I think a more robust way to increase revenue would be more limited editions. Compared to other artists of its stature in this space, Botto has very few editions relative to 1/1s. So there’s lots of room to grow there and lots of demand from collectors that can’t access the 1/1s.
That would increase revenue for both the treasury and token holders/voters, whereas increasing the treasury allocation to 75% would increase it only for the treasury while lowering it for holders.
You’re right that just cause 50% is the status quo it doesn’t mean it shouldn't be changed. But if it’s what investors are accustomed to there should be strong justification required to change it and first a consideration of other alternatives (such as limited editions) to increasing revenue.
As you know, few projects in this space have organic yield in ETH so that’s a distinguishing feature of Botto. Some (prospective) investors use this yield to model out the token value and this consistency and predictability helps build trust over time. So would just want to be very cautious in changing this.
thomahawk69 If not rewards, then the next lever would be to turn off the LM (that'll also require a vote - and that could also drive down the price).
I’m confident that Phasing out LM strategically would benefit token price as well as treasury health. It is by far the biggest open distribution of token right now and I'd expect sooner or later a lot of that will create sell pressure and dilute other holders.
Rather than using the 8M remaining $BOTTO in the LM contract to rent liquidity, what if we used it to buy and own that liquidity from LPs and strengthen the treasury.
