So everything you took from the previous feedback is literally nothing.
You also did not provide any of the requested data for the PR.
No discussion, just silence from the team.
This is a parody of a DAO.
1 Like
same feeling here, not even adding some requested data, + the silence (minus some small replies/details)
at this point, might as well just skip the DAO part entirely, and have the team fully focused
1 Like
I thank you all for the comments and engagement. I have carefully read all posts and spent a significant amount of time speaking directly with many LQ holders and Liqwid users.
While I may not be able to respond individually to every question or comment, this should not be interpreted as a lack of attention or disregard. All feedback is reviewed and considered.
I would like to clarify a few important points:
- For those who believe the current LQ price does not reflect its value or is too “low,” purchasing LQ remains an available option to express that conviction.
- Governance is a core component of the protocol, and disagreements with proposals can be expressed through onchain voting using LQ.
- Not all feedback in this forum aligns with the shared long-term vision, and some comments may not be constructive or representative of the broader Liqwid community (the silent majority).
- I strongly believe that a significant portion of LQ holders share the objective of prioritizing the long-term success of the Liqwid protocol and sustainable value creation for LQ holders. This group is what I refer to as the “silent majority.”
- The DAO exists to enable participation and governance, but it is not a self-service forum. Decisions must remain focused on what is strategically important and beneficial for the protocol as a whole.
1 Like
Yes, no worries Florian. I truly appreciate you.
- I would so much more like to give the money to the team instead of buying the non-ending dips on the open market. (You could open an OTC thing for everybody if you need funding)
- Agree fully (though later we’ll see what happens when large private investors have unlocked large amounts of LQ). But weird to see zero edits with all the feedback.
- sure, but plenty is (and the argument of ‘silent majority’ is so easy ^^)
- most of the propositions here absolutely DO NOT differ from that objective, just in the ways to achieve it reasonably
- I don’t see most of the discussions, particularly this one, being away from this
The point remains that if at the end of the day no feedback is integrated into such proposals, you might as well keep a forum for feedback and discussions, but not call it a DAO nor use on-chain voting. You could just do you while also reading comments/discussions. And save some time and efforts and focus on all you have to do for success.
Or on the opposite do the effort of explaining why zero integrations of feedback, prove us wrong or whatever. Half silence do no good.
Sidenote : the ‘silent majority’ could also more be holders/traders that don’t really give a f…..
About the silent majority
Looking at the data for the recent vote #110, approximately 1M LQ was used to vote, while ~3.5M LQ are currently staked.
→ This represents a participation rate of ~28%, meaning 72% of staked LQ did not vote.
Within this 72%, there exists a significant group of holders who stake, accumulate, and effectively “set and forget.”
I personally know several holders in this category. They hold LQ because they understand that Liqwid is a long-term play, and more importantly, a strategic leverage on the Cardano ecosystem and DeFi as a whole.
→ For these holders, what matters most is trust and confidence in the Liqwid Core Team.
They are largely indifferent to daily noise, short-term debates, or governance theatrics.
On the other hand, there is a small but very vocal minority that tends to dominate public discourse. This group is highly active and primarily focused on short-term advantages and value extraction, rather than long-term protocol health.
For context, I already warned about this dynamic on April 3, 2023, in the following post:
Now, 2.5 years later, events have unfortunately played out almost exactly as described, where a massive LQ inflation generated a drop in LQ price, a lack of trust in the market for new entrants, and let to the POL situation + these 2 latest votes. (yes, it could have turn out differently with more stablecoins earlier, but Liqwid does not control the game board).
Based on this experience, I am confident that the current strategic direction Liqwid is taking—moving toward financial sustainability with low LQ inflation—is the right course of action under today’s market conditions.
Regarding OTC / Direct Core Team Funding
Concerning an OTC arrangement (direct Core Team funding) you are mentioning, I have no issue organizing something similar to proposal #111 for transfers above ~$200k (exact terms to be discussed – I just speak for myself at the moment, would need to align internally).
Let’s see the core team vote share to look at the full picture, as said in the decentralization roadmap (otherwise that’s just talking about partial data leading to partial or erroneous interpretation).
From your description of that silent majority that does not vote, so:
- they are in for the long term
- they trust the team
- governance is theatrics
- they don’t vote
==> Does this mean they just expect the team to always pass what they want through on-chain votes ? (whatever opposition from others there might be). Is it what they say when you talk with them ?
I would think long term people vote when there is opposition, unless they actually don’t look, and so expect the team to successfully vote its strategies.
But well at the end of the day, it’s DAO thing, and who owns more and vote more is the rule, and the team deserves its share and influence on this of course.
Consider also that in governance, No votes are not always a mean to show strict opposition to a proposal as a whole, but can be used to bring attention to underlying details, etc.
I still think it’s unfair and not representative to emphasize about a vocal group of holders interested only in short term extraction when much of the discussions has constructive feedback just looking to align.
You refer here to LQ emissions/inflation, while most of the recent discussions show near nobody opposed that, only some implementation details about slowing/stopping revenue sharing.
I do not doubt that the team has the capacity to establish good strategic directions.
But there is more to it.
1 Like
Since 72% of staked LQ did not vote which resulted in a 28% participation rate, this guarantees that whoever speaks about any issue concerning Liqwid DAO governance will be part of a “small but vocal minority that tends to dominate public discourse.” Whoever speaks out will be a part of a minority if the majority of LQ stakers “effectively set and forget”.
2 Likes