Shaping Meteora DAO in DeFi 2.0

Proposals
1

:comet: Meteora DAO Proposal :comet:

The Meteora DAO will be a decentralized community governing the protocol, aligning incentives to drive long-term liquidity and growth on the Solana ecosystem.

It embodies the principles of DeFi 2.0:

:small_blue_diamond: 1) Community Empowerment and Inclusivity:

1.1 - Implement a quadratic voting system, giving more voting power to smaller stakeholders, preventing whale dominance.

  1.1.1 - Retain the quadratic voting system as the base, giving more voting power to smaller stakeholders.

  1.1.2 - In addition, implement a staking 
  multiplier that boosts voting power based on 
  the duration tokens are staked/locked.

     For example:
     - Tokens staked for 1 month get 1.01x voting 
     power boost
     - Tokens staked for 3 months get 1.05x 
     voting power boost 
     - Tokens staked for 6 months get 1.1x voting 
    power boost
     - And so on, with higher multipliers for 
     longer staking periods

  1.1.3 - The staking multiplier serves two 
  purposes:

     a) It incentivizes long-term commitment and 
     alignment with the DAO's goals.

     b) It makes it more difficult and costlier for 
     whales to split tokens across multiple wallets 
     to gain outsized voting influence.

  1.1.4 - There could be a maximum multiplier 
  cap (e.g. 1.8x) to prevent any single entity 
  from accumulating excessive voting power 
  through staking alone.

  1.1.5 - Unstaking tokens resets the multiplier 
  until they are staked again for the required 
  duration.

  By combining quadratic voting with a staking 
  multiplier, the Meteora DAO can further its. 
  goal of balanced governance and discourage 
  whales from trying to gain disproportionate 
  control through token redistribution tactics.

  This promotes greater decentralization and
  empowers smaller stakeholders who 
  demonstrate long-term commitment to the
  ecosystem.

1.2 - Governance forum for open discussions,
proposal submissions, and regular community
calls for updates and feedback.

1.3 - Allocate 10% of DAO treasury for
community grants, funding initiatives proposed
and voted on by members.

:small_blue_diamond: 2) Token Vesting:

2.1 - Tokens earned through the DAO reward
system will be subject to linear vesting over a.
set period, such as one year.

2.2 - Tokens will be released in equal
installments at regular intervals (e.g.,daily or
monthly) over the vesting period.

2.3 - Contributors can stake their vested
tokens to earn staking rewards and obtain
voting power based on the staking multiplier.

:small_blue_diamond: 3) Time-Locked Unstaking Period:

3.1 - If a contributor wishes to unstake and
withdraw their tokens from the DAO, they
must initiate an unstaking request.

3.2 - Upon initiating the unstaking request, a
time-locked period of one month will begin.

3.3 - During this one-month time-locked period,
the contributor’s voting power associated with
the unstaked tokens will decrease linearly until
it reaches zero at the end of the month.

  For example, if the time-locked period is one 
  month, the voting power will decrease by 
  1/30th each day until it reaches zero after 30 
  days.

3.4 - After the one-month time-locked period
ends, the contributor can fully withdraw their
unstaked tokens from the DAO.

By reducing the time-locked unstaking period
to one month, we maintain the incentive for
long-term commitment while providing a bit
more flexibility for contributors who may need
to withdraw their tokens sooner.

The gradual decrease in voting power during
the one-month period still discourages
frequent unstaking and promotes sustained
participation in the DAO.

:small_blue_diamond: 4) Value Creation and Merit-based Rewards:

4.1 - “Proof-of-Value” system to quantify
contributions like liquidity provision,
development work, and community initiatives.

4.2 - Token rewards vested over 2 years,
incentivizing long-term commitment and
continued value creation.

4.3 - Explore partnerships with complementary
DeFi projects to create cross-ecosystem
incentives and reward opportunities.

:small_blue_diamond: 5) Decentralized Governance and Decision-making:

5.1 - Modular governance with separate
processes for tokenomics, protocol upgrades,
partnerships, etc.

5.2 - Clear proposal lifecycle: discussion > on-
chain voting (quorum 25%) > implementation.

5.3 - Implement decentralized identities (e.g.,
Soulbound Tokens) for secure and verifiable
voting processes.

:small_blue_diamond: 6) Collaborative Incentive Structures:

6.1 - Liquidity mining programs incentivizing
collaboration among LPs, e.g., shared rewards
for jointly providing liquidity.

6.2 - 25% of protocol fees distirbuted to active
Meteora DAO Stakers.

