No- we both agree here. This is what I said in the Sustainable PoolTogether post:
A protocol is nothing without its people; the stewards of the protocol.
It’s important that there is funding for development, bd, marketing, design or otherwise. Each chain, asset, or partner will have their own needs, so decision making must be decentralized in order for it to scale.
Stakers can choose to keep their rewards, or band together in groups to share spending for the efforts above. These groups will coordinate via multisigs, token-weighted voting DAOs, or any other means.
Ultimately we all want the POOL token to be valuable. That is without question something we all agree on. The sustainability post describes what that will look like in a fully decentralized future.
No matter what we do to achieve sustainability, revenues aren’t going to immediately exceed spending. The point of this post was to communicate that we need to burn cash to try to reach sustainability. That’s a fact- we’re going to spend money faster than it is made. Our spending strategy is critical; I raised this point because if the token holders squeeze the budget too early, then we’ll lose talent and we won’t have those people that are so important.
I think what you’re wondering is what do we spend our money on, and what are the projected returns for that investment. I think that’s a different question, but it’s very much related to the content of the phases above. I regret including the details of each phase because I think that has muddied the conversation.
On that note, the GS team met today and discussed the feedback from the community regarding the PTBR and everything else that has been said. We’re going to present the paths forward as we see them, including a recommended option. I’ll make sure to include projections for POOL staking based on TVL, so you have some data to work with.