I’m concerned that no grantees will be willing to accept options as a grant, in any percentage. It would be nice if we could take a wider poll that would reach potential grantees or if they could see this forum
I agree with Grant Committee members having the choice to receive these options as well.
I am not worried about the sell pressure that these options will mitigate. That is why we are asking for USDC for this new quarter.
I’m a little confused on how this contract works. If we start with $150k in options, does that mean we send $150k worth of POOL at current spot price to the contract? Or do we send $150k worth of POOL at 1.5x the current spot price? I am trying to understand where the extra POOL comes from if TLV target is reached and options can be cashed in for 1.5 POOL.
Is there a time decay to these token options similar to stock options where the current ‘value’ is calculated into the time from expiry? Or is it more just cash out on expiry and there is no risk of being ‘out of the money’? The least it would be cashed in for is .9 POOL. And if this is the case what happens to the extra POOL in the UMA contract?
45 POOL seems like a reasonable fee create option tokens. This would include gas fees I would assume.
The KPIs are more complicated I think. The TLV is probably just the simplest for the option contract, but I think there are some other very useful KPIs. For example: number of new depositors, number of pools deposited in per account, max pool prize, number of new active community participants, as examples. These may or may not be correlated with TLV.
I hope we can use this trial of the options in order to prove the value and usability. I believe these options will be very valuable to anyone who is a big fan of Pooltogether and having this choice with upside can attract top talent to want to build for us instead of someone else. The USDC being requested is a wise move and will mitigate 50% of the sell pressure that can come from paid out grants, these options are intended to deal with the other 50% of the grants budget in a positive way. Grants committee pay is another great place to use these options and it can be an added benefit to the grants team if that is how an individual chooses to get paid.
We would send $150,000 total and that would be the amount required in the event of a max payout. If a max payout is not achieved then the remaining balance would be returned to Pooltogether treasury at contract expiry. No time decay involved. No risk to Pooltogether or to the options recipient.
I’d have to get someone with more technical knowledge to confirm the details of the “final fee” of 45 POOL but I believe the purpose of it has something to do with preventing spamming of price request. There are no other fees involved.
I believe TVL is the easiest metric to use and is relative to most other metrics that would apply to us anyways. I will see if I can get someone from the UMA side to pop on later in case there is anything they want to add.
Clayton from UMA here. Firstly, thanks @TheRealTuna for your advocacy of the KPI options product.
I’m a big fan of them because of the success we’ve seen in the community at UMA while using them. They have been a very effective tool for motivating people to work together. I think in part because you’re not only giving the target recipients a goal for themselves, but a shared goal towards which to work. For example, if TheRealTuna is successful here, it will increase the value of our uDAO KPI option – He’ll “return home a victor” to our Discord. It’s a great combination of social rewards + financial rewards.
So what occurs to me is not only the grantees receiving them, but suddenly having a shared goal together. Imagine you had 5 grantees work on projects ranging from social network promotion, creating a UI, and helping to design some events – they all have a shared financial outcome. So you have this 2nd-layer impact. If you at PT decide to go in this direction I’d be happy to offer more insights from our experience.
Yes this is very easy. In fact, we can create the contract for you so that you personally with your own POOL could just mint a few, as you like. And we at UMA are happy to do the legwork to get the contract ready for you. We just want some guidance as to the parameters (expiration, KPI.)
So long as the grantees are willing to have long-term exposure (at least after the expiry), I don’t think this will be a problem. It’s only if a grantee wanted to liquidate the POOL in order to eat that they might not accept them.
It’s my opinion that maybe you could consider a 3-month KPI option even with a very small issuance so you can get a feel for them. Somewhat the tertiary benefit to doing this is building a relationship between PT and UMA. I think we can get the ball rolling with a very modest integration and test the waters.
How would TVL be measured? In a couple months, we will have multiple chains and v3 as well as v4 pools. Does the methodology of measuring it need to be defined upfront?
UMA’s oracle is flexible in this way, so we would just want to specify some criteria – For example, the criteria could be “all pools and all chains” associated with PoolTogether.
The options have been minted!
Here are the parameters we settled on:
Option name: uGMI
Expiration: May 31 2022 (6 months)
Payout range: 0.9 POOL - 1.4 POOL
$500 million TVL for max payout.
Total options minted: 3750 uGMI
The options were minted on Polygon to avoid gas costs being a problem.
Polygon contract address: 0xdd2a9dd19ebe1df2090a4ae3500d3f79b3a6a7ba
I will see if I can get someone from the UMA side to pop on later in case there is anything they want to add.