UPDATE 2:
DED foundation has resolved to prioritize speed of execution and will not be seeking funds from the Treasury
--
UPDATE:
Memes serve as a bridge in our community, blending humor with cohesion. They remind us to laugh at ourselves, fostering a sense of belonging. Through shared amusement, memes bring us closer, highlighting our collective journey with light-heartedness and unity.
Any tool created by this bounty for airdrop and distribution of meme coins will be made open source so that any other meme coin creator can use it for their own meme coin
--
With this referendum we are asking 1 million DOT for future funding of DED
Based on several Twitter polls I have the feeling that the community is against funding this meme coin for the long run in order to make it a success
This referendum is designed to understand if there is appetite in funding DED for the long run or not, it doesn't mean the 1 million have to be entirely spent but they could be spent if it will lead to effective results
The point is we have to decide if to airdrop 100% of the DED tokens or not
If we airdrop 100% of the tokens we have to be sure that we have funds from the treasury to support the development and marketing of DED
Because if we airdrop 100% and then the community doesn't want to continue funding DED we basically run out of ammunition, we cannot sell DED tokens to private investors or give them to influencers
Voting yes to this referendum means that 100% of the supply will be distributed to DOT holders as initially planned
Voting no means that a smaller amount will be distributed to DOT holders and private investors will be involved and some tokens will also be given to influencers
I will abstain from voting on this referendum because the goal is to sense the long-term view of the community regarding funding DED
For context:
https://x.com/giottodf/status/1765800732735815823?s=20
https://x.com/giottodf/status/1765970981842006224?s=20
Curators: TBD
Threshold
Hi @giottodf ,
I'm nay'ing this proposal in favor of private investor funding. Yet, when you're presenting a proposal such as this one, you owe the community clarity on the details. Who decides which private investor is going to be picked? Who's going to carry out the negotiations? Who's going to oversee the investment process? By "some tokens", how much do you imply? For all of these decisions, we're likely going to require additional referenda, because the treasury has already invested a million USD in this effort.
So I'm going nay for the lack of a "we need more details" option. This proposal is incomplete for what it is now.
To close with, I would approve the option of private investor funding under the condition of complete transparency of the process details.
Best regards,
kukabi | Helikon
Edited