Thanks for the feedback! Appreciate you taking the time to read through all of this and get involved!
I don’t understand this point. How does us having a validator make it difficult for other projects to build on Archway? There are 100 validators, and multiple other projects also have them. I’m personally more concerned with the validators that aren’t building on the network?
AXV emissions WILL be granted to the liquidity council, no matter what. There is no way around that, which is why ALSO having them own the liquidity would make it a double-dipping, or double-spend for Astrovault, while not actually receiving anything we’d be spending for.
So this is the end result; if our concern is that AXV would be burned if we earned it, but not if the LC earned it, then the LC could just burn their AXV emissions?
We have no guarantee of that. We’ll be built here forever, at some point that’ll change through Archway governance.
What if other networks agree and then change their mind? That would give them potentially disproportionate governance power over Archway. The LC SHOULD earn AXV, and SHOULD wield governance power in Astrovault! It’s actually notably safer that way. Which is why we shouldn’t be double-spending on nothing.
Thank you, but a lot of this feedback is telling me that we should’ve just offered far worse. This proposal is fair and balanced. Any concessions being requested beyond the substantial ones we’ve already agreed to would drastically neuter our ability to grow and scale.
Because of the gov power you will have as a validator. What if another potential competitor wants to request POL from the CP, what would your vote be? What’s the guarantee that your vote would be in favor of that even if the proposal is fair.
And by “you/your vote” I refer to >>
I honestly believe this is outside of the scope of what validators operators should do.
This is a fair point I have missed. Totally makes sense so thanks for bringing this up!
Thank you guys for wonderful feedback and productive discussion. The original proposal will go forward, with the following adjustments:
Spend Request: 5,568,011 ARCH ($750k at current price)
Note that this is less ARCH than it would’ve been when we started the discussion, and than if we used 30 or 90 day moving averages. We don’t care. We’re grateful for the increased price action, and in general are using this primarily to distribute AXV and signal trust and alignment.
Validator Cap: 3.5%
We will voluntarily begin delegating away from our validator to make sure we remain under 3.5% of voting power, even though our votes will largely be overpowered by Astrovault governance. This number was verbally noted and agreed upon by Phi Labs members in the Governance call, though long term we will all aim to have a robust enough validator set to move to 3% or less each.
Giving Control of Airdrop to Archway Foundation
There was some concern and feedback about ensuring that the airdrop is done fairly. In this vein, we are choosing, should this prop pass, to allow the Archway Foundation to determine the airdrop wallets and weights, to ensure any optics of Astrovault bias is removed. Our hope and intention is for as much of the AXV as possible to make it to the end users as fairly as possible, to encourage activation on-chain, and decentralization of governance power in and through Astrovault.
Thank you guys for productive engagement! We look forward to continue serving the Archway community to the best of our abilities, and remain always available for comment or conversation!
All of the voting power of the xARCH tokens will be relayed to AXV token holders. Our validator very soon will have some of the least voting power, as mentioned above. Since AXV isn’t live yet, and they can’t vote directly yet, we’re supporting the prop for them, which lines up with the unanimous support we’ve received from our community.
Hi guys, Nodes.Guru here
We’ve been watching this discussion closely for the past week and here are our thoughts about it:
Discussion here seems to lead nowhere - we definetely need more time to evaluate given pros and cons on this point considering it is about spending 6% of the whole community pool
We are yet to see statements of the core validators and stake holders here, as its yet too few of them - it requires more time to formulate final vision
In our opinion voting for your own proposal seems to have something with the conflict of interests - the best way is to abstain
Best interest of Archway community in terms of bootstrapping liquidity is still a Liquidity Council group
Parties need to discuss the plan and roadmap of new funding to gaurantee accountability and transparency of funds handling
Seeing a proposal actually pop up live on the chain so soon is a concerning circumstance and was a surprise for us. Best way to proceed would be to raise awareness and run more rounds of brain-storming
That’s why we have to say ‘No’ to this proposal for now in its current form and will be happy to participate in further discussions.
