Should 100 million LSK of the DAO treasury be burned?

[ultrafresh1]

If we as Lisk team would vote abstain in this decision, it would be possible for a relatively small percentage of voting power and delegates from the community to decide about this topic…

I appreciate the Lisk team’s effort to engage with the community and the willingness to improve the governance process. As far as the proposal, I’m more interested in the governance of the DAO which seems to be part of the rational behind issuing this vote when the outcome is predictable.

So, that said, based on the data currently available on Tally:

• Only ~22 million votes remain uncast.
• Of that, roughly 16 million are controlled by the Lisk Team, Max, and Oliver.
• That leaves just ~6 million in potential community votes.

Even if 100% of the remaining delegates vote in favor of a proposal, the total would still fall well short of quorum.

In this context, your statement: That if the Lisk Team abstains, “a relatively small percentage of voting power and delegates from the community [could] decide about this topic” leads into a key question:

What specific threshold of community support would be considered sufficient to demonstrate that it is not just a small minority pushing for a change, and therefore justify the Team voting to abstain?

Understanding this threshold is crucial if the goal is to enable meaningful community-driven governance.

As you mentioned I believe this number should, at the least, help determine future quorum thresholds.

Also, as for the proposal itself. I see the team and the community arguments very well. If both sides are adamant, then perhaps another proposal should be made with a compromise such as burning a % of the tokens or something similar should be considered.

[dominic]

@grumlin

I’m on vacation right now, but in the coming weeks I’ll get around to it and share my thoughts. I don’t think you’ll like them, but if you look at the experience of Lido, you can draw certain conclusions about how to increase community engagement.

Hope you enjoy your vacation @grumlin. We are definitely open to suggestions here, think between yourself, the Superchain Eco team (with their experience in other DAOs), Mona/Jan/I, and some others currently active members of the community we can come up with a solid path forward. Looking forward to discussing this in the coming weeks

[dominic]

@grumlin

Very convenient to hide behind each other and shift the blame. Then why are you all silent about the fact that the Foundation no longer belongs to Lisk and that there are no real plans for Lisk to be funded from it anymore? It’s no coincidence you’re pushing to keep the 100 million tokens “in the ecosystem” — basically to live off them. Overall, the situation, as always, doesn’t look good.

This is not an accurate take, but it does show that we need to clarify the difference between the entities and the relationship more clearly. FYI that @janhack brought this point up internally today, so we hear it and are working on a response to help everyone have more clarity.

[dominic]

@ultrafresh1

What specific threshold of community support would be considered sufficient to demonstrate that it is not just a small minority pushing for a change, and therefore justify the Team voting to abstain?

Hey @ultrafresh1, this is a fair question, my understanding of @Mona’s point is that it’s less about an exact number and more that it’s in alignment with what Grumlin also stated above that “at this point, a real DAO doesn’t actually exist.” Right?

@ultrafresh1

Also, as for the proposal itself. I see the team and the community arguments very well. If both sides are adamant, then perhaps another proposal should be made with a compromise such as burning a % of the tokens or something similar should be considered.

More along these lines , I agree that following this vote (assuming it doesn’t reach quorum) we can discuss what are potential paths forward, and think that this should also include discussion / agreements on quorum, plans to bring more participants into the DAO (as mentioned in response to Grumlin above), etc. In other words, a holistic plan for the DAO.

Our genuine intention here is to create a real and robust DAO that can drive initiatives beneficial to the Lisk ecosystem and various stakeholders within it. This takes time to build, but I think we now have the right pieces in place (after just 12 months) to start pushing the overall growth of the DAO. The initiatives from the Superchain Eco team over the past few months are a great example of what is possible, but really just the tip of the iceberg imo.

We want to initially hold this 100m vote (as we communicated we would and was requested by community members here, @grumlin and @przemer), and then move forward from there. Sound good?

[grumlin]

@dominic

Hey @ultrafresh1, this is a fair question, my understanding of @Mona’s point is that it’s less about an exact number and more that it’s in alignment with what Grumlin also stated above that “at this point, a real DAO doesn’t actually exist.” Right?

Dominik, let’s be honest — the fact that there is no real DAO wouldn’t bother you much if the decisions were going your way. It’s clearly not a top priority for you Still, you’re now conveniently referencing my statement, even though it’s true. The truth is, the community does know what it wants — it has a very sharp sense for detecting deception and disrespect. And that’s the root of the problem.

