sure ai can come up with different complex solutions that might sound good on paper, but lack of human touch makes it not grounded in reality.

image
image623×113 4.14 KB

I agree with the above from the Community Execution Framework.

1 Like
7

Fair point Morb but I can’t see anything other than a complete overhaul of the fundamentals solving the issues this platform faces. Tweaks here & there (however grounded in reality they are) will not change the current unsustainable trajectory.

1 Like
8

I’d look at Reheat`s proposal adding endorsement points to GM NFTs as a good example:

  • Empiric research;
  • Done by a human;
  • Realistic development;
  • Development budget;
  • Clearly justifies the need for implementation (at that time);
  • Factually correct.

Getting some ideas from ai is fine, but it needs to be grounded in reality - how much it will cost, is there anyone willing to develop it, does the impact of the proposal justify the costs, data that backs up the need of such extreme overhaul.
The ai generated piece lost it’s credibility after hallucinating about gm nft staking. Such mechanisms do not exist.

I’d say give it another go - collect data that supports the claims in the proposal, make sure the information in your proposal is accurate, consult with developers to have a better understanding of the development complexity/costs. Then we can have a more productive discussion.

And I appreciate the initiative!

1 Like
9

Thanks for the constructive feedback Morb