I hope it happens soon.
@Filmmaniak Please stay respectful here and keep the following in mind:
- Anyone is free to make a proposal here in the forum and proceed later to proposing in on Tally if there is a delegate with enough voting power willing to create it.
- Don’t assume you alone speak for the community and know what it wants. The community opinion should in the end reflected by the votes on Tally so I see now reason to try to shout down a proposal here in the forum trying to prevent from it proceeding to a vote.
1 Like
We want to make some things clear:
-
We, Superchain Eco, have no affiliation with Max or any other Lisk team member, beyond being a service provider and contributor to LiskDAO.
-
Our comment said that WE believe this to be the right step forward - you’re free to have another opinion, but acting like we are prescribing what is the only option for LiskDAO is manipulation and false.
-
Related to the above, your constant trash-talking in comments is harming the actual conversation. We’ll start flagging any comments that deviate from the conversation or contain a pure rant.
2 Likes
Thanks for sharing your perspective - we hoped that you and @grumlin would see value in this alternative approach, as your involvement and suggestions are key for Lisk to succeed.
Given both have you have a different perspective on what the right path forward is - we’re wondering if the logic could be: 1) Vote in the binary burn proposal around the timing that was put forward intially and 2) only if quorum no reached or NO majority submit our or Grumlin’s alternative plan.
@grumlin, our biggest concern with your plan is that it instantly reduces LSK’s operating budget for the next years and attaches a price target, which would mean that the only way is up. In this case, if LSK fails to multiply its value by 15 times in the coming years, we would risk not having additional LSK to spend at all.
As mentioned in our thread, building a winning L2 ecosystem is not easy and requires investments. We believe the yearly vote we suggest above is the best option we have to balance out yearly operating costs and future potential.
2 Likes
I believe this is what I said in my previous post. In short, if the proposal doesn’t pass, we can explore other alternatives. Unless I didn’t quite understand you here.
2 Likes
This seems sensible. A lot of time has passed and we can now revaluate the proposal to meet the desires of all participants.
1 Like
If the price of the LSK token continues to drop why would it matter if you had 100 million or a billion tokens?
3 Likes
As outlined in our thread above - we believe the best option for LSK value to increase in the long-run is to invest in a unique value prop and growing ecosystem.
Your question doesn’t have a good answer as it assumes a price decrease and makes it sound like none of the efforts have the potential to grow the ecosystem and value.
As stated in our thread, the alternative of burning too many tokens and not having the resources to grow and operate the ecosystem is not a way forward from our point of view.
Burning 100M now would have a big effect on the budget and operation for LiskDAO for the coming years in any case - wether LSK goes up or down - as burning 100M would reduces the LiskDAO Treasury size with almost 70% as visible in the Treasury Dashboard we created.
2 Likes
Sorry, I can’t listen to this anymore — blah blah blah. When you actually buy at least a couple million LSK yourselves and start pushing your idea, then we can talk…
P.S. And the fact that everyone’s stake got slashed by the same 60% — no big deal, right? What a joke listening that
1 Like
If your reaction to a group coming in and trying to make sense of things and help (re)build is to say blah blah blah, you’re part of the problem. How do you think this looks to anyone else considering building on Lisk?
We’re putting in the work to help Lisk grow, with Season 1 as a testament to that. We’ll continue to contribute to Lisk, and it’s up to you to decide whether to support or oppose our ideas.
While you may be unhappy with past Lisk decisions (which we did not influence), complaining about it will not change the reality and should not be used to inform decisions about the future of Lisk.
1 Like
You deleted my honest post in which I give my opinion. I won’t be posting it again, just for others to know that my post was deleted. It was no offense post about lisk treasury option and lsk DAO token unlocks.
Don’t twist my words. I’m not against what you’re doing — I’m against you mixing things together.
40 million is more than enough for the DAO (the remaining amount), 10 million for airdrops is more than enough (also remaining), plus there’s currently a 10 million leftover from the migration.
It seems there might be a lack of familiarity with basic economic principles here. One key concept worth understanding is that changes in the money supply can have a much larger impact on value than it might seem at first glance. Even something like a simple doubling of the token supply can lead to a tenfold drop in value — especially in cases where demand is weak or trust in the asset is low.
This isn’t just theoretical — it’s something we’ve seen repeatedly in both traditional economies and the crypto space. Expanding supply without a clear, compelling utility plan tends to undermine confidence and trigger sell pressure. Recognizing these dynamics is essential when making decisions about tokenomics and sustainability.
1 Like
Now you’re talking my language xD It’s easy to spend when you have tokens for free, no matter if you do good or wrong.
We did indeed flag it. As we mentioned before, anything that’s not on topic or makes the wrong suggestions in terms of which organization is responsible for what decision will be flagged by us.
Making a claim of “is enough” without showing evidence of it being enough is not valuable from our POV.