Hey there @Sergio, great to meet you and welcome to the community forums! Gonna respond my opinions honestly as always, but regardless of any vote result am genuinely grateful that you’re here and engaging. Please do encourage other major validators and shareholders to do as well!
We would very much appreciate additional feedback from parties who voiced opposition. Yes 6% of the Community Pool. We additionally voiced that we’d prefer this to be 2% of the grants tranche but can’t vote on that. We did answer questions on November 30th in what was supposed to be a Governance call which got delayed, and then again pushed back going on chain to make it to the make-up Governance call on December 7th, leaving this on the forum for a full week and a half, and significant participation occurred in both of those calls. Valeria has since offered up Calendar invites should you like to attend the calls in the Archway discord.
We would love to see them, yourself included, voice more opinions in the forums. There has been no public feedback or engagement from top validators or stakeholders. If all this prop does is initiate actual discussion and public engagement, then that alone will constitute a success.
I understand that sentiment. Again, the governance power goes to AXV token holders, who can not yet participate in governance, so we are voting on their behalf in the short term. In the long term, our validator will have little to no governance power; I argue that our voice in governance is under-represented, not over.
That’s fair, and why I created the initiative and pushed it so hard. Still happy to work with the Liquidity Council, which will still earn significant amounts of AXV.
For actual funding, we absolutely agree. Nothing in this proposal includes funding, which we would still very much like to pursue, but don’t think that community spends and added sell pressure would be beneficial for the ecosystem at this time. We even built our own application for a public sale called Outbid that we demoed this week in the astrovault discord
I’m sorry it was a surprise, as we’ve talked about it on public calls for a while, and even been encouraged by core members to take this go-to-market strategy to the Cosmos Hub. We’d love for you to stick around and engage more, so that regular topics are less surprising, and we (Astrovault team) will always abide by better than best practices on availability, responsiveness, and transparency. Frankly we’re surprised it has been so contentious here, but are glad to finally meet other major shareholders in the ecosystem we’ve been actively building out.
First of all i want to apologize for reacting so late on this forum with this being a contentious proposal and requiring proper attention.
We have been active on twitter following the conversation but havent yet clearly communicated our stance.
Arguments/Feedback:
We are in favour of supporting Astrovault with some form of Protocol owned liquidity, the current 250k as part of the LC is a good start and an increase might be warranted.
We get the objection from Archway contributors around this being a trade for an airdrop, for the sake of coherency we will leave out this argument as we do agree with the Astrovault team that it is a fair trade in some sense. It however could have been presented better and seeing as Astrovault has a lot to thank for Archway maybe left out completely anyway from this discussion.
We feel there is a lot of mudslinging in this thread, especially in the reactions to the comments made by whispernode. We will not vote down the proposal on that ground but there is a strong sense of entitlement it seems over this POL which we do not think is fair to impose on validators and voters voicing their honest opinion.
We value Archway imposing a 3.5% VP cap on their validator, thank you for taking that step. Imposing a true decentralized delegating policy would be an even better approach. Yes staking to your own validator helps revenue but the 5% commission should be considered non-important in building a truly scaleable model.
On to the clear things we dislike and base our opinion on:
a. The Airdrop funds being routed through the foundation is insane really, just distribute directly instead of adding mountains of potential legal risk and trust.
b. The spend going directly to an Astrovault owned wallet is just as insane. This is not Archway POL its AXV POL meaning we should consider these funds null and void the moment they are send when the proposal passes. A promise they will not be sold is nice but non-enforceable.
c. Tying onto point b, what people seem to forget is that these tokens will be staked when provided as xArch liquidity and ALL inflation income accrues to AXV holders. This means there is a true cost to this proposal passing, APR will drop for genuine stakers and this will be distributed to AXV holders. Seeing as the community pool will Not be an owner of AXV tokens (unless not everyone claims) we are losing at minimum 95% and at max 100% of this security budget. Quick calculation shows the AXV DAO will be generating ~750,000 tokens per year from this proposal that they ARE allowed to sell or distribute to AXV stakers who might sell. seeing as the Astrovault team are AXV holders themselves this is therefore also an indirect payment.
