But let´s not get caught up in the philosophy of how to conduct business. I´m aware that I won´t change anyone´s mind who thinks that this is okay, and you won´t change mine.
More importantly I think that the proposal is flawed on a strategic level and can easily backfire as mentioned in my first post - which interestingly nobody addressed.
For reference, here is an excellent comment from the first tokenomics discussion that outlines that the dumping comes from private investors & surge participants much more than traders, who are used as the scapegoat here.
Not only will additional restrictions decrease volume & fees and increase risk for HLP providers, it also doesn´t solve the problem.
Instead of trying to forcefully reduce the selling side by hampering farmers who provide volume and actively balance OI, a more sustainable and productive operation is to give more options to investors & users.
There have been great suggestions in this thread that went largely undiscussed. A short summary:
- @SeabassCity: increase rewards / apply penalty based on some condition
- @MORE: Remove the 21-day unstake restriction (less friction = more value)
- @MORE & me: Provide vesting options with an exit fee (burning or redistribution to long term aligned stakers, e.g. esHMX or DP)
- @jackpotchannel.eth: expand user base & revenue by expanding multi-chain
- @Shift in HIP3 & me in HIP5: Implement ceiling for DP based on staked es/HMX. (esHMX could even have a higher ceiling and/or DP accrual rate, giving higher long term earning potential to maximally aligned stakeholders)
The argumentation from the side that wants to prevent selling always seems to be “dumping bad, let´s freeze everyone´s assets” which is incredibly short sighted.
Treating symptoms instead of the root cause is a certain way to a malfunctioning system, so I´d urge everyone to reconsider and discuss constructive ways forward instead of increasing penalties.