…when I get the “Rationale” right (…“Without an extension, the upcoming unlock in January may hinder Lava’s ability to reach the most favorable listing venues, potentially affecting its long-term distribution.”), the ONLY reason is that Lava hasn’t been able to get the right listing partners in place for 1/25, correct?
Here, I read that you don’t see “strong utility” yet.
Network effects can be demonstrated in scenarios and could be shown in an excel sheet before we go now too deep into these kind of arguments imho. @tribecapital can you share something which might make things a bit clearer for everyone? Hope that makes sense.
Explain the beauty of a small supply. Look at the tokens that have been growing over the last year; they all have a large supply, starting with memecoins and ending with XRP, LTC, etc. Coins with a limited supply do not grow.
Completely agree here with @thatfinchguy.
Reminds me of a quote: The bird doesn’t trust the branch it wont break, instead trusts its wings it will fly.
With all due respect to the Lava team even though they are great builders, this shows the team doesnt trust its ability to fly and is relying too much on the branch.
Being a private investor, we signed a deal and respected and supported the teams decision from our side. Now, the team needs to respect the terms of the contract, instead of extending the lock period.
While I appreciate the @Ajinkya’s metaphor, I see it differently. Even the strongest wings need the right winds to soar. This isn’t about distrust but about ensuring Lava catches the optimal tailwind for long-term growth. Flexibility in strategy can be the difference between merely surviving and truly thriving.
Blocking tokens for another year will cause distrust in the project and team. Instead, it would be the best option to provide price control in the market with a linear and controlled distribution. As early investors, we believe in this and support it. We expect you to act in accordance with the first announced schedule without changing the roadmap.
100% blocking means risk, distrust and instability. Don’t do this.
The proposal to extend the token lock-up for 12 months seems like a well-justified and reasonable move, especially considering the early stages of the mainnet deployment and the importance of market stability. This decision helps the Lava project to:
Maintain investor confidence,
Ensure long-term token stability,
Reassure the community of its commitment to the successful rollout of the network.
Therefore, these actions will undoubtedly be beneficial for the project, especially given its strategic development and current milestones. Extending the lock-up, in my opinion, helps to create a healthy ecosystem and supports market stability, which is crucial for Lava’s continued growth and success.
As long term contributors to the Lava vision of decentralized RPC, we (Liquify) support Tribe Capital in this incredible decision to put the longevity and growth of the network above short term profit taking.
This space and tech often requires longer to scale and optimize than the original terms of the investor contract dictates. Working together as a community and DAO to help optimize these timelines and allow the full power of LAVA to continue to be harnessed and unlocked while slightly delaying the token distributions is an important part of the growth and upwards trajectory for the ecosystem. We will be voting in favor of this proposal.
We have been running providers from lava testnet and we can see the rapid progress that the team is making in terms of tech as well the partnerships having served 80 billion plus requests across 40 chains and with more chains transitioning from testnet to mainnet .
Having early investors extend their vesting schedule shows the trust they have in the team.
As an investor in Lava i fully disagree with the proposal due to key points:
no project has shown any significant difference if lockup was extended historically speaking (fdv is still fdv as well by the way)
timing of market cycles is more important than in which stage the project is, eg. in a bull market any investors that tend to sell will impact the market less due to mich larger demand and liquidity, vs. the proposed schedule which unlocks in a bear cycle where liquidity will be a lot thinner and not much demand
If investors and community truly believe in the project and its strength then token unlock schedule should not be a concern
it has shown to be significantly better long term that the unlocks happen faster as the “bad stuff” is out of the way and the fear of upcoming unlocks doesnt scare the community anymore
For anyone that has been through a few cycles (this is my 4th), this should be pretty clear.
Now, speaking as a member of P-OPS Team, if the community decides to favour lock extension, we as a validator will support it even if i personally disagree with the rationale behind it.
When I get this right, the so called “rationale” is not having the listing venues in place. That shouldn*t take a year …another “rationale” is no utility. I start doubting this proposal as I am not sure if these are the real reasons unless they get much clearer about things.
We support this proposal by @tribecapital and believe the team will use this extra time effectively for further development. In every Web3 project, improving token utility is key, and Lava is already making solid progress in this area. New incentive pools are being regularly integrated into the Lava Mainnet, token holders are receiving better rewards for their contributions, and, most importantly, the community is becoming more familiar with staking and restaking $LAVA.
These shows that the team is actively building value for the ecosystem, and this extension will only help them take it further. We believe in Lava’s long-term success, see no reason to disagree with these changes, and will definitely back the upcoming proposal on-chain!
Could you clarify if this proposal about specifically to Tribe Capital’s investment being locked, or does it apply to all investors’ tokens, including Web3Coins and P-OPS (as mentioned in the comments)? The post isn’t entirely clear on this point.
As a Lava validator (not an investor), I believe the core issue centers around the agreement established during the private round. This agreement is foundational to the trust and expectations among all participants.
Modifying this agreement, whether for individual contractors or the entire group, should necessitate unanimous consent from all private round participants. Achieving 100% consensus ensures that any changes respect the commitments initially made.
Given the diverse opinions already expressed, reaching such consensus may prove challenging. It’s also important to recognize that each investor has the autonomy to withhold their funds from the market for as long as they choose, regardless of any proposed modifications.
In my view, it’s crucial to balance honoring the original agreement with addressing the valid concerns raised by the community.
Initially, I thought it was specific to Tribe Capital, aimed at making their decision public and drawing attention to the lead investor’s stance. However, seeing disagreement among investors, it seems this decision might extend to everyone.
We need clear clarification: is this proposal solely about Tribe Capital, or does it impact all investors’ tokens? This is essential to address concerns and avoid altering agreements that affect all participants.
Thanks for the feedback everyone! To clarify, this proposal is to extend the lock up for all locked tokens, including team and early investors. While we are large holders, us abstaining alone cannot guarantee network stability. That is why we wanted to see how the community felt about doing a collective vote of confidence, buying the team more time to find favorable listing venues and secure the liquidity and distribution necessary to let Lava reach its full potential.
To those that suggest current market conditions are optimal for unlocks, we urge you to check on the liquidity of current Lava DEX pools: Uniswap Interface. A single private investor’s sell pressure could drain the entire pool of liquidity and dump price, let alone the fact that 33% of both the investor allocation and the team allocation unlocks next month — amounting to 14.6% of the total supply.