d. There is no clear plan as to how ARCH will be used for liquidity increase, it might be just xARCH-ARCH (which is not super valuable) but it could also be that Astrovault leverages these tokens to pool against other illiquid tokens and thereby indirectly expose the community pool to significant Impermenant loss.
e. We very much dislike the trend of protocols deploying all across the cosmos as standalone apps, IBC exists, USE IT! Astrovault could have made themselves the overwhelming favourite of the Archway ecosystem by developing outposts where chains like Neutron and Sei can swap and deploy liquidity but all of the true actions and deployment happen on Archway. Instead they decide to go the white whale and astroport route and throw away composability in favour of miniscule POL injections. A strategic mistake imo, one Archway doesnt have to participate in if it doesnt think its favourable.
We will put out a post over the weekend solliciting info from our community but for now we will probably be voting No on this specific iteration of the proposal. We would want to make clear however that it does not mean we will always vote No on future or differently structured POL deals for Astrovault.
Welcome to the forums Ertemann, thanks for engaging!
I think you greatly misunderstand how Astrovault goes multichain, as it’s extremely different from what you’re mentioning. Astrovault will leverage all chains it is built on at the same time. This actually GREATLY enables new users to come to Archway, providing a much better experience than even the ledger-compatible fee grant we already built out.
For example, a user on Juno who holds Juno, without depositing, could trade Juno to Arch on Archway, paying only Juno (or other Juno compatible gas tokens) for gas, and ending up with ARCH on Archway, without needing to withdraw. The same will be the case for any other chains we build on. We are not throwing away composability, which we agree is imperative.
The community pool wouldn’t be at risk. As you correctly noted, this POL would be owned by Astrovault, and it’s our treasury that would be at risk. Yes we will try to list other illiquid tokens on Astrovault, on Archway, with ARCH as a base pair. That enables their community and growth to participate in Archway. In fact, necessitates it. We’ll use our best judgment, as we’ve done, and communicate well with all Archway parties and AXV governance, as we do.
Note things like DEC and JKL listings have done very well both for Archway, and for their communities. We fully intend to continue investing time and resources to growing decentralized businesses, and would love the opportunity to better continue that on Archway.
Yup. We have a pretty good model. Have the security budget both grow security and liquidity simultaneously. This is verifiably securing the chain. This is also verifiably increasing TVL and liquidity on Archway. And yes, as the chain is more secure and decentralized, it dilutes the staking rewards further, which is the goal and purpose of the existence of staking rewards.
The same argument about dilution of staking rewards exists for all staking derivatives, including fees benefiting their teams. You’ve voted ‘Yes’ on other props in that vein such as Prop 853 on the Hub. It’s fair to have nuanced positions, and obviously this isn’t your only factor, just aiming to show that this isn’t a unique thing. Additionally with the validator cap, we’ll be delegating elsewhere, which means even a raise in commission will be miniscule and then not continue.
Happy to do it ourselves, as was initially offered. We can set it up so that we do it, but they help ensure fairness? Or do snapshots? We’re honestly open, just aim to show that we will not impose any of our own biases, to the point of being willing to fully trust the Foundation with the entirety of the allocation.
Thank you again for your feedback and engagement, and appreciate your valuable work in the community, especially with all you guys have done, and continue to do for relayers. I hope for the best for the Archway ecosystem, and believe this proposal is that, but always love seeing decentralized governance at work, and look forward to continue working closely with you, and any other validators who choose to vote No, without bias, as we all work together to grow the ecosystem.
Difference being that for pStake this inflation gets paid out to no-one as the ATOMs are owned by the Cosmos Hub community pool. When the Communiy wants the funds back they will receive back more ATOM than they originally spend. For this proposal however they are staked and all inflation accrues to AXV holders. This is why i dont like comparing proposals across ecosystems and rather value this isolated as much as possible.
So any other chain you deploy on will NOT have liquidity? If there will still be liquidity on other chains then i guess this is a start of using IBC to swap on the best venue but unless the Astrovault frontend becomes a massive aggregator composability would still suffer.
