Since both auctions on Ethereum mainnet and Polygon are already finished we should decide our next step before providing liquidity to market.
Auctions ended with 1.01M $POP sold out of 1.88M on Polygon, and 873.15k of 1.88M $POP sold on Ethereum mainnet leaving 1.87M tokens unsold.
Since airdrop token amount exeeds sold LBP tokens most fair is to distribute unsold tokens to LBP participants proportionally to their share of sold tokens.
After distribution of unsold tokens to LBP $POP holders liquidity should be added to Uniswap, Sushiswap and Quickswap.
Having airdrop outweigh lbp is concern. Xpop redemption can be delayed. Giving to auction buyers seems solid idea. But I might suggest a short vesting schedule inline with shortest seed round vest. 3 months.
To prevent a dump and decline in the price, I’d suggest doing a campaign similar to the one we did with the bored ape yacht club. Basically, in order to receive an airdrop, a BAYC holder needed to allocate votes to non-profits. Similarly, we can do something where all LBP participants would be eligible for a % of the tokens, if and only if they vote for a non-profit to receive a similar allocation.
Perhaps we can do something like a 20-80% split - 20% goes to LBP purchasers, and the other 80% goes to non-profits, who might be less likely to dump. This also has the advantage of further increasing the token distribution and awareness of Popcorn’s mission. It would essentially be roughly equivalent to a donation of roughly $5.6M in POP to non-profits which could make major world news.
I think regardless, any distribution from unsold tokens should have vesting attached to them.
bearing in mind there is already an allocation of funds for liquidity, I’d honestly be tempted to burn the leftover tokens from the LBP… it has minimal effect against liquidity and price and means we then don’t have to figure out what to do with them if we were to return them to the treasury…
vesting or burning … in either case, the LBP participants should be at the centre of it…
Non-profits are getting the actual funds anyway! how does it help to allow the non-profits hold governance of the funds they are getting? thats a conflict of interest… like allowing members of the Congress to vote to increase their own salary?!
Vest or burn 94%, with suggestion to allocate remaining 6% to non-profits in each of our target recipient sectors of environment, open source and education (ie 2% per sector or individual recipient).
Rationale: this will be great example to publicly show off the governance process and validate our credibility early on, as well as maximise international media potential similar to example in OP.
We can then leverage this credibility to secure institutional investors who will have higher confidence that we will do what we say we do.