Now, let’s look at the facts.

The Lisk team has 0.33 million extra votes coming from 3,000 delegators.

Przemek has 3.5 million from almost 500 delegators.

Max has 0.56 million from 850.

Oliver has around 0.03 million from 140.

I have 0.75 million from 150.

ys_mdmg has 1.4 million from 135

It’s only EXTRA power(community delegated)

I’m not even counting the smaller ones — but it adds up. Is this the voice of the community? 100% yes!

But the issue lies in the fact that the team controls 15.5 million votes (including Max and Oliver). That’s the core of the problem.

I understand there are things you can’t say publicly, but I urge you — please solve this internal imbalance yourselves. And it’s clear that listening to the community isn’t the goal right now — otherwise, the team could have simply voted abstain and watched what happens. Even then, we might not have reached quorum.

And by the way, the pause mechanism is currently being heavily exploited by the team and Max in particular — who, by the way, has already sold off almost everything, pushing the market further down.

As I said from the beginning, the pause mechanism should be removed.

[dominic]

@grumlin

Dominik, let’s be honest — the fact that there is no real DAO wouldn’t bother you much if the decisions were going your way. It’s clearly not a top priority for you

Saying that I don’t care about having a real DAO, is just not true @grumlin. Generally, I would appreciate if you don’t make assumptions like that, thanks.

In truth, I am very excited and motivated about the possibility to build a meaningful DAO. We have slowly been putting pieces in place to do that, and as mentioned above (and I know you agree based on your message in the other thread), we agree now is the right time in the DAO to start aligning on a larger direction forward.

[dominic]

@grumlin

The Lisk team has 0.33 million extra votes coming from 3,000 delegators.

Przemek has 3.5 million from almost 500 delegators.

Max has 0.56 million from 850.

Oliver has around 0.03 million from 140.

I have 0.75 million from 150.

ys_mdmg has 1.4 million from 135

It’s only EXTRA power(community delegated)

Definitely hearing what the current set of token holders is saying atm in this vote.

Also agree that just “hearing” you doesn’t make a difference if there is no action on it. I think generally the topics the community has brought up have been spread throughout various threads, where would be the best place to collect all this? Should we have this conversation here? Or better in another thread?

Atm, I am hearing some topics to be included are:

• Quorum / Lisk+Onchain Team’s voting power

• More clarity on the Foundation’s support of Lisk

• Review of the “pause mechanism”

[grumlin]

@dominic

Saying that I don’t care about having a real DAO, is just not true @grumlin. Generally, I would appreciate if you don’t make assumptions like that, thanks.

Dominik, maybe I came across too harsh — I didn’t mean to question your commitment to developing the DAO.

I understand that everyone has their own priorities and constraints, and honestly, I’d really like us to focus not on who’s more or less right, but on how we can move forward together and make the DAO truly functional — which you also mentioned recently.

Let’s find a way to build a constructive dialogue and gather the community’s ideas in one place — including your own vision, which I’m sure is valuable to everyone. And yes, we should create a new topic like ‘DAO problems and ways to solve them’ or something similar.

I’ve started putting together a list outlining my view of the issues in the DAO and will try to publish it as soon as possible.

[SuperchainEco]

We have just voted “Abstain” on Tally. As mentioned previously, we believe it would be better to split the decision into multiple yearly votes (see our reasoning here). However, the current sentiment of LSK stakeholders is clear, and we want to contribute to the legitimacy of this vote. By abstaining, we are helping the proposal reach quorum.

[Emeka.szn]

A good first step frfr

[Jujuboy]

@SuperchainEco

As mentioned previously, we believe it would be better to split the decision into multiple yearly votes (see our reasoning here). However, the current sentiment of LSK stakeholders is clear, and we want to contribute to the legitimacy of this vote. By abstaining, we are helping the proposal reach quorum.

Good compromise. I also support the idea of multiple yearly votes

[dbradshaw]

I would also be interested in some clarity on the difference between these entities and the commitment involved.I’ve been crying out for this for a long time but to no avail. At one point there is $100mill fund for Lisk and the next there is a new entity with all the funds apparently dedicated to another brand and token.

[wasabbi]

Lisk DAO cares about you guys so be more grateful to them. I think that yearly votes is perfect solution but it would be even better if we would unlock 10M instead of 15M in 10 yearly votes starting from December 2025 and ending in December 2035. Burning is short term vision while allocating 100M to DAO funds is wise and better in long term.