If you are indeed keeping all liquidity on Archway and all other deployments are merely interaction outposts then we would definitely reconsider our stance on this proposal and applaud you for taking on a challenge that will make your product much better than the Cosmos deployment standard.
We are voting “No” as there is still some confusion over whether the liquidity council or community pool is a better source of liquidity funding. We recognize and appreciate the verbal agreements made to ease VP concerns. This is a hard proposal to weigh for us. Given past relationships it could appear that there is some animosity, but that is not the case. We simply have legitimate concerns over the model and amount of funds here. It seems to us without a more in-depth dive to be doing things like Stride liquid staking without a decentralized process for doing so, and instead using a centralized validator controlled by the app team. Perhaps we’re misunderstanding the model entirely, and if so we apologize in advance.
It is hard to be 100% aware of intricate proposals across many chains, but at first glance it appears there is legit concern/contention here from influential parties/stakeholders. We will support the team if the proposal is passed, but simply voting based on our current understanding of information presented.
Griffin - Posting in my own personal capacity, the following are my personal views and do not represent those of Phi Labs nor the Archway Ecosystem.
I appreciate the discussion surrounding this proposal within our community. Due to its controversial nature, I have opted for a neutral stance at this time to avoid dividing the community. I value everyones perspectives and look forward to seeing more discussion.
Though I have previously chimed in as a lone individual, I wanted to convey the rationale for why Lucky Friday has supported this proposal with a vote of AYE
This has certainly been an engaging, lively discussion between both sides, and as a fan of decentralized governance, I applaud most of our fellow validator teams who have taken part in the debate and voted on-chain (whether AYE or NAY). It is a bit disheartening, however, to see so many other validators who have voted against this proposal without providing feedback as to why those teams chose that course of action (it would be nice to learn why others supported the proposal too).
While there is no material difference between the infrastructure we provide under our institutional label, GlobalStake, Lucky Friday has always been–and will continue to be–our community oriented brand. We began in the Polkadot ecosystem and, as general fans of interoperability, we wanted to expand our presence in the Cosmos ecosystem. Archway, in particular, holds a special place in our hearts for several reasons, not the least of which is this was our first genesis validator set. Moreover, as a community oriented guy on a personal level, I have immensely enjoyed my time in this eco being on Spaces, attending governance calls, and now serving as a community member of the Liquidity Council.
Considering we are so focused on doing right by the various community members of the ecosystem, we wanted to take the time to deliberate our position on this particular vote out of the concerns that have previously been broached and discussed. Ultimately, though, what won us over is the overwhelming community support you can see on Mintscan here:
As we can see, out of the ~800 individual wallets that voted on Proposal 33, there is overwhelming evidence that the Archway community supports this idea from the Astrovault team. Some of those individuals may have even gone out of their way to cast their own ballots due to how their delegated validators voted. Either way, we felt that it would be disingenuous of us to vote NO when the community sentiment is so high and clearly supports the Astrovault team who has been here from the chain’s inception.
Reverting back to a final personal note, I still maintain the position I had when I voted YES on this proposal the day it went live. I believe that this proposal passing will not only cement Archway as the home of Astrovault, but it will draw more eyes, users, and liquidity to this novel chain and its unique architecture.
Thank you for taking the time to read our rationale for our vote.
Gratefully,
Ryan / Phunky, Director of Protocol Relations, Lucky Friday Labs, LLC
Again, we’d love to talk over this with you, as we’ve offered regularly. Those aren’t better. And any confusion can be talked through.
Great to hear. Forgive our hesitancy to believe, but genuinely hope you support or collaborate with us on anything we do in the future.
These are some other conflicts of interest at play with validators in general. You’ve shilled Stride and Shade liquidity deals in this thread, and just posted a liquidity deal for the two on their forum. We’ve consistently made great arguments bringing up extremely valid concerns with how they’re functioning. I’d love to believe that Archway’s validators will choose to put Archway first, and you very well may be trying to… but much of the arguments against come from people who are not, and have not, been Archway-first aligned.
Apology accepted. Please show up, and talk through things. Understand before shutting down growth out of fear.
