I proposed postponing the vote on burning 100M DAO tokens to July 1, 2025. Since then, almost nothing has changed. We now have only two options:
Create a vote on July 1, 2025. As mentioned earlier, this should be a community-only vote. A quorum cannot be reached, so The Lisk team can vote Abstain, and then we can count the result only if the total For+Abstain or Against+Abstain exceed 24M in total.
Postpone the vote again until November 15, 2025. But anyway, it should be a community-only vote.
I believe we should at least try to hold the vote, even if its sole purpose is to demonstrate the community’s lack of participation.
Also, the proposal must include a disclaimer stating that the vote will be held again if neither the For+Abstain total nor the Against+Abstain total exceeds 24M, as mentioned in the post.
No postpone don’t kill this project I’m out if you postpone again, you will never see me again as well as many many others who still left here. We could artificially increase community voting power by forcing lisk DAO and lisk team to use their voting power in favour of community decission.
We should check how much voting power community have as of now by creating test vote which will exclude lisk team and DAO only community to find out how much out of 24M required we can get. I’m not surprised that we don’t have people to vote when all lisk holders are -80% or more by staking. That’s why I think non tally voting without requirement of staking tokens would bring us multiple times more votes than only depending on tally dominated by lisk team.
I’m fully in agreement with @przemer that we should proceed with this vote.
@Mona@shuse2@Lisk_Team If you are honest with the community, I suggest that the Team vote Abstain, and then the community will decide. We will consider the voting completed if the total of For+AbstainORAgainst+Abstainexceeds 24 million.
If not, we should hold another vote, but after some time(My suggestion - on February 1 2026).
You’re missing the part that DAO have zillions of lisk tokens and lisk team is rich AF and funds for running are already here. We had no burning in history of this project and token is down -80% in value but ofc we don’t need burning constant dilution is better.
The Idea is that token allocations to EM innovators leads to inflation on Lisk. This doesn’t mean that funding EM builders is wrong in itself but that the Lisk Reserve is mainly denominated in $LSK and all LSK allocations end up on exchanges where $LSK is sold for USDT. (you could even use the word DUMPED!!)
The more this happens, the more $Lsk falls in price against USDT. If the funding for EM builders (or any other initiatives) comes from a BTC or ETH reserve then funding initiatives won’t have a direct consequence on Lisk price - (we used to have these before migration, don’t know what happened to that).
You might think that falling $LSK price is a problem only long term holders should worry about, but here is the thing; For every LSK that hits the market curtesy of builder grant, the next grant becomes more expensive to fund.
I tried to explained this here
If we fix price action, we will not need to give out so much $LSK because even though the supply of $LSK is reduced by burning, the net $$ value of reserve $LSK will be significantly higher than it was before the burn.
Note that the final destination of all Lsk given out as grant or incentives is on the exchanges where it is dumped, further devaluing $LSK
Don’t forget that growing the value of $lsk/usdt instantly attracts investors thus creating a flywheel of scarcity and demand.
Say we manage to get LSK prices back to $2/Lsk, we will need only 25,000 Lsk to get the same level of funding we currently have with 100,000 lsk @ $0.5/Lsk
I support burning because it is the only combination of events that ensure that prices improve. If we don’t burn and keep liquidating Lsk for usdt to fund programs, no matter what success these EM builders achieve, we will continue to run low of funds to sustain our support!
Unsustained support is the same as No Support at all
Not only him. It looks that everybody else from lisk team and DAO are not intelligent enough to understand that having more (tokens) is not always better.
But yea, a lot of the new folks here and even some members on the team don’t understand that we can do more with fewer $LSK tokens with higher $$ value than we could ever do with more $LSK tokens with constantly depreciating $$ Value.
As long as all initiatives we fund pay for operation and expenses in $$, having more tokens will always lead to stagnation. We should have been funding from ETH or BTC or USDT reserves in order to protect and stabilize LSK, but we don’t seem to have any of that any longer.
So Yes, I’m from Africa, building in Africa and YES, I WILL VOTE TO BURN
Posting single post on x.com about lisk burn vote won’t be enough and non professional. We need to reach as many people as possible. Except x.com post we need few articles, posts on popular crypto forums and other announcements on lisk webpage, discord etc. We should also ask optimism to announce it on their news and all connected with lisk projects to do the same as well. We have to do it asap instead of sleeping and allowing it to die before it’s even voted. Lisk team could show that they care for the first time since 2018. Better skip talks about marketing because lisk have none but such thing as voting on token burn is in reach to announce properly.
Guys, what are you talking about? It’s been 17 days and not a single word from the team. This is a farce - Lisk DAO is dead… At least now…
When I brought this up in Discord, they told me to go post it on the forum so it wouldn’t get lost… Sure, it won’t get lost - but these long silences clearly show that the team just doesn’t care. They’re already playing a shadow game under Max’s leadership - and most likely, they’ll keep doing it.
We’ve been following along thinking how best to contribute to this conversation.
First, we want to recognize that burning 100M DAO tokens is probably the largest and most influence decision Lisk DAO will ever make. Given the size of the vote, it’s not easy for individuals and teams with vested interested to wrap their head around this and share their perspective.
Regardless, we agree that we should openly speak about and progress the discourse around the 100M Burn.
To make the right decision here, we have to determine a couple of key assumptions and make a bet we all believe is in the best interest of Lisk.
Points we would love to discuss further: 1. Do we truly believe the value of LSK would increase significantly if the 100M is burned? Curios to hear perspectives here, but we’re not yet convinced that burning 100M in LSK alone would result in a significant enough value increase of LSK without other factors playing a role.
2. How do you see Lisk competing for market share and revenue with very limited budgets? If we burn the 100M, Lisk would likely run out of funds somewhere in 2027 or 2028. This runway could be extended with some years if spending is reduced, but this would hurt the ability of Lisk to grow it’s market share. Most L1 and L2 blockchains still have significant resources available (Arbitrum has $1,5B, Optimism has $1,7B, and Gnosis has 947M in their tokens).
I’m wondering what those in favor of the burn think the course of action should be in case we decide to burn the 100M and it doesn’t result in significant increase of LSK price? How do you imagine Lisk and LSK to grow in the absense of operation budgets?
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.
