Break the Token Burn decision into yearly votes

[SuperchainEco]

This proposal provides non-binary alternative to the 100M LSK DAO burn proposal—specifically, breaking the token burn decision into seven yearly votes rather than a single all-or-nothing vote.

This alternative decision logic aims to empower LiskDAO to make more informed, context-aware decisions regarding LSK burns while keeping control in the hands of vpLSK holders.

Lisk DAO Treasury Accounting and Projections
To support this conversation, Superchain Eco has developed a Lisk Treasury and Governance dashboard (view here) to get a clear understanding of the current and anticipated resources of Lisk DAO and the Lisk ecosystem.

Overview of L2 treasury and ecosystem strategies
Superchain Eco has also compiled insights on how other L2 networks structure their treasuries and ecosystem strategies to drive growth and gain market share. Later this year, the team aims to produce a more detailed report on this topic.

Key Takeaways for Consideration:

• Ecosystem growth is essential. Chains frequently design user- and developer-focused reward programs to incentivize activity and enhance user experience.

• User incentive programs drive growth. Programs such as airdrops (widely adopted by L2s to reward usage) and DeFi incentives (e.g., Arbitrum’s STIP and Optimism’s SuperStacks) have demonstrably increased usage and ecosystem value.

• Development grants are key for nurturing native builders. They delivered via direct support or impact-based mechanisms (such as Optimism’s RetroPGF), provided critical resources for builders. Incubators and accelerators then help those projects scale, launch tokens, and further expand their onchain presence.

• Every L2 needs (costly) infrastructure. While less costly than operating a standalone blockchain’s costs, L2 blockchains still face multimillion-dollar annual infrastructure costs to ensure a stable, user-friendly network. This includes expenses for block explorers, dev tools, oracles, and key protocols. Without such infrastructure, blockchains struggle to attract users and developers.

• Blockchains benefit from economies of scale. As ecosystems grow, the relative cost of infrastructure and security declines. Aggressive ecosystem growth is not just strategic—it’s essential for increasing Lisk’s long-term impact and value.

Why yearly votes instead of 1 big vote

Allowing Lisk governance to vote on a 100M LSK burn demonstrates a strong commitment to decentralization. However, such a major decision also introduces significant (and potentially divisive) pressure on the ecosystem. So far, most of the discussion has not focused on evaluating various ecosystem growth strategies, but instead on the logistics of the vote itself—along with some unproductive finger-pointing. Our experience and research suggest that for any blockchain network to thrive and grow in value, it must deliver a unique and compelling ecosystem for both users and builders. Without adequate resources, this simply isn’t possible.

At the same time, we acknowledge that the L2 space is still emerging, and LiskDAO has yet to prove itself as a consistent value generator for the Lisk ecosystem.

Considering all of this, we believe the most constructive path forward is to break the 100M LSK burn into seven annual proposals, each offering multiple burn amount options. This would allow Lisk stakeholders to periodically evaluate whether additional LSK should vest to LiskDAO to fund further ecosystem growth—based on current context, performance, and evolving needs.

Our concrete proposal for the Token Burn votes
We propose to create the following votes:

- December 1st, 2025 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2027 vest share (15M LSK)
- December 1st, 2026 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2028 vest share (15M LSK)
- December 1st, 2027 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2029 vest share (15M LSK)
- December 1st, 2028 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2030 vest share (15M LSK)
- December 1st, 2029 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2031 vest share (15M LSK)
- December 1st, 2030 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2032 vest share (15M LSK)
- December 1st, 2031 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2033 vest share (10M LSK)

Each vote would have the following structure:
Should LiskDAO burn the vested tokens for the year 20xx?
Option 1. Yes
Option 2. No
Option 3. Abstain

[Filmmaniak]

Your obligation is to burn 100M lisk tokens regardless of vote outcome and quorum reached or not reached. You increased max token supply from 150M to 400M. We discussed it with community and we already came to the conclusion that lisk 100M token burn vote must be done in 1st July 2025, we don’t accept any alternatives.

You suggested it, you announced it, you rescheduled it, now you have to do it don’t make excuses.

Don’t be greedy you don’t deserve any tokens DAO is well paid don’t scam us!

This is your proposal in hope to take part of 100M tokens… how dare you after all you did to lisk holders?

Lisk DAO don’t need ANY lisk tokens to operate, they have tons of lisk tokens already and tons to be unlocked. They made lisk token to be at all time low lsk/btc how dare you asking for more?

