So let’s say we buy back 10W U per month so we’re going to have 120W U per year
Calculate according to the current currency price of 10U
According to the annual rate of 10%, 120W wing should be locked up
According to the annual 20%, 60W wing should be locked up
This can greatly reduce circulation
Make long-term holders more profitable
Wing Lock up the scene
1.Borrowing lock up
2.Insurance lock up
3.Pledge and Lock warehouse (VE mode)
Yes, many projects in the market now use this mechanism, such as Curve, SushiSwap, etc., which endow veToken with voting rights, more benefits, and encourage users to hold for a long time.
Now the benefits of buyback are not obvious to holders.
But we need to be more cautious. As so many projects in the market have adopted such token economics, can changing Wing’s token economics model now achieve the desired effect? Are users really willing to convert WING to veWING?
Meanwhile, Changing the Token economic model and product innovation and development, which one is more important? It’s all worth thinking.
According to the results of WIP-4, we will destroy the repurchased WING until 1 million WING tokens are destroyed
When a project is stuck, what is more important than making a change
Can give long-term pledgee repurchase authority and amount
Historical evidence suggests that the current repo model does nothing for the project or the price other than to trigger short-term speculation
My proposal does not conflict with this and can be merged. It only needs to change the object of repurchase from short-term speculators to long-term pledge, encouraging long-term rather than short-term arbitrage, which is a supplementary optimization to the proposal at that time