To protect the long-term value of the B3TR token by discouraging early sales from dApps, encouraging holding, and aligning dApp incentives with the ecosystem’s sustainability.
Identified Problem
Some dApps sell the B3TR they receive weekly immediately after receiving it, to cover operational costs or take quick profits. This behavior:
creates constant selling pressure;
devalues the token price;
undermines DAO trust and purpose;
cancels the impact of community voting.
Proposed Solution
Introduce a smart penalty system:
If a dApp sells any B3TR before 6 months (26 weeks) from the distribution date, it must pay a 20% fee on the amount sold.
The fee goes directly to the DAO Treasury.
If the dApp holds the B3TR for at least 6 months, no fee applies.
Each weekly batch of distributed B3TR is tracked independently for enforcement.
Expected Benefits
Prevent short-term dumping;
Encourage responsible, long-term treasury strategies by dApps;
Stabilize B3TR token price and perception;
Generate additional DAO treasury revenue for reinvestment and rewards.
Technical Implementation
Tracking can be done on-chain (smart contract with timelock logic) or off-chain (verified wallets and manual audit at first).
Each B3TR batch received weekly is logged and matched against transactions to ensure compliance with the 6-month rule.
Penalties and Monitoring
dApps who sell B3TR early without paying the 20% fee will be suspended from the DAO voting rewards program.
After two violations, permanent exclusion is possible.
Selling is defined as any B3TR transfer to external wallets or token swaps before the holding period ends.
Wallet Transparency Requirement
Wallet Transparency Requirement
To further improve transparency and community oversight, each dApp must publicly declare all wallets used to receive, hold, or transfer B3TR. This list must be visible in the dApp and updated weekly. This allows the community and the DAO to monitor B3TR movements and verify compliance with the anti-dump mechanism.
Conclusion
This policy creates a fair disincentive for premature liquidation, strengthens long-term commitment, and supports the value of B3TR while enhancing DAO integrity.
Hello Giampaolo! Thank you for putting so much effort in thinking about how to improve VBD.
Personally I find this option a bit too harsh for dapps.
Also, what would happen after six months?
Pheraps you could think about a reward for those that tent to hold instead a fee for those that need to sells.
This is just my personal opinion.
Hi Gianni, congratulations on the proposal, it’s always nice to see active users who use their time to improve our ecosystem! I believe that this proposal can actually reduce the sales pressure of B3tr in the short term, it certainly increases the transparency of Dapps, which up to now have not been very transparent, and it reintroduces value into the ecosystem! I believe that instead of relying on the declaration of the dapps, we could opt for a system where vebetterdao holds the funds and releases them only after 6 months, applying the commission if the dapp were to request them before! This would avoid a series of control activities that waste precious energy, and cancel any fraudulent actions! this is of course just my thought!
Can you point to specific examples of dApps that are actually dumping their allocations?
From what I’ve seen so far, that’s just not happening. Most dApps are using a portion of their allocation to cover operational costs, things like servers, development, and community engagement.
That’s not dumping; that’s building.
Introducing a 20% penalty on early sales would do more harm than good. It punishes projects that are actively trying to grow and deliver value.
The reality is: costs are real. If I have server, devs, marketeers, content writer bills to pay, those aren’t going to magically shrink because there’s a new tax. What actually happens is that I’ll need to use a bigger chunk of my allocation just to keep the lights on. That leaves less for rewarding users and growing the project, which ultimately slows down the whole ecosystem.
It feels like this proposal comes from the assumption that dApps selling B3TR is inherently bad or value-draining. I disagree. That liquidity is what enables us to build and scale. Without it, we’re stuck. If dApps can’t function sustainably, then the DAO isn’t going to thrive.
We should be encouraging responsible growth, not create extra barriers for the people trying to deliver real value to the DAO.
Personally, I’m not fully convinced by this proposal.
In my opinion, it would have made more sense if the fixed 30% base allocation per dApp per round had remained in place. In that scenario, an anti-dump mechanism could have helped prevent the automatic distribution of funds to low-quality projects.
However, with the approval of proposal 7971…53221, which shifted allocations to 100% based on the votes received, the system has already started to self-regulate. dApps that don’t deliver real value and lack community support now receive very little. This voting-based mechanism already reduces the short-term selling pressure from underperforming projects.
For this reason, adding more strict limitations, such as a 20% penalty on early sales, might actually discourage genuine builders who need liquidity to keep developing and growing their projects.
In my view, the real question we should be asking is: why should a dApp or a user choose to hold B3TR instead of selling it?
Until we provide a clear and compelling answer to that question, whether through holding incentives, real utility, or sustainable reward mechanisms, any restriction is likely to be seen as a barrier rather than a solution.
That said, even though I don’t fully support the proposal in its current form, I think @Pio made an excellent point. The idea of an automated system that locks B3TR for six months, with an optional penalty for early release, is more balanced, transparent, and harder to manipulate. If this path is to be explored further, I believe it would be the best foundation to build on.