If you push this proposal I’m out and I will do everything I can to warn people that you are scammers.

I don’t accept changing this discussion into proposal by DAO team! You plan to push it regardless of community opinion, I know it already same as you did with rescheduling - entirely DAO team decissions.

Just to let everybody know - accepting this means that you agree that DAO will keep dilution of your tokens meaning that they will take your invested money instead of using their lisk tokens!

You will make x.com post about this soon, regardless of community will to burn 100M tokens.

@przemer already summed it up:

przemer

21d

The ~145M DAO Treasury LSK was forced on the community. No one had a say in this. This came at the expense of all holders prior to the L2 migration. For context, before the migration, the total LSK supply was ~150M tokens. Now it’s 400M. The dilution is over 60%, which is substantial.

I doubt anyone truly believes burning tokens will cause the price to increase significantly. Rather, people want to burn them to reduce the dilution that was forced upon holders. The LSK token has been under very strong selling pressure for many years, and printing hundreds of millions more tokens doesn’t help this situation.

It’s not as if the Foundation lacks its own funds. They simply opted not to use them, instead placing the risk on the community.

The community has suffered a lot. There hasn’t been any good news for years, and as a result, the community is jaded. Burning tokens is seen as a way to compel the team to spend funds more effectively and perhaps use their own resources.

There’s little use for the 100M LSK if its value continues to decrease. Moreover, witnessing how the 2.5M LSK was spent on an airdrop campaign, which resulted in the worst possible outcome and generated negative publicity, hardly inspires confidence that these additional funds will be managed effectively.

Even after a potential burn, the DAO would still possess 45M LSK, plus any tokens remaining unclaimed after May 2026. If this amount isn’t sufficient to rejuvenate the ecosystem, an additional 100M LSK created from further dilution certainly won’t help either.

Those 2 charts says all:

I’m waiting for this token burn for 1 year. You promised once, you rescheduled it and I have enough with you if you still cancel it. You guys are totally not trustworthy.

On behalf of all lisk holders: This post of yours is a proof that you are not listening to people and as DAO your only interest is to squeeze as much money from lisk investors as you can. I see this post of yours as clear sign of disrespect towards lisk community. I request this topic to be closed.

Face the facts, as DAO you achieved nothing so far to keep lisk price stable, moreover you even put us in the worst situation in the history of this project and it took you less than year. First prove us that you have positive result by fighting constant token price decline and charts will verify if your work is beneficial for us investors. So far we see no improvements in token price. We observe constant price decline for over 4 years and we can’t trust your promises after all those years. Don’t promise anything just do your work and don’t touch lisk holders money. You don’t need those 100M tokens, stop being shamelessly greedy.

[Innosaint]

Implementing annual votes allows the Lisk community to make informed decisions based on the ecosystem’s evolving needs and performance. This approach provides flexibility, enabling adjustments to be made in response to market conditions, technological advancements, and community growth. It also fosters continuous engagement, as stakeholders have recurring opportunities to participate in governance, reinforcing the decentralized ethos of the Lisk DAO.

But also, there are some challenges to this approach. Annual votes could lead to decision fatigue among community members, potentially reducing participation over time. The uncertainty of yearly outcomes might also hinder long-term planning for projects relying on DAO funding, as they cannot be assured of consistent support. Moreover, the administrative overhead of organizing and conducting annual votes could strain resources that might otherwise be directed toward development and innovation.

[Filmmaniak]

Stop using ChatGPT. I quit if they do it annual. All of us will quit. I’m already fatigued by holding since 2017 and now they propose 2031 date. Who cares? I withdraw and put money to something else if they do it. They will smuggle also one important thing - DAO will vote in those votes. They offered community to take part in decission making, rescheduled vote and now they want to split it to 7 pieces or how many? Like Lord Voldemort. They think that nobody will remember that they promised one 100M token burn vote without DAO and lisk team participation. Outcome will be that those partial votes will result in DAO voting against burning and 100M tokens will be stolen from community by DAO. If they will behave like that delisting in 2027 is guaranteed. Now they want to do everything to stop June 1st 100M token burn rescheduled by year voting. They will stop it if we won’t react and if they will succeed in this I quit immediately. Token price will tank after it like never before mark my words.

