Promote Fangible Platform{"type":0,"summary":"Enable the Fangible platform to become a leader in NFT trading platforms.","details":"With the rise of X2Y2 and the Looks platform, the competition of NFT trading platforms has become a track. As the first platform to develop NFT trading platforms, Bounce barely performed in this wave of competition. It is hoped that the team can absorb the advantages of the two platforms X2Y2 and Looks, promote Fangible's business, and start the Fangible trading competition and NFT liquidity mining.","agreeFor":"Support the opening of Fangible trading competition and NFT liquidity mining","againstFor":"Keep Fangible in its current state"}
Token Migration{"type":0,"summary":"We propose to migrate BOT token to a new token with migration ratio of 1:100","details":"The current BOT token is illiquidity and the per unit price is too high. The migration from BOT to a new token is the first step in the bounce V2. Migrating BOT to a new token allows tokens to be more liquid and attract more BOT holders. The token symbol for the new token can be AUCTION","agreeFor":"You support migration","againstFor":"You against migration"}
Promote Fangible Platform{"type":0,"summary":"Enable the Fangible platform to become a leader in NFT trading platforms.","details":"With the rise of X2Y2 and the Looks platform, the competition of NFT trading platforms has become a track. As the first platform to develop NFT trading platforms, Bounce barely performed in this wave of competition. It is hoped that the team can absorb the advantages of the two platforms X2Y2 and Looks, promote Fangible's business, and start the Fangible trading competition and NFT liquidity mining.","agreeFor":"Support the opening of Fangible trading competition and NFT liquidity mining","againstFor":"Keep Fangible in its current state"}
Create an auction for NFT{"type":0,"summary":"create an NFT auction by collaborating with the community and electing experts who are able to analytically evaluate all the works of art, giving a starting value. to participate, you must bind a sum that will be converted once the auction is over, if they fail to win the work in bounce tokens with the addition of 15% but bound to a second investment in NFT or to be placed in any pool. Furthermore, those who win the work are rewarded with a second NFT created directly by the experts in the sector, where it will then be evaluated in this case by the community and the buyer if he wants to must pay 10% of the estimate made by the community. The auction price is therefore based on the work, on the transaction cost and on a possible 10% more for the second NFT plus 5% to be left as a bounce brokerage cost.","details":"the experts will be evaluated after several challenges to test the real competence and will be rewarded with limited edition auctions aimed at rare works where each of them can participate","agreeFor":"more users and the only specialized platform able to really evaluate works of art","againstFor":"difficulty in finding experts in the field as it is new and there are still no people who can be considered experts"}
{"type":0,"summary":"We propose to migrate BOT token to a new token with migration ratio of 1:100","details":"The current BOT token is illiquidity and the per unit price is too high. The migration from BOT to a new token is the first step in the bounce V2. Migrating BOT to a new token allows tokens to be more liquid and attract more BOT holders. The token symbol for the new token can be AUCTION","agreeFor":"You support migration","againstFor":"You against migration"}
Token Migration{"type":0,"summary":"We propose to migrate BOT token to a new token with migration ratio of 1:100","details":"The current BOT token is illiquidity and the per unit price is too high. The migration from BOT to a new token is the first step in the bounce V2. Migrating BOT to a new token allows tokens to be more liquid and attract more BOT holders. The token symbol for the new token can be AUCTION","agreeFor":"You support migration","againstFor":"You against migration"}
Reduce daily emission to 0{"type":0,"summary":"We have reached to a point which the platform is sustainable without incentive rewards. We propose to cancel the 3 daily tokens rewards across governance, LP staking, and liquidity mining.","details":"There will be no inflation if this policy is passed and the supply will be capped.","agreeFor":"Reduce daily emission to 0","againstFor":"against this change"}
Reduce daily emission to 0{"type":0,"summary":"We have reached to a point which the platform is sustainable without incentive rewards. We propose to cancel the 3 daily tokens rewards across governance, LP staking, and liquidity mining.","details":"There will be no inflation if this policy is passed and the supply will be capped.","agreeFor":"Reduce daily emission to 0","againstFor":"against this change"}
