Technically the Kleros DAO has full control of token minting. This means it can deny minting of tokens of the initial plan and mint less or mint more than 1B.
4 Likes
I have PNK staked, how do I vote on this?
It hasn’t been put to vote yet and it is still gathering community feedback.
I am still trying to wrap my head around how you guys are proposing to completely sabotage your development, loss your community trust/credibility, and fall off the rather of almost all your existing and future investors. Look at other companies who succeeded in crypto and how they created value for their coins/tokens during their price discovery days then you will know that the only thing this proposal will accomplish is that it will enrich you guys pockets in the short term and mess all your investors up. My proposal is mint Zero PNK (In fact, the issue of minting should not even be talked about in a very long time), reduce rewards and compensation drastically, watch PNK value rise. PNK value rise, which means the very tiny rewards and compensations you are giving will worth more money in the hands of the receivers.
2 Likes
We don’t need generic cash
If there is no shortage in generic cash, I think it is not in the best interest of the community to devalue the token for any purposes. One of the main targets should be bringing jurors onto the platform and you can’t be attractive with an inflationary currency that did not even get of the ground.
If you already have enough cash or eth (est. over $1 million) why don’t you use buybacks of PNK to finance your reward programs and team member compensation. Just minting the PNK you need seems like draining the community your project very much depends on.
It’s not just a claim, you can look at the Kleros multisig.
The minted PNK are not going toward the founders neither directly nor indirectly. The proposal just asks to confirm the scheduled issuance of tokens which are used to pay for daily PNK expenses.
The cooperative has almost no PNK left and the community holds way more PNK than team members.
People don’t work for free and compensation is really reasonable and would be below market prices if it didn’t include the PNK part. When compensation fails too drastically (like what happened during the bear market), people leave and go work on projects paying more.
PNK is not a “store of value” token. But a staking one which allows starkers to get paid to arbitrate disputes.
Since the cooperative has almost no PNK left, even those rising value wouldn’t help. The choice is either to reward people in PNK or in ETH. A part of the reward being in PNK aligns incentives.
I’ve been in crypto since 2013 thanks for your concern. PNK is not a store of value token and has really different economics. Its value is derived from arbitration fees paid to token holders / jurors. If the extra com/integration enabled by the tokens increases the amount of arbitration fees collected by the system by a factor greater than the dilution, PNK value should increase.
Note that the proposal doesn’t change the expected minting scheduled but is part of a schedule which has always been public since 2017.
1 Like
The cooperative buying back tokens on the market is not sustainable model. Projects doing that are generally projects which ends up with more value in their treasury than their marketcap so basically it acts as an anti-sale. This would also give really perverse incentives as we would then have interest for the price to crash to still have runaway.
You wouldn’t end up with it in your treasury as you would immediately spend in on your rewards and compensation. I do not understand how the incentive would arise to crash the price as you do not have to always give out the same amount of PNK for rewards or bonuses but just tie it to an amount of ethereum or dollars you would give out as you’d have to do anyways should the price get too high.
Without going much into details:
- the allocation was allocated right from the beginning
(end of story)
Seems a “no-brainer” to me 
6 Likes
The whole interest of PNK based compensation is to tie team member compensation to the success of the project such that they have the same incentives as token holders. Those compensations are labelled in PNK, not in USD. If they collectively do a good job, they get a better compensation, if they don’t they get a lower one.
1 Like
Think you are contradicting yourself. If pnk doesn’t hold its value or not a store of value then it’s a depreciating asset/currency. In that case what’s the point of holding and collecting fees that slowly turns zero over time?
1 Like
Completely agree on the fact that part of compensation for team members’ work has to be in PNK to keep incentives aligned with project’s growth and product’s quality.
As for the minting process, everyone really involved in the project would know that it has always been part of the plan and that it stays within the 1B token cap.
On the planning aspects, I am sure you guys have some rationale to explain the amount requested in this proposal:
- Which percentage of the 200M tokens will be allocated to which of the 3 purposes exposed (Coop reserve, Airdrops, Team allocation for new members) ?
- How much time those 200M tokens will allow sustaining the 3 activities mentioned above ?
4 Likes
Arbitration fees are collected in ETH not in PNK.
3 Likes
Well you may want to store value in it but that’s not what it’s made for. PNK is more akin to taxi medallion as it allows you to provide a services and be compensated for it.
Store of values like BTC are unproductive assets where the reason to hold them is to sell / pay something with them.
The reason to hold PNK is to stake it to be drawn as a juror and get paid arbitration fees.
So they did not do a good job with managing the funds or whatever so you’re inflating the currency? Would that be a good example of how your dogma works?
1 Like
This proposal doesn’t propose to inflate the supply. It just executes part of the allocation plan made in 2017 and displayed in all token sale materials.
And yes, the fact that a lot of people understood it as inflating the expected and sold token has decreased the value of the PNK compensation of the whole team.
Alright, I guess I’m happy with that even tho I imagined the minting to be on a larger timeframe. But if I think about timing such an event I’d have to have a lot more information and I still believe Schelling was right and there is a use case. Keep it up guys.
2 Likes
Minting doesn’t mean spending right away. But if people are concerns by this, we could make a minting proposal over a time period, with a bit more unlocked each time.
3 Likes
Ok, let’s test how upfront the team is willing to be.
Tell us exactly which large centralized exchanges the team aims to list (name them) on and exactly how much PNK each exchange requires for liquidity.
And no bullshit excuse about not knowing- the team should know this exact info if this is the reason for minting.
This is not the reason for minting. The reason for minting is that since 2017 a token plan (put clearly and prominently in both sales) allocating some tokens for cooperative spending has been made and the team has been making PNK spending decisions according to this plan (team member part, reward programs incentivizing usage of new dapps and building on top of Kleros).
We cannot speculate on further listings but for example, there is approximately 15 000 000 PNK of liquidity in Uniswap which is the exchange where the highest quantity of liquidity was provided.
1 Like