6.3 - 12.5 % of protocol fees distributed betwen
MET/SOL & MET/USDC LP providers.

6.4 - 12.5% of protocol fees distributed to
active participants (LPs, developers,
community) based on contributions.

6.5 - 10% for DAO Treasury.

6.6 - 25% of protofol fees distributed for
Meteora Core Team.

6.7 - 5% for Meteora MET/SOL & MET/USDC
forever locked LP.

6.8 - 10% for Meteora Treasury.

:small_blue_diamond: 7) Practical Utility and Real-world Applications:

7.1 - Prioritize partnerships with real-world
projects and enterprises, tokenizing traditional
assets on Solana.

7.2 - Develop user-friendly interfaces,
educational resources for onboarding
mainstream users to Solana DeFi.

:small_blue_diamond: 8) Continuous Innovation and Technological Advancements:

8.1 - Dedicated research and development
workstream focused on cutting-edge liquidity
solutions and scalability.

8.2- Incentivize and reward community
contributions to the DAO’s open-source
codebase through bug bounties, grants.

This proposal aims to create a truly decentralized, community-driven DAO based in DeFi 2.0 that empowers all stakeholders, incentivizes value creation, fosters collaboration, and drives sustainable growth for the Solana ecosystem.

10 Likes
2

Wow, that’s quite comprehensive! On the whole, this is very good. I like the idea of increasing voting power based on the amount of time staked. However, this isn’t going to give smaller stakeholders more voting power relative to whales. If a whale stakes for the same amount of time as a small stakeholder, both their voting power is going to increase at the same rate. It really does nothing for the smaller stakeholder. Regardless, it is an interesting concept and I like the idea.

I like the idea of incentivizing liquidity of the MET token. It means we will eat our own dogfood. Perhaps the 12.5% distribution to MET/SOL & MET/USDC LPs could be based on the fees LPs generate in those pools. It would be like a bonus for providing liquidity in those pools.

The other edge of that sword is that if users are providing MET liquidity, it means they’re not staking. It would be great if somehow we were able to come up with a solution to provide voting power to those providing MET liquidity, but that could be exceedingly difficult and could end up being gamed. I suppose it is just something we must accept as collateral damage of providing liquidity on MET.

Good stuff @auryanaum !

4 Likes
3

With the quadratic vote system, the voting power will be more balanced betwen whales and small stakeholders.

Maybe we could have somekind of point system like we already have and use this points as a LP voting power, with 1/2 of stake power voters.

Thnx for the feedback Grand Geek of Lads :fire:

I think this proposal can be used as base to we kickstart Meteora DAO and start to building things up.

1 Like
4

Thanks for this @auryanaum Agreed with @GeekLad that it’s very comprehensive.

I would like to talk about the MET DAO in our weekly call tomorrow.

One thing I think that is important is that we do things incrementally. It’s very hard to reason and anticipate effects when there is a large system, so I always recommend we focus on one thing we can do that we think will have the largest positive impact for the DAO. It seems like you feel quadratic voting might be it.

3 Likes
5

A lot of in depth thoughts here. Any consideration for active staking rewards?

6

Originally we were thinking a ve(3,3) model back in the day but so much has changed i don’t think its as relevant now, but, happy to discuss.

1 Like
7

Do you have right thoughts, I agree, but you try to build the labyrinth (Λαβύρινθος ). Do you think that x1.01 - x1.8 will it give you the opportunity to compete with capital of whales? So many new rules will need to be created to make this work. Eventually you will get confused and balance will not be achieved. There will always be an advantage for someone at the expense of a disadvantage of other people.

The solution is simple: 1 person - 1 vote. But how to do this is already a creative question that can be solved by one of you.
Sanctum is already trying to introduce a profile system. I think they are already looking in this direction and thinking about a solution.

The goal is not to invade a person’s privacy and not to collect personal information, but to reveal his personality and allow this creative soul to realize itself in your ecosystem. For this to work, you need to understand how you can evaluate each person’s creative contribution. How will you take into account something that has no form or something concrete? How will you evaluate ideas?

Then there is one more problem, but more about it later, when this mechanism is implemented.

+We should not make life worse for whales, but make it better for people. Whal is the same person, he may be able to provide much more experience as a soul rather than as an investor. Therefore, we must think about how to create equal conditions for the realization of souls without affecting capital

2 Likes
8

Another problem is that people prefer loud and bright, familiar or like-minded people. This will greatly complicate the development of the ecosystem. Therefore, the system should not rely on people’s emotions, this is very important. Otherwise, everything will depend on the mood of incompetent people.

