Burn 100M lisk voting exception proposal

Discussions
21

@Filmmaniak,

I feel compelled to address this matter with candor, as the trajectory of this discussion has become increasingly concerning. Under the current governance framework, an alternative voting mechanism to burn 100M Lisk tokens simply cannot proceed as suggested. Such proposals represent a fundamental misalignment with both the established governance protocols and the foundational mission of the Lisk DAO.

The characterization that “Lisk failed” prompts an essential question: what metrics define success in this ecosystem? The DAO was deliberately established with a specific mandate to cultivate innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging markets - not as a vehicle for short-term token appreciation or to backstop individual investment positions.

Let me be transparent: investment decisions, whether initial participation or continued holding of assets, remain solely within the purview of individual stakeholders. As someone with extensive experience in financial markets, I must emphasize that participation in any asset class - particularly within the evolving blockchain space - necessitates comprehensive analysis of underlying fundamentals. The fiduciary responsibility ultimately resides with the investor to conduct appropriate due diligence, especially in non-yield-generating assets like many cryptocurrencies. The fundamental principle remains: potential appreciation belongs to the investor, as do potential drawdowns.

Attempts to socialize individual investment outcomes through supply-side interventions are problematic on multiple levels: (i) they represent questionable financial governance, (ii) they fundamentally contradict the established mandate of the DAO, and (iii) perhaps most concerning, they potentially disenfranchise exceptionally talented emerging market builders who struggle to access appropriate resources. To be clear, I speak as an independent stakeholder, not representing the Lisk team or its affiliates.

My extensive engagement with founders and innovators across emerging markets - spanning fintech, remittance infrastructure, and on-chain local currency solutions - has revealed remarkable potential to address systemic capital allocation challenges. These precisely represent the initiatives that align with Lisk’s mission, rather than artificial market interventions through token supply manipulation.

Given @SuperchainEco’s commitments regarding representation and support, I believe stakeholders would benefit from enhanced clarity from current board members regarding implementation strategies that maintain the integrity of the DAO’s core mission while addressing legitimate governance concerns.

I remain convinced that discourse predicated primarily on short-term tokenomics requires more thoughtful moderation within our community.

We must collectively uphold rigorous standards of governance and strategic vision.

Respectfully,
@East_Africa_Dev

22

Hey @East_Africa_Dev

These conversations go beyond price action.

I don’t know how long you have been a token holder here, or if you are one even, but I will tell you this:

Conversations in this forum are a reflection of our individual and collective trust (or lack of it) in the operations of the Lisk team. Any and all such conversations are welcome. We cannot pick and choose what can be said or not (As long as they are respectfully said).

The fact that we are in the crypto space does not absorb the team of all responsibilities to investors (Token holders). When most of the current Lisk holders bought into the “Lisk Initiative”, it was nothing about Emerging Markets. When and how that changed and wether or not it was for the right reasons is still up to debate.

Without investors, there will be no funds to support EM builders. Plus there are a lot of blockchains out there competing for market share (with more funding than Lisk, that are not focused on EM).

The 100M is up for a vote. What you call “Ponzi Economics” was actually initiated by the team when it changed Lisk’s tokenomics. The 100M does not belong to the DAO (Not yet). The vote in question is the only to actually decide what happens to that 100m.

If holders completely loose faith and sell off, that 100M will be worthless and therefore not useful to this DAO and certainly not useful to EM builders.

The conversations around burning or not, is hinged majorly on transparency (and lack of it), lack a real DAO -in the real sense of the word - and general lack of faith by old time holders.

Nobody is trying to socialize anything here, and doing a poll does not guarantee any particular outcome. it is just a way to estimate the general community’s inclination with regards to the topic (A mere suggestion at this point).

That said, the real vote will happen on Tally. If you hold any voting power then make sure to vote. If you don’t/won’t, then there’s really no point joining this conversation as it won’t make any real difference.

However, thanks for expressing your concerns :+1:

1 Like
23

Thanks for your thoughtful response, @Jujuboy.

I appreciate your perspective on the broader context of these discussions. You raise important points about accountability, representation, and the relationship between token holders and the Lisk initiative.

I’ll leave the economics and burning mechanism aside to focus on what we agree on, because I do think we share common ground on: Accountability and Representation.

I was assured that these points were going to happen by the @superchain_eco and Lisk team. So I will evaluate after the season (that being said, I see your frustration) which I think the team should respond to. Hence why I have been observing and not posting for the last month.

I do agree with you that grant applications and builders should be onboarding faster. This would demonstrate tangible progress and help rebuild trust with the community.

Where we might differ is on the approach - in my view, burning tokens is not the optimal solution. I would rather see accountability mechanisms like potential clawbacks of board member compensation if certain milestones aren’t met.

I appreciate that you’re encouraging all community members to participate in the upcoming vote on Tally, regardless of their position. This kind of inclusive governance is exactly what will strengthen the ecosystem long-term.

Looking forward to continuing this constructive dialogue as we work toward solutions that benefit the entire Lisk community.

1 Like
24

How long you are in lisk? Did you bought it or received free tokens? How you will call lisk tokenomics change after abandoning lisk SDK and switching to ethereum network? (and holders lost 100% value back then, now way more than that). Lisk never had any token burning and you are suggesting me I’m bad actor and DAO is against announced long time ago 100M token burn (because it’s against their policy and values?) so why we even have this vote in the first place? About what burning mechanism are you talking? Are you meant to write about lisk project or you post here by mistake? Lisk have no milestones in 2025. People know about planned burning and if it will fail you will see lisk project being delisted for too low volume sooner than you think, that’s my opinion. We’re not talking about the future here because there will be no future, we’re talking about how to save lisk project.

1 Like
25

I do agree with your view here. Burning or Not is not even the real issue. I personally see it as a litmus test to show the will of the DAO and also demonstrate the teams commitment to Community led governance.

Something to think on:

Before migration, LSK price was at $2 (average), now it is at $0.5
I’d argue that the net $$ available to support growth initiatives would have been at least 4X compared to what we have now (50M lsk tokens pre-migration is 2x of 100M today)

This is directly tied to token holders and their actions since then. I will argue that if the team was doing everything right and actually taking community feedback seriously, holders would have kept holding and new ones will join (potentially keeping the price stable thus increasing the net $$ available for initiatives). for instance the 3.6m allocated for season 1 could have easily been over $7m (@ 1 $lsk = $2), but right now all we have is $1.8m

If we don’t burn, we must ramp up operations to boost investor trust and attract new holders, otherwise that 100M will be worth nothing by 2026. Actually she should do this, and still burn :folded_hands:

I would vote to burn, but burning alone will not solve it. we must attract new investors (even as we support builders in EM).

My reason?
While we are supporting builders in EM, we are doing almost nothing to boost prices. If prices keep dropping investors will suffer, but more important than that, we will run out of funds to keep supporting builders in EM .

It’s a long term game the team is playing here, but without liquidity (denominated in $$ not LSK), we might run out of funds before any real results is recorded in EMs. Note that Lisk is for-profit, not a charity.

so YES!!
Support EM but dont forget that you need money to sustain that support! :handshake:

26

Co-ask @East_Africa_Dev

Genuinely love to hear your thoughts on this.

27

Nothing was done by lisk DAO in terms of advertisement of burning vote. None of crypto news websites want to cooperate with lisk project acused by majority of being a fraud. Only thing they did is that they came up with very werid idea which would allow them in long term to cancel burning vote.