Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/higher
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
john pfp
john
@know
???
4 replies
2 recasts
14 reactions
↑Dom pfp
↑Dom
@onchaindom.eth
Why does LP need to be permanently locked?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
john pfp
john
@know
answered, anything else come to mind?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
↑Dom pfp
↑Dom
@onchaindom.eth
Making it a burn/donation will really limit the amount ppl are willing to put in the pool
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
john pfp
john
@know
can you say more?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
↑Dom pfp
↑Dom
@onchaindom.eth
You’re asking people for a donation, which is fine. But people won’t donate their entire net worth. If it was a normal LP that just directed fees to fund stuff, some might put their whole stack in, yielding much more in fees.
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
kompreni 🚂 pfp
kompreni 🚂
@kompreni
"some might put their whole stack in"... and take it out later. which means no more funding for an org. permanent lps = permanent funding. imo this is really about overcoming tragedy of the commons. "People won't donate their entire net worth"... and they shouldn't. but if we all donated a percent, one-time...
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
john pfp
john
@know
a consideration with this is that LP providers in this situation are exposing themselves to impermanent loss - and the guarantee of long-term public goods higher-culture funding is lost one of the main reasons for having the permapool is to secure long-term funding for contributors i take your point with people being unwilling to donate their entire net worth i'd imagine some kind of NFT sale or special access or something to bootstrap and then the revenue share over time from higher aligned businesses could build the LP size overtime as the network and their revenues grow
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
john pfp
john
@know
interesting
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction