Referendum #1729 - OpenGov proposal: Treasury USDT & USDC.

Executed
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
1
Tally
96.4%Aye
50.0%Threshold
3.6%Nay
Aye
35.66MDOT
Nay
1.35MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.70%
11.29MDOT
Issuance
1.61BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.
Call
Metadata
Timeline6
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments

Hey hey, curious about 50/50 USDC/USDT rate — is USDT still an appealing option for those who come and request funding from Treasury? Eg in our case USDT cannot be used at all by our company in EU landscape, so I wonder how 50/50 rate is justified. Liquidity/Integration difference between USDT/USDC on CEX/DEX where I suppose USDT dominates? Because otherwise it makes sense to lean towards USDC more (80/20 or something) since eg companies in Europe cannot legally/logistically use USDT.

Edited

Reply
Up

I respectfully oppose proposals like this, as continuously converting DOT into stablecoins may create ongoing sell pressure and contribute to a lower DOT price. I believe it’s important to prioritize the stability and value of DOT for the community.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Root track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received five aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters supported converting DOT to stablecoins for treasury stability, emphasizing that a controlled DCA process would mitigate market sell pressure while ensuring steady cash flow. They highlighted the necessity for stable assets to support expenses despite concerns about market dilution and potential overreliance on DOT conversions. One voter abstained, expressing uncertainty about the long-term impact and suggesting that a cap on annual stable spending might be needed. Others noted that the strategy should be re-evaluated once new governance parameters were in place, reflecting a cautious but overall positive stance on securing the treasury with stable digital assets.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up

It is crucial to maintain a reserve of stablecoins within our treasury. Paying proposers in DOT could bring us back to the period when we faced frequent top-up requests due to negative price volatility (while, to my knowledge, excess funds were rarely returned when the price increased). Therefore, paying proposers in stablecoins is the best solution to avoid disputes and an overload of proposals aimed at covering DOT price fluctuations.

Reply
Up

This is the opposite to appreciate the token. How can this become attractive to token holders? Even the users of the infrastructure will rather prefer holding stable to buy dot only when needed to get coretime and nothing else.

Reply
Up
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
1
Tally
96.4%Aye
50.0%Threshold
3.6%Nay
Aye
35.66MDOT
Nay
1.35MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.70%
11.29MDOT
Issuance
1.61BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.