[Innosaint]

It’s not chatGPT. I made my research using some posts on Reddit and some previous posts

[Filmmaniak]

Please quote those reddit posts with their dates.

[Innosaint]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Lisk/comments/1dpplbt/lisk_community_vote_burn_or_allocate_100_million/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

June 27th 2024

[Filmmaniak]

How you know so much about lisk token burn potential outcome from lisk official post and 2 - 3 comments below it like: “burn, burn, burn”?? There is little to no information there only basics. Did you know that this vote was orginally planned to take place in 4th quarter of 2024 and this vote was rescheduled to 1st July 2025? Did you checked lisk token price from 27 June 2024? Don’t you think that current situation may be quite different now? I see that you are new here but how you would feel when someone was promising you token burn vote in 2024 then month before the vote rescheduled it by almost a year and in 2025 suggested you that it should be changed and split into 6 parts voting ending in 2032? Don’t you think it might be “a little” unprofessional and not trustworthy? If they could reschedule without community opinion they can cancel it and do with it whatever they want. Is this really decentralization?

Check what happened to lisk price when they rescheduled token burn voting. I know you may have hard time to find even when it was so let me help you:

Lisk burn or allocate rescheduling is bad

Let me explain. Community wants to burn 100m lisk tokens. "It gives the community a real chance to pass the proposal. " - what do you mean by that, I don’t get it. I thought the proposal had been already officially announced to take place from 25th Sept. to 1st Oct. 2024. Here are some articles about that as evidence: https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases/burn-or-invest-lisk-announces-date-for-community-vote-on-25-of-the-token-supply “Check tally.xyz and see how much of that power is cu…

Original 100M token burn proposal was scheduled to take place from 25th Sept. to 1st Oct. 2024. Here is the lisk chart from that period:

I know this chart may mean nothing but believe me that after lisk team announced rescheduling price of lisk went down compared to other altcoins. We lost something like 10 positions in market cap during that period. From Sept. 2024 to this day we lost 200+ positions in market cap. We are nowhere near same position when we were in Sept. 2024.

[SuperchainEco]

Hi @Filmmaniak

You seem to completely miss the point of Lisk DAO here. Superchain Eco, and by an extention the majority of operators of LiskDAO, are indepedent contributors.

Another negative pattern, is that you keep writing as if this is a “us vs them” situation, which it’s not. Lisk ecosystem, through Governance is now in charge. The good side of this means the ecosystem has the opportunity to take the lead and build something unique (which we’re trying hard to do). On the other hand, this also means that if the Ecosystem does not unite and collaborate, it is unlikely to grow.

You’re also making false statemtes, such as “You plan to push it regardless of community opinion”, which is the exact opposite of how it goes in practice.

Every large decision is currently made through Lisk DAO governance - which every vpLSK holder can participate (and most do) in.

I understand that you’re unhappy with the LSK price performance, but the only way to turn this around now is to COLLABORATE AND BUILD SOLUTIONS. If you want to help - please take your time to right concrete suggestions and thoughts. If you just want to rant, I do not think the Lisk Forum is the right place.

[Filmmaniak]

If I understood you correctly you say that DAO now is in charge.

“Superchain Eco, and by an extention the majority of operators of LiskDAO, are indepedent contributors.” - You want to mix them stating that for example Mona is the same as Innosaint. I’m talking about those DAO members who are benefiting from DAO token unlocks, normal users and investors are not part of lisk DAO, not in practice so yes, I think it is exactly “us vs them”, we are no equal here or if we are please give my missing DAO lisk tokens unlocks.

“The good side of this means the ecosystem has the opportunity to take the lead and build something unique (which we’re trying hard to do). On the other hand, this also means that if the Ecosystem does not unite and collaborate, it is unlikely to grow.” - you are suggesting that now you make decissions and I can only watch it happens. You are suggesting that I’m against collaboration and unity but I’m against fraud and wrong ideas.

You’re also making false statemtes, such as “You plan to push it regardless of community opinion”, which is the exact opposite of how it goes in practice. - Prove me that I’m wrong and you won’t cancel 100M lisk token burn.

Every large decision is currently made through Lisk DAO governance - which every vpLSK holder can participate (and most do) in. - Say it loud that lisk DAO want to interfere and take part in voting for lisk token burn that supposed to be given entirely for community decission.

I understand that you’re unhappy with the LSK price performance, but the only way to turn this around now is to COLLABORATE AND BUILD SOLUTIONS. - Community have choosen solution year ago and it is burning 100M lisk tokens. There is no better solution at this moment.

