Hopefully this upgrade could lift up Viction Ecosystem growth. The idea of 4 years as same as BTC 4 halving cycle should work.
It is important for this proposal to be passed for Viction to have enough funds to develop and incentives to give to projects to collaborate and build on Viction
Họ mới mua lại Tomochain chưa lâu sau đó đổi tên, Lẽ ra họ phải tính được nguồn vốn phát triển khi mua lại, không có holder nào chấp nhận điều vô lý như đề xuất… trừ khi người trong cuộc
2 Likes
This is actually a very good initiative for validator. Caliber is a venture studio and also a validator node for Viction, the change in the tokenomics, halving schedule and emission timeline will align better with the benefits of committed validators that wish to go long term with Viction foundation team. Happy to be a part of the supporter of this proposal and we will make sure to vote for this on snapshot.
Happy to welcome everyone to stake with us as well and contribute to the security of VICTION network.
We have set up 4 nodes to run for Viction:
At first glance, this proposal to increase the total supply of Viction may seem concerning. In the short term, it could potentially have negative impacts on price and lead to some pushback from the community.
But in the long term, we fully support this proposal and believe it will help drive the long-term growth of the Viction ecosystem.
Increasing the $VIC supply and inflation is necessary to have sufficient resources to incentivize developers to build dApps and L2s on Viction, also necessary to sustain rewards for Masternodes and incentivize them to continue contributing to network security.
We particularly welcome the idea of positioning Viction as a Data Availability Layer and encouraging projects to deploy their L2s on top of Viction. We trust the Viction Foundation will responsibly manage the Ecosystem Development Fund to drive ecosystem growth. This will open up new opportunities and increase the value of the ecosystem.
1 Like
We completely agree with the group’s proposal. We understand the problem of limitations that the team is facing.
In a situation where many networks have been born, as well as high competition, change is really necessary. I have been following the project since the first days, I see you have put in a lot of effort.
I think the community should support the team and the overall development of ecosystems.
I think these are quite bold steps to update the network, which will help scale the network, and in the long run these updates will benefit the project
I strongly advocate for this upgrade as crucial for Viction’s sustained expansion. Given the current limitations on the available resources, Viction faces a shortfall in motivating developers and ecosystem stakeholders to participate in initiatives on this primary layer.
I am aware about how sensitive is anything related to change in tokenomics. I have been always waiting in the sidelines and now would like to express my thoughts. I understand that major holders are disapointed, but I always check the big picture. If this decisio grants the survival and success of the company as a whole, then I will support team’s proposal
I am entirely supportive with the upgrade proposal, it’s crucial to build a sustainable and incentive ecosystem to engage more builders and supporters.
As a close partner and collaborator with Viction, we at GlitchD Labs are excited to express our strong support for the Saigon Network Upgrade. Our enthusiasm is grounded in several key aspects of the proposal that we believe are critical for the sustained growth and innovation within the Viction ecosystem.
- Increased $VIC Supply: Elevating the maximum supply to 210,000,000 $VIC ensures the longevity and scalability of the Viction network, avoiding token scarcity and fostering continued innovation. This cap takes 16 years to fully effectuate, resulting in an inflation rate that is sustainably lower than Ethereum’s, promoting gradual growth without oversupply.
- Incentivised Security: The revised inflation rate and 4-year halving cycle incentivise Masternodes are crucial for maintaining network security and stability.
- Ecosystem Development Fund: The allocation of 80,000,000 $VIC to the development pool will directly support various web3 innovation projects within the ecosystem.
- Strategic Rebranding and Expansion: Transitioning Viction into a leading L1 Data Availability layer aligns perfectly with our technology goals, enabling more efficient and scalable L2 solutions on the top.
We support this proposal, enabling us all to reap the benefits of a stronger, more innovative network.
Hi Viction team, it seems we don’t see any feedback was taken from community before voting started Voting for Saigon Network Upgrade proposal starts NOW - #2 by GHTFeedback.
Kindly note in proposal point 5 Governance & Voting, feedback was requested, we we’re hoping before voting starts: “…Let’s discuss below. We love to hear from you.”
Could Viction team kindly engage with community to discuss alternatives to each item in the proposal? Multiple posters left suggested changes (including us, kindly see above: Viction Saigon Network Upgrade Proposal - #8 by GHTFeedback).
Thanks
Hi all, I’m a co-founder of Stably and a long-time supporter of TomoChain / Viction. We support the Saigon Network Upgrade Proposal because it focuses on the long-term growth and sustainability of the Viction ecosystem. While concerns about token holder dilution are understandable, it’s better to look at the bigger picture and the benefits this upgrade will bring. The proposed 80M VIC allocation to the Ecosystem Development Pool will provide necessary resources to attract developers and foster innovation, ensuring Viction remains competitive and robust.
Focusing on immediate dilution concerns overlooks the substantial advantages of this upgrade which is a strategic move that is vital for long-term success, benefiting all stakeholders in the Viction community.
Seriously? Are you kidding me?
This is the most outrageous and dictatorial proposal I’ve ever read,… The absurdities have also been analyzed in great detail by REAL VIC Holders above.
However, the most noteworthy thing here is that despite these absurdities, the proposal is currently receiving up to 94% approval (at the time I’m writing this comment), which is truly laughable. Therefore, I want to take some time to analyze this further. And hopefully, those who have voted or are about to vote will have their own perspective and make the right choice for the development of a project they have invested in.
Note:
i) This part only analyzes the current voting results, the analysis of the proposal’s content and suggestions, I completely agree with khaihkd , tvh , GHTFeedback ,…
ii) My account might be new, but honestly, I wouldn’t have cared less, but seeing a proposal that’s steering the platform in the wrong direction made me feel it was worth the time to sign up and voice my thoughts.
1. First, the Quorum requirement to pass this proposal is 10M $VIC, which accounts for only nearly 10% of the total ~98M $VIC in circulation. Too small to truly represent the community’s opinion.
There are some opinions that this number is minimal and almost unimportant because the community can freely participate in voting, even exceeding the required number by a lot, and then they can express the common voice of the community.
2. But is that really the case? If you look at MasternodeOwner88’s feedback, you’ll get a clearer perspective. He argues that this voting is currently based on the current balance held in the participant’s wallet while completely ignoring the opinions of stakers, masternodes… (those who are locking their VIC in the platform). Here, if this is true, we need to look more closely, most long-term VIC holders will be stakers and masternodes (as that’s how they contribute to the project’s development) but they are not allowed to contribute their opinions? Instead, free token holders (those who can easily sell at any time) are being consulted? How ridiculous!
3. The last part I find most amusing is that if you pay attention, you’ll see that disagreements often come from long-time users of this platform, they really contribute opinions in previous proposals or posts, BUT most of the replies/feedback praising this proposal are from newly created accounts with little credibility… and their arguments are very simple, baseless (What a blatant, sloppy seeding…)
I think everyone here is too salty because the new minted tokens go to Foundation, but you need to zoom out and understand what will be done with them. That fraction of the supply isn’t allocated to buy a Rolex and a Lambo for each team member. The dilution of circulating supply is not something I love, however, it should guarantee a more competitive position of the company, so sorry guys, but I agree to it