I don’t have the full visibility on the numbers, but with the current prices of sICX and BALN the DAO fund should be at around ~2,5M USD as the current 5% allocation is the same as you mention for the Emergency Reserve fund which “currently has ~743k sICX and and ~558k BALN” according to you post.
Taking those numbers into account the Teams that contribute to Balanced have received 4x as much as they are at 20% allocation which means ~10M USD which is extreme in my view and is the place which needs to be cut. BALANCED is a great product, but you can hire a lot of tech resources for that amount of money.
In my view I would do 2 changes:
The emergency fund of ~2,5M USD (and growing unless its being capped t at that amount now) is very excessive. This is basically non revenue generating money which could be better utilized to one or more of the following: Increase marketing, new coins listing on BALANCED and CEX listings for the BALN token, higher yield for longer lock up periods, airdrops, increase pool rewards and/or staking rewards or buy back BALN or ICX to burn. There should of-course be an emergency fund, but 2,5M and growing as massive compared to the size of the company/business compared to the balance sheet of any similar start up/SME.
A full overhaul of how payouts to developers are being structured. At the current rate the developers are taking in close to $50K daily which is unreal. Developers should have a big stake in the game and have a hefty payout if the product/project succeed, but now it seems structured like they have their payday right away without any or little skin in the game. The community doesn’t have any visibility on how many people/what type of roles this money is divided amongst which increases the dissatisfaction.
Why I would make those changes:
To make a successful product we need users. I’ve used Balanced since launch and UX/UI it’s clearly one of the best products in the market. The fact that it’s not nr 1 is because traders/investors make more money elsewhere. If I can get better yield elsewhere, trade more coins, get better staking options etc I don’t really care about the usability that much.
The more users and TVL locked, the more fees are generated, and more money the BALN token holders are making.
You mention “accumulating more BALN/value to the DAO fund means that BALN genuinely has more value” which I see as a short term solution as this will lead BALN value down to the ground. Accumulating BALN is not the same as accumulating more value as giving less BALN/financial rewards to the users will decrease the demand of using BALANCED so the fees will drop as well as the DAO fund value as a result.
Both Devs and DAO has a lot of BALN tokens already and the goal should be to increase the value of the tokens first, and getting more tokens second
Your proposal is taking Balanced the opposite direction for the DAO fund and it’s just binding up non revenue generating capital when at this stage of the business should spend “every single dollar” for growth, customer acquisition and product feature production.
With a declining BALN token price over time I would not provide liquidity to the pools and with a very limited Borrow reward I would rather look into other projects as I use Balanced to keep a solid ICX stack locked while taking up loan when I feel the market is bullish. With both features gone I don’t see the same upside using Balanced or holding ICX which I hold because of this great platform.
I will therefor vote a clear no and I hope this proposal doesn’t go through.