I don’t want to rant anybody, I’m writing my thoughts and telling you that you shouldn’t interfere in community decission. Secondly, you shouldn’t suggest to people that lisk token burn is bad and that there is artificial need of finding something else. You can’t treat people like that. Show some respect to lisk holders. You promised 100M lisk token burn vote, I’m waiting for token burn vote more than a year so deliver now or find excuses and make me quit.

[przemer]

Thanks, @SuperchainEco for the proposal and discussion. I find it a valid compromise. However, neither this proposal nor one for burning the 100M in one go will pass, since the community side of the DAO doesn’t have enough power.

What @Filmmaniak is missing is the fact that the community doesn’t have to wait for anyone to initiate the burning. At any point, if the community has enough power, they can create a burning proposal (anyone with 300k vP can do it) and burn the tokens without asking anyone. Those dates set by HQ are just to make people aware that a proposal is coming.

[Filmmaniak]

Saying very calmly, 100M token burn vote at once is the best even if we won’t reach quorum now, it is worth repeating instead of splitting it to bits and prolong in time. Rescheduling something to 2026,2027,2028,2029,2030,2031 - who wants that, really? My huge concern is that lisk DAO and lisk team shouldn’t interfere in this vote as it was announced long time ago. We could run this 100M burning vote every 3 months and see if audience is growing or no. At some point we should get quorum or delisting. It’s not my job to give DAO advices or ideas. Either you prove to everyone that the ecosystem is really growing and in a short time, or you lose everything and this 100M burn won’t even matter anymore. I will give you little tip: nobody want to wait until December 2026 for small 15M token burn vote, which once again is at risk of being rescheduled again and again.

Don’t be afraid to check how low voting volume will be without DAO and lisk team. This will be very good indicator for you to reconsider current state of this project and current number of active lisk holders.

[SuperchainEco]

​We’ve heard from multiple stakeholders in this forum thread and through various conversations, and believe this alternative approach is the right step forward for LiskDAO.

We propose submitting this alternative path for a vote on Tally next week and rolling out the logic as described in the proposal if it is accepted.

If not accepted by vpLSK holders, we can continue the conversation around the binary token burn vote as previously discussed.

We would love for stakeholders, including the larger vpLSK holders, to share their reflection and stance toward this proposal ahead of a prospective DAO vote.

[Filmmaniak]

No, community don’t want it but you will push it forward regardless of what people want as I said, screw you. You have 24M to single vote on it, band of centralised stealers. If community really wants it let them vote not you, not lisk team!

You have no right to do it.

You stated:

" Scheduled to take place on September 24 and run for a period of 7 days until October 1st on the new Lisk DAO, this vote will give our community a significant opportunity to shape the strategic direction of Lisk."

You stated in July 2024 post that decission about this vote will be totally left to community - no DAO and no lisk team voting on it.

Now you created proposal to cancel it! How dare you? I’m out. Bye, bye, I just made my sell order.

Not enough, from which stakeholders? Provide evidence.

[przemer]

I believe we should honor the original plan and give the community a chance to vote on the binary burn proposal, as was scheduled and announced during the migration.

If that proposal fails to pass due to not meeting quorum despite having majority support, then we can explore the yearly burns. I see this as a fair compromise, since some community members might vote differently on a gradual burn than they would on the all or nothing 100M proposal.

[Filmmaniak]

Be quiet, hush and kneel before almighty DAO because DAO now is in charge. Obey their will or they will find a way to break you. Nobody wants this Lord Voldemort pieces of 15M in 2031 (meaby) but as you see they discussed it with community and all of us see their proposal of stealing from investors and filling DAO pockets as wet dream comming true. Dump it przemer, let them do their scam on tally where they will be voting against burning with their fat wallets with support of lisk team, easily filling 24M quorum requirement on their own. Why giving any chances for community when there is noone left and all holders are waiting in anticipation to get wrecked for the last time before delisting.

Przemer forget about any burn there will be none. Instead of gradual burn we have gradual selling free unlocked tokens on exchanges by lisk team and DAO members (silently, Max Kordek wallet example).

Let’s sum up:

1. 27 Jun 2024 - announcement of lisk 100M token burn vote to take place, end of September 2024.

2. Week or two before September vote information from DAO that vote is rescheduled to July 1, 2025. They claimed that this decission was made on basis of the community opinion - I was asking lisk community if they know about it or anyone wants it - their respose was shock, disbelief, nobody wanted rescheduling and many were surprised. During that period many investors quitted. After all I found grumlin - person responsible for rescheduling. I asked for evidence about conversations with community and they had none - they couldn’t provide it. It was totally DAO decission to reschedule with agreement with some lisk holders connected with lisk team or being DAO members (meaby they gave them some free tokens behind table who knows) - they lied.

3. Two weeks before 100M token burn vote that was rescheduled by almost a year they are making discussion topic named: “Break the Token Burn decision into yearly votes” which quickly turning into proposal after few days.

4. Yesterday 13.06.2025 they post this despite community dissaproval:
   "We’ve heard from multiple stakeholders in this forum thread and through various conversations, and believe this alternative approach is the right step forward for LiskDAO.

We propose submitting this alternative path for a vote on Tally next week and rolling out the logic as described in the proposal if it is accepted." - they want to push this proposal forward before original 1st July 100M token burn vote which was rescheduled. - They lied again about “multiple stakeholders” approval.

What’s next?

5. Cancellation of 100M token burn vote and replacing it with " Break the Token Burn decision into yearly votes"

6. December 1st, 2025 - either another vote rescheduling or this time lisk team and DAO will vote together against burning reaching 24M quorum

7. If scenario 1 rescheduling, then process will repeat and they will cancel December 1st, 2025 | Vote to decide if we burn the 2027 vest share (15M LSK) and propose another idea about token burn as they did before. If they will vote they will be taking gradually 15M lisk tokens to DAO each year to hide from investors that after all in 2031 they took whole 100M tokens. Noone in 2031 will remember about 100M token burn and that they took it all for them.

Now think of websites and people who were posting articles about lisk token burn in 27 Jun 2024. All of them saw what happened and noone is treating lisk team seriously anymore when they are constantly breaking their promises, doing dirty tricks and deceiving their community.

This is not the only example. To know that I’m right please watch lisk amplifire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31XPRrrBBX4 - and ask yourself question: Which promises from this video they delivered? Then ask recent airdrop participants how lisk deceived them? If it’s still not enough for you ask people how it happened that we had 150M token supply and now it is 400M. This is only a small part of the evidence that these people are not acting in the interests of investors and their community.

[grumlin]

@SuperchainEco

We’ve heard from multiple stakeholders in this forum thread and through various conversations, and believe this alternative approach is the right step forward for LiskDAO.

We propose submitting this alternative path for a vote on Tally next week and rolling out the logic as described in the proposal if it is accepted.

If not accepted by vpLSK holders, we can continue the conversation around the binary token burn vote as previously discussed.

We would love for stakeholders, including the larger vpLSK holders, to share their reflection and stance toward this proposal ahead of a prospective DAO vote.

Will vote against it

To be honest, I’m currently planning to transform my prev proposal(100M DAO Tokens Locking Based on Price Milestones) into something that could serve as a compromise for everyone.

For example:

• Burn 50 million tokens right away
• Lock the remaining 50 million based on my idea
• Keep the first 5 unlock stages with price targets from $7.5 to $17.5

[Filmmaniak]

But they already wrote that they heard of you that “this proposal is the right step forward for LiskDAO”. Aren’t you major stakeholder here, haven’t they contacted you and discussed it with you in the first place or with przemer? How can it be? Grumlin, are you lying right now or who is lying? Now kneel before almighty DAO and let them outvote you in their proposal.

[grumlin]

@Filmmaniak Do you know how to play politics? Or are you just going to keep believing everything they write and say? Max has made a lot of promises, but it’s all just talk.

No one contacted me, and there’s no point in trying — I’m on my own wavelength, which, by the way, aligns with the majority of the community and also with Przemer’s position.

[Filmmaniak]

Then what is the point of keeping lisk tokens in hands of people who cannot be trusted as you said? Why you are with them still when you see how they unlock millions of tokens each month and distribute it between them to silently transfer it later to crypto exchanges and dump token price? Are they really worthy of your invested money or you got your lisk tokens for free (because they were giving away very long time ago at the beginning of this project)? You have to benefit from it somehow. Imagine that others don’t. Your millions of tokens won’t be worth much when others quit.

I won’t be protecting community anymore because my sell order is set low and I’m gone when lisk do 3-5% up.