As our simulations suggest, and our experiences working with other L2s have shown, 40M LSK will likely NOT be enough to get the Lisk ecosystem to a point where it’s organically attracting and growing use-cases to a point that drives value increase.
From an economic / finance standpoint, the options are:
- Have a totaly supply of 300M with only 40M in the operating budget.
- Have a total supply of 400m with 140M in the operating budget.
From that standpoint - we believe option 2 is better long-term for Lisk as it would increase it’s chances to attract, retain and grow new talent and builders.
There was no word twisting - the reality is that if you say blah blah blah in any setting, people will not take you seriously as it shows a lack of professionalism.
On your comment on “Expanding supply without a clear, compelling utility plan tends to undermine confidence and trigger sell pressure.”
Let’s be clear, there is no expanding supply here, instead, there is the option to burn, which means the opposite should be proven: That Lisk would be better off without investing this budget into the ecosystem.
Curious if you can share a case of any entity, company, country, or blockchain growing without investing and providing incentives to build.
1 Like
The issue isn’t that anyone believes the blockchain can grow without investment. The issue is where the money is coming from. It’s not Onchain Foundation money, it’s not VC money, it’s money from diluting holders who had no say. Many left just after hearing about the supply increase from 150M to 400M. (I feel like I’m repeating myself 
).
I totally understand where you’re coming from. You were given the task of managing the DAO’s funds, grants, and incentives, and you want to have a safe buffer to do your job. That’s completely understandable. But on the other side of things, there are people who put real money into the project, and the token’s valuation keeps decreasing.
Regardless, given that the additional tokens were forced upon the community and that there was an announcement of a vote to burn 100M tokens after the migration, that promise of having the vote should be fulfilled.
4 Likes
It’s too late for me after I lost almost everything by holding lisk for many years but thank you przemer and grumlin for those comments here. DAO being hostile towards it’s own community. They cooked themselves here, community will never forget it and all will leave. Collapse is imminent, already in progress.
I see no point in continuing this discussion with you until you respond — honestly and fully — to the questions the community has raised countless times:
- Why can’t a portion of the funds originally held by the Lisk Foundation be used?
- Why aren’t you more vocal about how Max essentially “illegally” took control of those funds? Why haven’t you approached him directly — and publicly — to suggest allocating a portion back to the ecosystem? Let everyone see that conversation.
- Who are you really trying to benefit when you claim this is the “more advantageous” path? Holders? Definitely not.
- What long-term vision are you talking about when the token has dropped 1000x against Bitcoin over the 8 years I’ve held it? And by the way, I’ve only kept buying more all this time.
- Why twist the facts again by saying there are “no investments”? Aren’t the 60 million already allocated considered an investment? See point 1 else.
- Why act like you’re selectively deaf? If you truly cared, you’d immerse yourself in Lisk’s actual problems and propose meaningful alternatives. I already outlined one. It’s a compromise — and maybe the community would even support it if they saw genuine interest from the devs and founders in growing the ecosystem. But clearly, Max no longer cares at all. He just keeps launching new projects using our money (mine for sure — I participated in the ICO).
- Let’s see your professionalism — not just in technical matters (which I have no complaints about, to be clear), but in financial matters too, because that’s the discussion we’re having now.
Every member of the community can draw their own conclusions — about me, about przemer, about you, and about anyone else who has ever spoken publicly.
1 Like
Be careful because now “DAO is in charge”. Your comment may be deleted by them like mine. People are tired of listening to that false hopes. Once lisk came up with good idea to burn 100M lisk tokens leaving decission to community, then you rescheduled it and now DAO admit that after all they want to keep 100M tokens for themselves and participate in votes leaving no chance for community to decide about fate of 100M tokens. As lisk holder (unfortunately) I feel that my vote doesn’t count at all and after all, almighty DAO will decide for themselves. Noone will be left and noone will invest in this centralised cartel. If you don’t know:
"In essence, a centralized cartel is a form of collusion where firms act as a single entity to maximize profits, often resulting in negative consequences for the broader market and consumers. " and it is illegal in every civilized country. In lisk example those firms are lisk DAO, lisk team and lisk founders. They act as single entity as lisk DAO to maximize their profits by robbing it’s consumers (lisk holders) from their money.
I never saw lisk report about ecosystem growth so all this invested money I don’t know where it went and what they achieved with it (except jet trips to tropics and having fun) but token price suggest me that they haven’t achieved anything and as long as price is not moving up I will be saying that lisk DAO is stealing investors money.
If anyone wants to sue the creators of Lisk, I want to act as the injured party.
Let’s keep the conversation respectful here please.
We will be putting the proposal to burn 100m to vote, as we had originally communicated we would (based on your updated proposal @grumlin) 
The Superchain Eco team is just trying to be helpful based on their experience being deeply involved with other ecosystems. I think having them interested in supporting the Lisk DAO, helping it run efficiently and effectively is overall a super valuable addition to the DAO and ecosystem as a whole that we can all see.
2 Likes