Ya. Griffin has since posted taking a neutral stance after what appeared to be an encouragement to vote No, but yes we’ve seen multiple votes, as well as fear of support, from people believing that Phi Labs and founders are directly against this proposal. More animosity than we expected, and an unfortunate look.
Anyways, thanks for the feedback, and if you’re going to wield significant delegated governance power, please take active involvement and care into the growth and development of the Archway ecosystem.
What?! Wow! How do you know this? I am not the most technical person on our team by a long shot, so I had no idea
How does one discern which wallets are which when all you have are addresses listed? What does airdrop farming activity look like on chain? Do you need to manually click each address and check the transaction history? I’d like to learn this for the future so as not to be deceived, thanks!
Airdrop gaming is definitely something we’ve seen, but there is very little evidence of it on this prop.
What it would look like is somebody with less than 1 ARCH staked voting Yes. Most of these accounts have more substantive stake, and more active accounts. We’re also seeing hundreds, not 10s of thousands. It genuinely does look like active community support.
If this proposal fails we would truly encourage the Astrovault team to repropose with clearer boundaries. I am sure the wider community can support a proposal if only it was slightly altered.
Ideas we would like to see:
Funds operated jointly by community and astrovault using a multisig
Boundaries around what % of the Arch can be pooled with which types of assets to pool ARCH with
A clear framework of how the community could re-claim the ARCH if they wanted to
Some verbal dedication to the archway ecosystem (not necesarilly Airdrop % but just clear insight into how expansion of Astrovault beyond Archway will look and where Archway will stand in all of that)
Commitment to only stake the ARCH into xARCH as soon as the liquidity will be used
Potential commitment (as was done verbally already) to spread stake beyond the AstroVault validator if it were to become to large in % of VP. - Atleast until AXV DAO tooling is launched and the community starts doing the vote for the validator.
Things we encourage you to keep the same:
The amount requested, it seems fair and incentivizing Astrovault is important for Archway
your dedication - Its clear you want AXV to succeed, this is just a bump in the road I hope the teams decides to fly over! (yes this is tacky i know but its true)
Thank you for the feedback. Much of it has been discussed publicly, but isn’t getting relayed back because engagement has been low. Hoping that this contentious proposal helps unify the larger stakeholders to better care and engage in the direction of Archway.
Reclaiming the ARCH is a dealbreaker, period. Either we own it or we don’t. We can’t reclaim the AXV we give to the community. I get that this deal could’ve been even easier to support had we put that clause. That’s not fair or equitable to our community and holders, and a FAR bigger risk to even Archway should we make that same deal elsewhere.
I don’t know how we could’ve possibly given more to the Archway ecosystem. Even the decision to go multichain was based on direct feedback and encouragement from founders here. Nobody has the sweat equity we’ve built in this ecosystem.
POL will never get natively staked. It’ll mostly be used as xARCH for deals, but can also mint things like sARCH, ampARCH, etc.
we did enumerate this in the updates at the top, but ya. We’re trying this fair. It is what it is.
At this point, were a deal to get done, we’d rather this same deal go through as a Grant. There’s 270M tokens compared to 100M. The Foundation can write in additional clauses such as our Foundation (owner of the POL, with AXV token holders as the beneficiaries) would get sued if we rugged or something, I don’t know. We made it clear in this thread that would be our preference. We believe we’ve done absolutely everything we can to get support here. Don’t need to be bitter and take the same deal up for a vote a million times, no means no, and that’s ok.
@Phunky - click through the individual accounts that are voting Yes. It will not take you long to spot the pattern.
They gamed the Archway main net airdrop, all originated from the same transaction, all followed same activity and transaction patterns, all hold very similar assets and similar amounts, all voting Yes for this proposal minute by minute.
I have listed a few examples from recent votes, but there’s a bunch more if you keep going back. This farmer makes up the bulk of individual votes.
Only a small sample from recent votes. This farmer was going the whole voting period.
Besides the farmers, users are spreading activities to multiple accounts to make it appear like there are more voting. All voting within minutes one after the next.