Reduce fee to claim reward{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce the fee for claiming staking reward by not requiring the earned ETH to be converted to BOT when the user wants to claim the reward.","details":"Currently when the staking reward is claimed, the ETH that was earned is automatically converted to BOT using Uniswap. This adds to the cost of claiming the reward and reduces the reward that is received. This was perhaps done as an attempt to increase the BOT price. It does not seem to be working. Requiring the ETH earned for staking to be converted to BOT is not the best way to increase the price of BOT. Most of this is converted back to ETH anyways. So there is an equal and opposite downward pressure on the price. When the Bounce project began, the distribution was directly in ETH and the price was doing quite well. After changing to distributions in BOT, some of the stakers have left the project. If more people know that they can directly earn ETH for staking BOT, there will be more people buying and staking BOT. This is what will cause the BOT price to increase. Most projects that give rewards for staking are doing so by inflating their supply. BOT is unique in that it is generating revenue and distributing it to reward staking. When crypto influencers tell potential investors that BOT is generating revenue in ETH and they can earn this by staking BOT, there will be huge demand for BOT. That is the best way to increase the BOT price. The current way of forcing a conversion to BOT is only increasing the cost of claiming BOT and hurting the stakers.","agreeFor":"Stop converting the staking reward to BOT and distribute it as ETH.","againstFor":"Continue converting the staking reward from ETH to BOT when the reward is claimed."}
Reduce fee to claim reward{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce the fee for claiming staking reward by not requiring the earned ETH to be converted to BOT when the user wants to claim the reward.","details":"Currently when the staking reward is claimed, the ETH that was earned is automatically converted to BOT using Uniswap. This adds to the cost of claiming the reward and reduces the reward that is received. This was perhaps done as an attempt to increase the BOT price. It does not seem to be working. Requiring the ETH earned for staking to be converted to BOT is not the best way to increase the price of BOT. Most of this is converted back to ETH anyways. So there is an equal and opposite downward pressure on the price. When the Bounce project began, the distribution was directly in ETH and the price was doing quite well. After changing to distributions in BOT, some of the stakers have left the project. If more people know that they can directly earn ETH for staking BOT, there will be more people buying and staking BOT. This is what will cause the BOT price to increase. Most projects that give rewards for staking are doing so by inflating their supply. BOT is unique in that it is generating revenue and distributing it to reward staking. When crypto influencers tell potential investors that BOT is generating revenue in ETH and they can earn this by staking BOT, there will be huge demand for BOT. That is the best way to increase the BOT price. The current way of forcing a conversion to BOT is only increasing the cost of claiming BOT and hurting the stakers.","agreeFor":"Stop converting the staking reward to BOT and distribute it as ETH.","againstFor":"Continue converting the staking reward from ETH to BOT when the reward is claimed."}
Show time left to claim reward{"type":0,"summary":"The UI should show the amount of time left to claim the reward","details":"The earnings from staking must be claimed within 7 days (soon to be 30 days). Sometimes we forget when we last claimed. It would be good if the Earnings page showed the time left to claim any rewards that would be lost if not claimed in time.","agreeFor":"Change the UI to show the amount of time left to claim any reward that would otherwise be lost.","againstFor":"No change to the UI is required."}
Show time left to claim reward{"type":0,"summary":"The UI should show the amount of time left to claim the reward","details":"The earnings from staking must be claimed within 7 days (soon to be 30 days). Sometimes we forget when we last claimed. It would be good if the Earnings page showed the time left to claim any rewards that would be lost if not claimed in time.","agreeFor":"Change the UI to show the amount of time left to claim any reward that would otherwise be lost.","againstFor":"No change to the UI is required."}
Track Past Governance Proposals{"type":0,"summary":"Allow tracking the status of past governance proposals.","details":"The UI needs another tab like \"Voted\" where past proposals that have “passed” and “failed” can be viewed. This will prevent submitting the same proposals again. Also for proposals that have passed it would be good to track if the proposal has been implemented or is pending.","agreeFor":"Bounce team should add \"Voted\" tab to allow tracking the status of past proposals.","againstFor":"No changes to the UI needed."}
Track Past Governance Proposals{"type":0,"summary":"Allow tracking the status of past governance proposals.","details":"The UI needs another tab like \"Voted\" where past proposals that have “passed” and “failed” can be viewed. This will prevent submitting the same proposals again. Also for proposals that have passed it would be good to track if the proposal has been implemented or is pending.","agreeFor":"Bounce team should add \"Voted\" tab to allow tracking the status of past proposals.","againstFor":"No changes to the UI needed."}
Increase time to claim staking reward{"type":0,"summary":"Increase the time for claim staking reward from 7 days to 30 days","details":"If taking reward is not claimed within 7 days, it is lost. Since the staking rewards have been reduced but the transaction fee are still high on Ethereum the cost of claiming the reward makes it not worthwhile. We should allow the staking rewards to be claimed within 30 days so it become worthwhile relative to the transaction fees.","agreeFor":"Increasing time to claim staking reward to 30 days.","againstFor":"Keep time to claim staking reward to 7 days."}
Increase time to claim staking reward{"type":0,"summary":"Increase the time for claim staking reward from 7 days to 30 days","details":"If taking reward is not claimed within 7 days, it is lost. Since the staking rewards have been reduced but the transaction fee are still high on Ethereum the cost of claiming the reward makes it not worthwhile. We should allow the staking rewards to be claimed within 30 days so it become worthwhile relative to the transaction fees.","agreeFor":"Increasing time to claim staking reward to 30 days.","againstFor":"Keep time to claim staking reward to 7 days."}
Transactional mining mechanism and reward distribution{"type":0,"summary":"Change mining mechanism from daily transactional volume to daily valid number of transactions. Also reduce governance rewards and uniswap LP token rewards to 0.5 BOT token per cycle respectively.","details":"The number of transactions will be counted towards daily reward distribution if the value of the transaction is greater or equal to 1.5 ETH.","agreeFor":"You support the change","againstFor":"You against the change"}
Transactional mining mechanism and reward distribution{"type":0,"summary":"Change mining mechanism from daily transactional volume to daily valid number of transactions. Also reduce governance rewards and uniswap LP token rewards to 0.5 BOT token per cycle respectively.","details":"The number of transactions will be counted towards daily reward distribution if the value of the transaction is greater or equal to 1.5 ETH.","agreeFor":"You support the change","againstFor":"You against the change"}
Revert Some Recent Changes (mining / rewards){"type":0,"summary":"Increase incentives for tx-miners / LPs","details":"Someone had the *brilliant* idea of reducing LP incentives to just $300 / day and as a result, we have lost the majority of our liquidity. Someone else had the brilliant idea of rewarding tx miners based on volume rather than # of txs... once again horrible idea. When there is a gas cost associated with every tx, the cost of mining for bot is higher / bot has a potentially higher break even price for miners. I'm proposing we roll back these changes. Governance is a blessing and a curse in early phases of product development. People are so quick to just cut emissions to zero in order to increase the price... this is short sighted. Without proper incentives, we cannot properly bootstrap the protocol's growth. As the rewards have been cut, so has staking apy / liquidity. I'm asking for your votes to roll back emissions to the last state / change tx mining back to # of txs rather than volume. Please consider what these changes have done to our liquidity and staking yield. Thank you!","agreeFor":"Revert the changes!","againstFor":"Leave as is."}
Revert Some Recent Changes (mining / rewards){"type":0,"summary":"Increase incentives for tx-miners / LPs","details":"Someone had the *brilliant* idea of reducing LP incentives to just $300 / day and as a result, we have lost the majority of our liquidity. Someone else had the brilliant idea of rewarding tx miners based on volume rather than # of txs... once again horrible idea. When there is a gas cost associated with every tx, the cost of mining for bot is higher / bot has a potentially higher break even price for miners. I'm proposing we roll back these changes. Governance is a blessing and a curse in early phases of product development. People are so quick to just cut emissions to zero in order to increase the price... this is short sighted. Without proper incentives, we cannot properly bootstrap the protocol's growth. As the rewards have been cut, so has staking apy / liquidity. I'm asking for your votes to roll back emissions to the last state / change tx mining back to # of txs rather than volume. Please consider what these changes have done to our liquidity and staking yield. Thank you!","agreeFor":"Revert the changes!","againstFor":"Leave as is."}
Adding USDT auction pair{"type":0,"summary":"We propose to add USDT auction pair.","details":"Now we can only create auction with ETH pair. We should add USDT pair to facilitate more auction demand ","agreeFor":"You support add USDT auction pair","againstFor":"You against add USDT auction pair"}
Adding USDT auction pair{"type":0,"summary":"We propose to add USDT auction pair.","details":"Now we can only create auction with ETH pair. We should add USDT pair to facilitate more auction demand ","agreeFor":"You support add USDT auction pair","againstFor":"You against add USDT auction pair"}
Daily emission{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce Daily emission to 4 BOT per day","details":"Transactional mining 2 BOT, Governance participation 1 BOT, Uniswap LP 1 BOT.","agreeFor":"You support Reduce Daily emission to 4 BOT per day","againstFor":"You against Reduce Daily emission to 4 BOT per day"}
Daily reward mining parameter{"type":0,"summary":"I propose to use daily transaction volume instead of number of valid transaction to distribute mining rewards.","details":"The daily mining rewards are distributed based on the number of valid transactions. It made sense at the beginning since it prevents whales from getting most of the token rewards. But now we have higher transaction fee and lower reward, it makes more sense to use transaction volume as parameter to distribute rewards. This way the staking rewards should increase and apy should go up as well. ","agreeFor":"Use transaction volume as mining parameter","againstFor":"Use number of valid transaction as mining parameter"}
Daily reward mining parameter{"type":0,"summary":"I propose to use daily transaction volume instead of number of valid transaction to distribute mining rewards.","details":"The daily mining rewards are distributed based on the number of valid transactions. It made sense at the beginning since it prevents whales from getting most of the token rewards. But now we have higher transaction fee and lower reward, it makes more sense to use transaction volume as parameter to distribute rewards. This way the staking rewards should increase and apy should go up as well. ","agreeFor":"Use transaction volume as mining parameter","againstFor":"Use number of valid transaction as mining parameter"}
End Inflationary BOT Rewards{"type":0,"summary":"This proposal is to end the 16 BOT per day of daily rewards that goes to governance participants (50%), transactional miners (30%) and Uniswap LP token stakers (20%) and burn the BOT in this contract.","details":"At this moment there is 23,461 BOT in the following contract 0x5beabaebb3146685dd74176f68a0721f91297d37 - The rewards are so tiny each day that they are not even worth claiming as the fees exceed the rewards for voting for nearly all users. You can clearly see this in Etherscan as the claims and interest in these inflationary BOT rewards are almost non-existent. As we are well past the bootstrap phase, transactional mining rewards are no longer needed. Fee generation revenue on Bounce Finance is HIGH (paying approximately 100% APY in ETH rewards) and sustainable from genuine commercial activity. Also, the Uniswap LP token staking reward is so small that it is irrelevant and not necessary given that BOT has significant natural liquidity on Huobi, Okex, Coinone and other exchanges. The Uniswap liquidity is also fine and the rewards aren't a factor. This proposal is to burn approximately 23,461 BOT from this contract and end the inflationary rewards. The remaining maximum supply will be approximately 76,539 (number determined at closing of vote), with 25,000 of this BOT in the Governance vault and owned by BOT holders. That 25,000 BOT is a strategic reserve of approximately $8,500,000 at $340 per BOT, which is more than sufficient for any future rewards or other activity, if required.","agreeFor":"I vote to end the 16 BOT per day daily rewards and burn the 23,000+ BOT in that contract.","againstFor":"I vote to maintain the 16 BOT per day daily rewards."}
End Inflationary BOT Rewards{"type":0,"summary":"This proposal is to end the 16 BOT per day of daily rewards that goes to governance participants (50%), transactional miners (30%) and Uniswap LP token stakers (20%) and burn the BOT in this contract.","details":"At this moment there is 23,461 BOT in the following contract 0x5beabaebb3146685dd74176f68a0721f91297d37 - The rewards are so tiny each day that they are not even worth claiming as the fees exceed the rewards for voting for nearly all users. You can clearly see this in Etherscan as the claims and interest in these inflationary BOT rewards are almost non-existent. As we are well past the bootstrap phase, transactional mining rewards are no longer needed. Fee generation revenue on Bounce Finance is HIGH (paying approximately 100% APY in ETH rewards) and sustainable from genuine commercial activity. Also, the Uniswap LP token staking reward is so small that it is irrelevant and not necessary given that BOT has significant natural liquidity on Huobi, Okex, Coinone and other exchanges. The Uniswap liquidity is also fine and the rewards aren't a factor. This proposal is to burn approximately 23,461 BOT from this contract and end the inflationary rewards. The remaining maximum supply will be approximately 76,539 (number determined at closing of vote), with 25,000 of this BOT in the Governance vault and owned by BOT holders. That 25,000 BOT is a strategic reserve of approximately $8,500,000 at $340 per BOT, which is more than sufficient for any future rewards or other activity, if required.","agreeFor":"I vote to end the 16 BOT per day daily rewards and burn the 23,000+ BOT in that contract.","againstFor":"I vote to maintain the 16 BOT per day daily rewards."}
Fix CMC, CG and ES{"type":0,"summary":"Fix the max supply on CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko and EtherScan.","details":"Max supply on CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko is still 150,000. Max supply on EtherScan is still 500,000. Investors look at these number to determine max dilution. Getting these numbers fixed to max supply of 100,000 should help the price reach it's true value.\n","agreeFor":"Agree the Bounce team should contact CMC, CG and ES to get the number fixed.","againstFor":"Want the Bounce team to take no action."}
Fix CMC, CG and ES{"type":0,"summary":"Fix the max supply on CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko and EtherScan.","details":"Max supply on CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko is still 150,000. Max supply on EtherScan is still 500,000. Investors look at these number to determine max dilution. Getting these numbers fixed to max supply of 100,000 should help the price reach it's true value.\n","agreeFor":"Agree the Bounce team should contact CMC, CG and ES to get the number fixed.","againstFor":"Want the Bounce team to take no action."}
Earn ETH for Transaction fee{"type":0,"summary":"Continue to issue pledge fees with Ethereum","details":"Currently, the pledge fee is to buy back the Bot for distribution. However, most people will choose to sell after receiving the bot. This is because the price of bots is not stable. For example, when 1bot=2eth, receiving 2eth handling fee is equivalent to receiving 1bot, but when bot becomes 1bot=1eth, it is equivalent to losing 1eth. Through investigation, I also found that almost most people will sell after claiming BOT. This will not achieve the effect.","agreeFor":"Earn ETH for Transaction fee","againstFor":"Earn BOT for Transaction fee"}
Earn ETH for Transaction fee{"type":0,"summary":"Continue to issue pledge fees with Ethereum","details":"Currently, the pledge fee is to buy back the Bot for distribution. However, most people will choose to sell after receiving the bot. This is because the price of bots is not stable. For example, when 1bot=2eth, receiving 2eth handling fee is equivalent to receiving 1bot, but when bot becomes 1bot=1eth, it is equivalent to losing 1eth. Through investigation, I also found that almost most people will sell after claiming BOT. This will not achieve the effect.","agreeFor":"Earn ETH for Transaction fee","againstFor":"Earn BOT for Transaction fee"}
Burn 50000 Gov Vault BOT{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce the amount of the Governance Vault treasury to 25000 BOT from 75000 BOT by burning 50000 BOT. This will reduce total supply to 100000 BOT.","details":"The Governance Vault located at 0xda67595745f74860f3360fedf744cee7293d2daf holds 75000 BOT, which today is valued at $25,000,000 (at $330 per BOT). It is owned by BOT token holders. I believe it represents a price overhang on the value of BOT. The amount is unnecessary and the way it has been sold in the market has been a concern and impacted BOT price greatly. I believe that 25000 BOT is more than sufficient for the Governance Vault treasury. This is $8,250,000 today in value. Bounce Finance is unique in that the protocol generates substantial revenue in Ethereum (non-inflationary) and a $25,000,000 treasury is unnecessary in my opinion. I propose to burn 50000 BOT, which will leave a Governance Vault treasury of 250000 BOT and the maximum total BOT supply will be 100000,.","agreeFor":"I vote to burn 50000 BOT in the Governance vault","againstFor":"I vote to not burn 50000 BOT in the Governance vault"}
Burn 50000 Gov Vault BOT{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce the amount of the Governance Vault treasury to 25000 BOT from 75000 BOT by burning 50000 BOT. This will reduce total supply to 100000 BOT.","details":"The Governance Vault located at 0xda67595745f74860f3360fedf744cee7293d2daf holds 75000 BOT, which today is valued at $25,000,000 (at $330 per BOT). It is owned by BOT token holders. I believe it represents a price overhang on the value of BOT. The amount is unnecessary and the way it has been sold in the market has been a concern and impacted BOT price greatly. I believe that 25000 BOT is more than sufficient for the Governance Vault treasury. This is $8,250,000 today in value. Bounce Finance is unique in that the protocol generates substantial revenue in Ethereum (non-inflationary) and a $25,000,000 treasury is unnecessary in my opinion. I propose to burn 50000 BOT, which will leave a Governance Vault treasury of 250000 BOT and the maximum total BOT supply will be 100000,.","agreeFor":"I vote to burn 50000 BOT in the Governance vault","againstFor":"I vote to not burn 50000 BOT in the Governance vault"}
Reduce daily rewards to 16{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce daily rewards emission to 16 bots and adjust allocation.","details":"The daily inflation of BOT tokens should be further reduced to 16 BOTs per day. Since most of the bounce traction is on ethereum network and the barrier to entry (namely transaction fees) on BSC is low, we would like to propose to stop transactional liquidity provision rewards on BSC. After the change, there will only be three sectors to share daily rewards: 1) 50% to governance voting rewards 2) 30% to Ethereum transactional liquidity mining 3) 20% Uniswap LP token provision.","agreeFor":"You support reducing daily rewards and new allocation scheme","againstFor":"You against reducing daily rewards and new allocation scheme"}
Reduce daily rewards to 16{"type":0,"summary":"Reduce daily rewards emission to 16 bots and adjust allocation.","details":"The daily inflation of BOT tokens should be further reduced to 16 BOTs per day. Since most of the bounce traction is on ethereum network and the barrier to entry (namely transaction fees) on BSC is low, we would like to propose to stop transactional liquidity provision rewards on BSC. After the change, there will only be three sectors to share daily rewards: 1) 50% to governance voting rewards 2) 30% to Ethereum transactional liquidity mining 3) 20% Uniswap LP token provision.","agreeFor":"You support reducing daily rewards and new allocation scheme","againstFor":"You against reducing daily rewards and new allocation scheme"}
Dutch Auctions for Governance{"type":0,"summary":"The proposal is to use Dutch Auction format instead of the current Sealed Bid Auctions for all future Governance Vault sales. This will improve public perception regarding low floor swap ratio pricing","details":"As detailed in this post: https://medium.com/@bouncefinance/a-new-metric-a-new-vision-e7573c7fd816 there will be future Governance Vault sales that will benefit the DAO. \n\nThe Governance Vault currently holds 75,000 BOT. The current format calls for to be determined Sealed Bid Auctions with a with the floor swap ratio of 1 ETH=6 BOT. This low floor price scares off potential BOT investors, because the actual market price has always been significantly higher. \n\nInstead of a Sealed Bid Auction with a floor swap ratio, I propose to use a Dutch Auction format with no reserve. The Dutch Auction protocol already live on Bounce. \n\nWith a Dutch Auction, the auctioneer begins with a high asking price in the case of selling, and lowers it until some participant accepts the price. \n\nThis will likely achieve prices at or near current market price and the public perception of the sale will be enhanced with nobody worried about an unusually low floor price.","agreeFor":"I vote in favor of Dutch Auction format for future Governance Vault sales.","againstFor":"I vote against Dutch Auction format for future Governance Vault sales."}
Dutch Auctions for Governance{"type":0,"summary":"The proposal is to use Dutch Auction format instead of the current Sealed Bid Auctions for all future Governance Vault sales. This will improve public perception regarding low floor swap ratio pricing","details":"As detailed in this post: https://medium.com/@bouncefinance/a-new-metric-a-new-vision-e7573c7fd816 there will be future Governance Vault sales that will benefit the DAO. \n\nThe Governance Vault currently holds 75,000 BOT. The current format calls for to be determined Sealed Bid Auctions with a with the floor swap ratio of 1 ETH=6 BOT. This low floor price scares off potential BOT investors, because the actual market price has always been significantly higher. \n\nInstead of a Sealed Bid Auction with a floor swap ratio, I propose to use a Dutch Auction format with no reserve. The Dutch Auction protocol already live on Bounce. \n\nWith a Dutch Auction, the auctioneer begins with a high asking price in the case of selling, and lowers it until some participant accepts the price. \n\nThis will likely achieve prices at or near current market price and the public perception of the sale will be enhanced with nobody worried about an unusually low floor price.","agreeFor":"I vote in favor of Dutch Auction format for future Governance Vault sales.","againstFor":"I vote against Dutch Auction format for future Governance Vault sales."}
