I myself have also pitched an idea about distributing USDC to POOL holders not too long ago.
However, this method of doing it doesn’t align with the ethos of PoolTogether, or at least my view of it.
Let me explain:
A while ago the idea of “Swim Points” was pitched, users could earn this points while being deposited, then they could use them to buy stuff in the store, one of the proposed things users could buy was “boosted odds”.
This exact point implicated a certain type of transaction: “Buying the chance to win a prize”
What allows the users of PoolTogether to stay “No-Loss”? The fact that even if you don’t win, you can always get your money back, you never lose your deposit or increase your risk.
Does this stay true when we involve a token in this?
- User is attracted by PoolTogether prizes, they think about depositing their savings, but see that they have better chances of winning if instead they deposit POOL
- So user spends X amount of USD, to buy an amount of POOL
- They lock it for 6 months, with the expectation (not guarantee) of winning prizes
- They end up winning much less than expected, or did not win at all (there are no guarantees)
- In that same 6 months period, POOL token price plummeted (Remember our marketcap)
- User is not able to exit their position, as they are locked
- Finally the lock has lift up, user sell its POOL but, because of the crash, he already lost money, in PoolTogether.
“Okay then, user took a bigger risk and lost its investment, the usual, and?”
Was that really an “investment”? In the case I described what did the return on investment depend on?
The fundamentals of the token’s protocol? of its success? Its roadmap? its marketcap? its patterns?
No. It all depended on a completely random outcome, while carrying a huge risk.
Notice how differently that same situation would be if the user was instead guaranteed an Y amount of USD as a reward for locking, then the user has a number to actually weight and analyze if the risk they take is worth it, that’s much more closer to an investment, what I described above, was simply gambling.
“I wanna hold POOL anyway, I don’t care about it’s price, so the winning chances are purely an extra”
I think this a very dangerous way of viewing it, because it can lead you to think you are essentially playing for free, but you are not, you are still paying for it, and no I’m not talking about opportunity costs (that’s a whole other topic), I’m talking that if we advertise extra chances to holders, the token is inevitably gonna appreciate, and whichever amount the market values these winning chances, it’s the exact amount the market (i.e. people) is spending solely in the expectancy, not all a guarantee, of winning a big prize, even if you don’t even want to participate, you merely want the token because of its fundamentals, you are still gonna be paying a premiun, a premiun which funds the exact tendencies we state to combat: predatory gambling.
The exact same scenario can be replicated (and more easily) with NFTs, we can’t stop that, it’s gonna happen, but we can and should set the example (Keeping them and all our delegations 110% free)