1 Like
9

The main idea its implement a 4P System.

• Quadratic vote system
• Active staking reward
• Voting time boost
• Community reward system

Perfect balanced, as all should be.

10

This is simply a mechanism for how the system works to keep the user’s attention and reward it.

This can be used as a tool, but not a foundation. The foundation should be the idea of ​​opportunities for people to realize their talent.

  1. This idea needs a protection mechanism in the future, so that the person and his developments, ideas are safe from those who want to use it for money or with the help of power. (a scientist’s creation of a nuclear bomb, which was used for enslavement, is the best example)
  2. This idea needs an objective evaluation system, that is, it cannot be created using emotions (connect to the creation of AI?)
  3. Protection from the crowd is needed so that a person is independent of the community and its opinions. (People can’t support what they don’t understand.)
  4. You cannot force a person to enter a project if he is no longer interested in it (There is a good mechanism for eternal % from the implementation of an idea: royalties)

On this foundation you can already offer your implementation systems like 4p, 6p, 12p e t.c.
You can come up with interactions inside, you can think through all the possible events (as an example this is the mechanism in STEPN)

1 Like
11

The foundation like you said, need the pillar in order to sustain itself.

We can make simple 1=1 or we could learn from experience and implement a solid foundation based in these 4 Pillars.

12

The foundation is the pillar, It sustain on itself. I will try to explain.

What is your main idea that will be manifested using 4p tools?

  1. Vote system isn’t idea, but a tool. What will voting allow you to do? It is a way that people can use to express their opinions using pros and cons. How can this reveal a unique personality with a unique opinion? Even if you make a line with: describe your opinion… A person needs to face a problem, set tasks and move on to solving them, then he will reveal himself as a person

  2. Active staking reward, promotion tool. Who will you reward if you have no evaluation criteria? There is no understanding of how to evaluate a person for his work, because someone can work on their ideas for years, but they will not be understood and cannot be implemented, and someone can simply say a few words or make something ordinary in relaxation and become a hero, a leader… I’ve already passed it.

  3. Voting time boost. selection tool. You select those who have been with you for a long time, but what prevents the whale from being there from the very beginning. Whales are famous for simply investing at an early stage. On the contrary, we cannot close ourselves; it is necessary that anyone at any time can come in and receive fair rewards. Otherwise, you will close yourself in your circle and the “light” will stop coming there. It might work the other way

  4. Community reward system…

13

proof
proof1643×665 101 KB

Look at the catastrophic difference in interest. This means that 99% of the people in the project only want to ruin it, take the money and leave, no one cares about the technology. They don’t care about ideas and voting, they only care about awards. But the fish are caught with bait, so there is interest, you just need to think about how to turn it: so that more energy flows into the cryptocurrency than flows out. And as soon as there are ideas and people’s work, it will begin to develop very quickly.

Even if the mechanism is thought out, people are needed who know how to listen and process a huge amount of information. An objective assessment is needed, and this is where a new working group on working with information will be needed.

14

With regard to the roles granted in the discord, and those that will be granted in the future DAO, more diversification of allocation criteria would be desirable to facilitate the recognition and integration of different profiles within the community.

Today we have the BootCamp validation, which gives access to two roles:
google form day 1 → “trainee” (1)
google form day 2 (proof of print) → “army” (2)

:pencil2:Here’s how I’d go about adding another roles:

(3) “MET holder” ← blocking $MET tokens that would give access to new benefits like voting power.
(4) “daily”, “weekly”, “monthly” LP ← to distinguish the best performers in the ranking.
(5) “pool creator” ← mem, stable,…
(6) other “creator” content ← X, TikTok,…

These roles, correlated with the types of actions undertaken, help to boost engagement, in relation to content development or the creation of new pools on Meteora.
It’s also easier for interested parties to know where to turn. For example, if I wanted to open a pool for the first time, I’d be reassured to ask someone who’s done it before and whom I could clearly identify (5).

On the other hand, the distribution of roles (6) according to certain strict assessable criteria (rules, instructions) and renewable for the retention of the role, should make it possible to measure the distribution of brand influence in order to map it out, which would lead the DAO to take initiatives in terms of incentive programs to guide the efforts deployed by content creators.

In my opinion, it’s important to reward any behavior that contributes to a positive brand image.

