Regarding token price, we all want the same thing, and I hear the feedback that the Lisk team can do a better job of showcasing all the efforts that are being funded and why token holders here in the DAO should be supportive of continuing to fund these efforts.
However, let’s please not over exaggerate that Lisk efforts since we moved to an L2 have been in any way negatively impacting token price. Here is a chart of LSK (since before we migrated to an L2 or announced the additional token supply) next to Optimism, Arbitrum, Starknet, and Celo… I would assume some of the token holders here would be “happier” if we were one of these larger ecosystems… yet token price movement is nearly identical. Right? Can you spot LSK? Hint it’s not one of the bottom 3.
The truth is that polygon and arbitrum are holding stonger compared to lisk over 2 years period. I know it because I own some polygon and arbitrum and I notice the highest value drop is lisk. When it comes to 1 year period from now the statistics are as follows:
ARB current price vs 1 year before 24.1%, –78.81% decreased value
LSK current price vs 1 year before 23.9% –76.15% decreased value
POL current price vs 1 year before 21.2% –78.81% decreased value
Market cap:
ARB ≈ 2,500 mln (year before) 1,520 mln (now) –39%
LSK ≈ 150 mln (year before) 74 mln (now) –51%
POL ≈ 600 mln (year before) 278 mln (now) –54%
Market Cap Ranking Trends (CoinGecko)
Arbitrum: remained in the top 100, currently ranked #71 (slight drop in position since its launch) coingecko.com cryptomarketcap.com
Polygon: dropped from the top 50/60 to approximately #238 among active tokens (according to CoinGecko) coingecko.com
Lisk: declined significantly — from around #300 a year ago to #541 today coingecko.com
Lisk saw the steepest drop in ranking, falling by over 200 positions.
Conclusions
Biggest year-over-year market cap drop: Polygon (MATIC) (~–54%)
Largest drop in ranking: Lisk (LSK) – down by more than 200 positions
Market cap position matters because if altseason arrives, people will be looking at top projects from market cap to invest their money and very few people will scroll to page 6 or 7 to see Lisk there. Based on this knowledge we already know that lisk will continue downperforming unless you really do something that will make this project interesting enough for others. Taking into consideration bad reputation, ultimately slow development, tiny ecosystem and the fact that lisk is old project which over those many years failed to deliver I see winning in lottery more likely than lisk going back to top 100.
Don’t you think that everyone who is directly or indirectly connected to the team or the project is showing disrespect toward the community — especially the holders?
How? By pretending everything is fine, by not understanding the core of the issue, and by ignoring the community’s frustration.
As for the vote, I believe the first vote should be exactly the one originally promised by the team — whether to burn or not to burn 100 million tokens.
And even though I don’t believe either option (for or against) will reach the required quorum, we must follow through on what was promised. Only then should we move on to any alternative proposals — including the one I plan to submit myself.
In terms of alternatives, I think @SuperchainEco has suggested a good compromise - every year we decide wether or not to unlock 15M. This means that if passed, the first vote will happen in 2027 and based on traction, the community can make a more informed decision each year.
I think this proposal gives us time to see the outcomes of already funded initiative as well as the opportunity to rethink burning and unlocks. If at any point in the future the inclination is to burn, then that’s ok, but I dont think it’ll be so bad to keep both options open for now.
The price-based alternative you initially suggested is not so realistic and allows zero flexibility - hopefully you will refine it, but I doubt there will be a more flexible option than the yearly Unlock/Burn Suggestion.
Lisk have no time left. We had that time 8 years ago now it is be or not to be and we are losing, delisting imminent if lisk focus on futuristic dreams wich after all, will be rescheduled like everyting else in this project, acting now is crucial. Lisk is the slowest developing cypto project ever.
I don’t think they’re pretending everything is fine and ignoring the community’s frustration because as you can see everyone’s complaints are being replied to and the team is definitely not sitting idle to it.
Here is just talks but im sure behind the scenes works are being taken care of and i believe with time we would see the results
Because im sure we all especially the team would happy if Lisk starts doing better
So i wouldn’t jump into this conclusion if i was you.
Peace and love!
Oh. I think you’re just not following the situation closely enough. And I’m not speaking without basis — everything I say is backed by facts. Just take Mona’s statement about lowering the quorum, right after the team staked another 2 million — now the three of them control around 18 million… And in general, you can read my detailed post. No one will ever respond — and that’s exactly why Max “stole” the funds, and why the team is essentially stealing money from their own holders. And not just once — first during the migration, and now again with the staking! Wonderful.
This is happening as was communicated and promised throughout, right @grumlin?
I can only speak for myself and the Lisk team here, but I hope we can start to convince you (and others in the DAO / community) that we are acting in good faith, and are very much open to collaborate / compromise on most things, even when we disagree
@dominic I personally have no doubt that you are listening — and even responding, even if you don’t always agree. But that’s what a DAO is: compromise. I don’t always agree either, but I still engage.
Right now is a very good moment — the team will see the sentiment of the community through the burn vote. And also, let’s not forget, this vote involves a huge number of delegated votes.
But Mona’s task is not to appeal to the idea that we need to listen to the majority of the community (which you will receive in this vote anyway), but rather to see and understand the problem.
The problem is the disproportionate influence on voting held by the team, Max, and Oliver. The three of them together hold 67% of the quorum
So the problem isn’t that the community isn’t making decisions — the problem, as you yourself pointed out in another thread, is that the DAO is not really a DAO. The community currently lacks enough voting power to make decisions independently. Otherwise, there’s a high chance this proposal would already be passed.
Thanks @grumlin, agree in general. Happy to discuss a holistic path forward that all stakeholders in the DAO can agree is a positive direction whenever people are ready. Whether that’s now or whether that’s once the 100m vote comes to a conclusion
