Allocated token proposal

Hello all,

Adam here and I want to discuss what I believe is the best way to work with accumulated tokens from the market purchases.

In this market rewards, high apy is exciting. Unfeds first surge was a great LP pool with real time rewards. The second surge came from an expectation of high apy from SSS. At this point the rewards and apy aren’t enough to pull investors in.

I propose the following and have it done in a transparent way. Marketing releases and a dashboard that shows:

25% of all tokens collected at burned.
50% of all tokens collected are distirbuted to staking provides.
25% of all tokens are distributed to staking providers who are staking for 3 months +.

This idea is that SSS stakers are rewarded for their longevity but everyone gets some rewards for participating but all of this is happening at the same time as deflation from the burn.

This should provide some increased liquidity, promote holding and get people excited everytime you sign up new clients.

Thoughts? Let’s do this.



Some men just want to watch the licencing fees burn.

1 Like

More burn. I dont think we need excitment for retails traders

Nah need more burn, more burnnnnnnnnnnah! :laughing: :fire: :fire:

Sorry Adam
I’m with the burn
We know long term we will hold and the less supply the more pressure we create

1 Like

More in favor for burn.

1 Like

Hello, I think Adam proposal is good, but I do also agree that the burn can help.

More burn, at least 50%

I am curious if we are talking about 100% of the SaaS fees collected as being put into this burn/distribute bucket or if it is a percentage. If a percentage, what is that percentage and at what interval is Unfed looking to do the burns/distribution.

I would assume that we are not talking about the full percentage as I assume some portion of the SaaS fees will be used to also sell $eRSDL back for development, marketing and other funding the project needs. Clarity on this, in my mind, influences the level of aggressiveness I would believe either burning or distribution would be done. If only 25% of SaaS fees are going into this bucket, then I would like to see a much more aggressive burn % of tokens. If 75% of SaaS fees are going into this bucket than I think a less aggressive rate would make more sense.

The key to whatever is done is to entice buying, holding & staking of $eRSDL. Each of those moves carries a different motivation and goal by person looking to commit. Can the team respond with any clarity on the % of SaaS fees committed to this Burn/Distribute bucket?


:fire::fire: burn it all to the ground.

Apologies for any confusion on timing. Hopefully that Medium article covers it. I think we’ll see the purchases this week. We are documenting the procedures for a variety of reasons. Let’s see if more folks respond in the thread on this topic and idea a vote? Anyone want to take a stab at the language. Assume some type rate and term has to be decided. Also, timing of activity (e.g. random, static purchase dates, etc.) should be incorporated into the policy. If you have thoughts, put’em out there. Thanks and have a great weekend.

1 Like

Howard, instead of the community sharing these ideas back/forth (which has already transpired, to little collective agreement) maybe you could provide your ideal scenario at the language?

Your thoughts on the timing of activity, price point, and overall terms for purchasing eRSDL out of the market would help define your teams’ vision of the tokenomics for this project.

Seems a lot of us have already thrown out ideas and there are different visions amongst the community, but a clear explanation of how you’d envision doing it in detail would help kickstart the conversation. We’re all a bit confused on why you’re promoting the purchasing start-date as “beginning immediately” (wavevarient’s note above clarifies these dates) when you haven’t given us a chance to understand the full details of the tokenomics and the purchasing terms.

Will second @daemon’s point above - we are eager to formalize the token burn mechanism and I think we have more than enough bright people in the room to get the proposal ball rolling, but guidance or a template to work off of from your perspective [@CryptoKriegerU] would be a very helpful step forward.

Keying in on your most recent post, Howard, it looks like the key variables are rate charged to licensee to use RF, term that the rate is charged for & then frequency at which the rate is charged - is this correct & is there anything else that I am missing? Thank you.

The licensing fee (% and term) is probably best left to after we determine “on the run” costs per product.

However, the community could propose that we burn the tokens, lock in longer term storage to be released, reward back to X party (perhaps those that have held ersdl the longest), etc…

Thats what I’m interested in seeing. Once a cogent proposal is crafted, just put up on snapshot but make sure un Tokens can vote also… Maybe the mods could set up the vote if unclear how.

funding RF deal this week! Excited to see the vision realized.

thanks, howard


Howard, I watched a YouTube video about Maple Finance last night and thought they had a really interesting “delegation” concept where tokenholders are able to stake their MPL as a form of credit enhancement against potential losses that could occur to the platform’s lenders - is that something we would ever consider for this project (does that work with US regs)?

If so, could be a cool way to attract more people to the project and “gamify” the token’s value - could potentially have a portion of eRSDL purchased out of market allocated to these people as incremental yield for assuming this risk.

1 Like

Also - the type of person who would be attracted to this sort of structure would also likely be somebody involved with the types of funds that you are looking to onboard as RF customers. Flywheel.

1 Like