For me I like the idea and support the proposal. But my concern is, Will this also play out in the future if Gooddollar integrate other blockchains and the support is not there. I am worried that tomorrow same characteristics will play out…
1 Like
For me 90/10 Celo/Fuse is too high rate, I disagree . Let keep rule equally between networks. The rule also is kept for new network joined (e.g. new Polygon network joined, rate is 33.33/33.33/33.33).
If a network needs more G$, they can be transferred via the bridge.
To make the bridge is more capacity, let open it to everyone can join the liquidity pool & earn bridge fees. For example, I put 1000 G$ in to the pool on Celo side, if any one wants to have 1000 G$ on Celo side, he/she will pay me 1000 G$ + fee (e.g. 1%) on Fuse side.
Let solve problem with long term instead of short term .
1 Like
I’d like to respond to those comments here about other blockchains, and the vision for GoodDollar multichain expansion moving forward.
The high-level vision, as outlined in the original white paper, is that GoodDollar is supported and distributed on many chains. But the idea is we want to bring value to the chains that bring value to the project, and enable the nonprofit protocol to expand and be financially supported.
A big part of the reason the Good Labs team pursued the Celo grant originally was bc of the lack of funding and marketing support from Fuse (among other reasons I listed in my original Discourse post), but primarily focused around seeing a different mission and use case focus.
Personally I’d love to see the protocol expand and distribute G$ on all EVM chains that provide financial and technical support; but it’s all a matter of focus and resources, and where the members will experience the most value, and of course, ultimately, get the most G$ UBI.
The DAO is flexible, the UBI distribution is dynamic, and it will adapt to where we see pick up happening. If, for example, if GoodDollar gets a grant to deploy on Polygon, and the Polygon community rallies around and invests in supporting G$ (money for UBI, money for grants, integrations, wallet support, marketing support) then I would anticipate the team and DAO and it’s members would make a similar readajustment.
2 Likes
As a gooddollar user and active community member, I find interaction on the Celo Blockchain more seamless than on Fuse, as there are many more options especially for on and off-ramping of G$ and the various opportunities for growth on the Celo ecosystem. This I’m sure is the feeling for other community members too. I am fully in support of this proposal and I think it’s a good move. The one-part Fuse allocation also gives room for future expansion on the fuse Blockchain if there’s need.
1 Like
Thanks all for your feedback, in a bit less than 1 hour you will be able to vote during 1 week for this proposal at Snapshot
Would be glad to see @Meri_Fernandez, @pedrosa.eth and @voroperez vote on it to show their support.
3 Likes
Thanks for submitting. I’ve casted my vote.
I’d like to add that this can and should be reviewed in the future as new opportunities are created on Fuse or new blockchains show interest in implementing the GoodDollar protocol.
For instance, a possibility would be to implement an automated and balanced UBI distribution taking in consideration active claimers, as simulated in the image attached to this comment. This simulation, however, does not take in consideration dApp partners within a chain, which would lead to increase in bridge usage - and extra hassle for users.
1 Like
I think your proposal is worth it… let’s increase Good Dollar to be the best
The proposal is okay and well thought out.
1 Like