15

If you want to protect the project from whales, then why don’t you talk about equality between whales and non-whales? Could you suggest the airdrop: 1% = 1000 points, but not 1$ = 1000 poins. At first it would be fair to change this system, because if I had 1 million $ I would get 1 million point every day + non-risk LP fees 300k points in USDC-USDT. If I had 10k$ I would be get 100k-150k points every day + 10k points for 10k$. Do you feel the difference between 160k and 1300k… But If there is “1% = 1000 points”, nobody, who have 1 million$ want to get risk for getting met point, so “1% = 1000 points” this airdrop system equalizes whales and non-whales.
On the other hand, project can lose “investors” with millions $ in this case, so there are 2 ways:

  1. Doing things for people and giving people opportunities, which will directly make the world a better place and and attract small amounts of money, but in larger quantities, , which will directly make the Meteora stronger and more decentralized or
  2. continue to feed the whales… but you should know that you can’t earn millions through honest work…
16

Like i said, the main idea its create a well balanced foundation in DeFi 2.0 for Meteora DAO, and not protect from whales.

Please check the full proposal and most in deep about the quadratic vote system.

In order to we have a proper foundation the 4 Pillars must be implement as one, otherwise balanced will not be reached.

17

Thanks for your hard work on this Auryan! I mentioned this in the community call, but setting up which decisions go to what body becomes very important when decentralizing. Maker DAO has the most comprehensive approach I’ve seen, separating decision-making authority into separate sub-DAO’s that cover different project areas of focus. My opinion: asking the community to make choices in a broad range of areas, some of which are complicated, would expect a lot (too much).

Quadratic voting has promise, but I fear will make Meteora DAO less nimble and should be experimented with for specific choices and information gathering. Giving the community an outsized influence at the same time as granting it broad decision-making authority (at least until after more solid PMF, which likely means after TGE) moves Meteora off its current successful trajectory.

1 Like
18

Of course, passengers cannot control the liner , therefore it is necessary to select competent members from the passengers and distribute them in their directions, then this will already be an organized management staff.

19

A balanced foundation should be the basis for a main idea, not the idea itself. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you.

Your avatar and nickname say that you are a person of Vedic views, which means you can look at this issue quite deeply, so you must understand that there is a difference between doing to do and doing to help the idea come true.

1 Like
20

Lets think in layers of application.

We can starting building Meteora DAO from LAYER 0.

LAYER 0 - TOTAL TOKEN SUPPLY AND TOKENOMIC

Definition: The foundational layer encompassing the entire number of $MET tokens that exist or will exist and his Tokenomics.

Importance: Determines the overall scarcity and potential value of $MET token.

Key Concept: A finite or controlled supply can drive demand and price stability.

LAYER 1 - QUADRATIC VOTING SYSTEM WITH STAKING OPTIONS

QUADRATIC VOTING SYSTEM:

Definition - A voting mechanism where the cost of each additional vote increases quadratically.

Importance - Promotes fairer decision-making by giving more weight to a diverse range of opinions.

Key Concept - Mitigates the influence of large stakeholders and encourages wider community participation.

STAKING OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE

SINGLE STAKING:

Definition - Stake a single side of $MET token to participate in governance.

Importance - Simple way for users to contribute to governance and earn rewards.

Key Concept - Direct staking of tokens to support network security and governance.

LP STAKING:

Definition - Stake liquidity provider (LP) tokens, which represent a pair of assets in a liquidity pool.

Ex: MET-SOL && MET-USDC

Importance - Enhances liquidity while enabling governance participation.

Key Concept - Integrates liquidity provision with governance, incentivizing dual participation.

LAYER 2 - ACTIVE STAKING REWARDS, VOTING TIME BOOST & SHARED REVENUE

ACTIVE STAKING REWARDS:

Definition - Incentives given to users who stake their $MET tokens and participate actively.

Importance - Encourages long-term commitment and security within the network and protocol.

Key Concept - Provides a steady income stream to users and supports protocol and network stability.

VOTING TIME BOOST:

Definition - Extra voting power granted to users who vote promptly or consistently.

Importance - Motivates timely participation in governance decisions.

Key Concept - Ensures that the governance process remains dynamic and responsive.

SHARED REVENUE:

Definition - Distribution of a portion of the platform’s revenue among active stakers.

Importance - Provides additional incentives and aligns the interests of users with the platform’s success.

Key Concept - Creates a sustainable ecosystem where users benefit directly from the platform’s growth.

LAYER 3 - COMMUNITY REWARD SYSTEM

Definition - A system that distributes rewards to community members for their contributions and activities.

Importance - Fosters an engaged and motivated community.

Key Concept - Recognizes and incentivizes valuable participation, ensuring the community’s growth and sustainability.

1 Like