Moving beyond the shared understanding of the facts above, here are a few personal opinions:
-
Soon (as in well prior to TGE) the team should probably address or make a statement about revenue sharing with the 20% of legacy equity holders. Ideally any plan should be well articulated. Understanding MET’s role in the capital stack would go a long way to demonstrating its value.
-
FDV is dead: distributing MET widely is great, but keeping unallocated tokens on the balance sheet will not hurt a valuable company like Meteora. Institutions have arrived and they understand equity and the option value of holding back allocations for future acquisitions and growth. Market cap is back. Please don’t allocate 20% more for “liquidity reserves”. Note: having a firm, credible plan for revenues to equity holders (bullet 1) helps reduce concern about MET operations.
-
To the extent equity holders are not expected to get revenue sharing and are not going to be locked up, we should encourage them to become liquidity providers on Meteora. Incentives might include a higher percentage of fees generated in those pools. If they are long-term oriented still, they might even be interested in locking up some pairs so Meteora can avoid a portion of the 5% TGE liquidity allocation (reserve proposal).
-
It doesn’t seem like we have a viable plan for DAO voting yet. My opinion is that we should let the leadership team continue cooking as the crypto community continues iterating on what a functional DAO looks like before we do community governance. Competing with other centralized players like pump.fun who are about to have massive infusions of capital, without having a nimble operating team will harm our chances of success. Credibly decentralizing Meteora will be important eventually, but not at the moment.
Been thinking about these issues quite a bite lately, Please add your voice and criticisms.