Add 15 day lock to BOT staking{"type":0,"summary":"Adding a 15 day lock to BOT staking will reward those with a commitment to staking BOT, by decreasing the amount of staked BOT. Therefore, there will be less BOT sharing the same amount of rewards. ","agreeFor":"I vote for a 15 day lock to BOT staking.","againstFor":"I vote against a 15 day lock to BOT staking."}
Add 15 day lock to BOT staking{"type":0,"summary":"Adding a 15 day lock to BOT staking will reward those with a commitment to staking BOT, by decreasing the amount of staked BOT. Therefore, there will be less BOT sharing the same amount of rewards. ","agreeFor":"I vote for a 15 day lock to BOT staking.","againstFor":"I vote against a 15 day lock to BOT staking."}
Utility token earned with BOT{"type":0,"summary":"Add a secondary utility token that BOT users can earn by staking and farming BOT pools. This can be the platform currency and can be used as rewards for liquidity providers and stakers and for fees. ","details":"BOT should be the main governance token and all platform revenues should go to BOT holders in some shape or form. However, BOT with its limited supply is not a good currency for fees and staking rewards. A secondary utility token, closer to a stablecoin, possibly with rebases, can be useful as the default platform currency. Being able to earn this secondary currency by staking BOT and farming in BOT pools will drive enhanced interest to the project and increase the value of BOT as it is a direct utility and use of the BOT token. Demand for BOT will increase as it will be necessary to have BOT to stake it to generate this new currency. This will lead to a high APY, and because BOT supply is limited, this will increase the price of BOT. Several projects have implemented this model with much success. An example is Kitten Finance with KIF as the governance token (like BOT) and kBASE as the currency token.","agreeFor":"I support the creation of a secondary utility token to be generated by staking BOT.","againstFor":"I do not support the creation of a secondary utility token to be generated by staking BOT."}
Utility token earned with BOT{"type":0,"summary":"Add a secondary utility token that BOT users can earn by staking and farming BOT pools. This can be the platform currency and can be used as rewards for liquidity providers and stakers and for fees. ","details":"BOT should be the main governance token and all platform revenues should go to BOT holders in some shape or form. However, BOT with its limited supply is not a good currency for fees and staking rewards. A secondary utility token, closer to a stablecoin, possibly with rebases, can be useful as the default platform currency. Being able to earn this secondary currency by staking BOT and farming in BOT pools will drive enhanced interest to the project and increase the value of BOT as it is a direct utility and use of the BOT token. Demand for BOT will increase as it will be necessary to have BOT to stake it to generate this new currency. This will lead to a high APY, and because BOT supply is limited, this will increase the price of BOT. Several projects have implemented this model with much success. An example is Kitten Finance with KIF as the governance token (like BOT) and kBASE as the currency token.","agreeFor":"I support the creation of a secondary utility token to be generated by staking BOT.","againstFor":"I do not support the creation of a secondary utility token to be generated by staking BOT."}
We need pool creation fee{"type":0,"summary":"All pool creators will need to pay 0.5 BOT for pool creation fee and this fee will be burned forever","details":"We all are aware that a lot of fake, scam, and wash trading pools on Bounce. Some people that don't understand Bounce is decentralised platform (everyone can list for free) will start blaming the Bounce team every time they got scam. This is not good for long term. We need solution to prevent more scams. \n\nI propose we as community required all pool creators to pay some pool creation fee before their pool go live. For now, Bounce only required to take some % of the total raised for transaction fee. This means everyone can create scam pools and have nothing to lose, imagine some scammer raised 100 ETH on their pool they wouldn't mind to lose some percentage of it for transaction fee. \n\nBut if we add pool creation fee it will greatly help reduce the scam because they will need to risk some money at the front before their pool go live. This will help Bounce to help better projects on the platform because only legitimate projects that wouldn't mind to pay this kind of fee.","agreeFor":"If you support we need pool creation fee","againstFor":"If you against we need pool creation fee"}