Marrying MINE staker's and launching project's needs

This post proposes a solution to the problem of competing demands/needs from MINE stakers and launching projects.

Before I address this, it is worth stating that I feel having MINE’s governance staking utility set as mostly airdrops, governance, and MINE accrual is not enough. Why? Because the major financial drawcard (beyond speculation) here is airdrops. This would mean MINE’s financial utility is in direct competition with LUNA (and now ANC) for being an “airdrop” token. I don’t see MINE winning this battle, moreover, I think it is actually counterproductive to do so, but that is for another post.

Back to the topic. Currently, a reasonable amount of MINE stakers were wanting/expecting their staked MINE to provide them a level of access to purchase tokens from projects launching on Pylon gateway, i.e. via pylon swap. Unfortunately thus far this hasn’t happened with a significant amount of launched/launching projects. On the other hand Pylon has found a large number of projects aren’t wanting to provide special access for MINE stakers, instead finding projects are in such hot demand and low supply that they dictate the terms of their launches. Ultimately, the issue is that launching projects see no value (even loss of value) in providing special access to MINE stakers during their ICOs.

Therefore the solution is to 1) unlock the benefit of MINE stakers involvement in ICOs and 2) provide this benefit to launching projects in return for special access.

What is the benefit of MINE stakers involvement in ICOs?

It is ironically unlocked in the new move to decentralized governance. That being, MINE stakers are a one-of-a-kind group (a group decentrally governing a launchpad, something I don’t think exists at this scale) and thus can offer the ability for launching projects to immediately gain access to an active community who are willing to be involved in governance, marketing, product testing, etc. Essentially projects can bootstrap not just their token launch but also an active community by using Pylon gateway. Thus launching projects can benefit from having MINE stakers involved in their ICO as they can immediately port an active community of lunatics to help launch and run their project.

How would it work?

Firslty, if the Pylon community thought this was useful it would be helpful to iron this idea out as a group. In essence, I see it working in line with the newly proposed governance/community council framework. That being, projects request/propose a level of involvement from the MINE staking community in return for special ICO participation. Projects could define special token terms (i.e. longer lock, all tokens locked in their governance contract for x period of time), MINE stakers could also vote on special community council members or other delegates to deal with the projects in person and then communicate with MINE stakers, etc. Ultimately, there are plenty of ways this can be done.

If this is an idea you think could work well or something you see as problematic, please leave a comment outlining how you think it would be best implemented/improved or why it is problematic.