[Ideation] SCP-166 ThorFOX, a FOX tokenomics upgrade proposal

So there was a spec already done by the current engineering workstream leader which was posted in the RFC and was linked to earlier in this ideation thread, here is that link again: [RFC] ThorFOX, a FOX tokenomics upgrade proposal - #9 by 0xean

No problem, I will get rid of the THORFox name from the title and body of the final proposal draft when it goes up tomorrow. It was mostly just a fun way to talk about the proposal itself, was never meant to persist beyond that and has no fundamental necessity to stay in the text.

Im not sure really why this needs to be talked about with them beforehand to be honest. Its perfectly fine for the DAO to choose to use hedgey for the “locked treasury” option (that is going to be included based on GK’s request) if the community wishes and this can be determined before any implementation is done if that is the way voters want to go. I think including that locked treasury option for the starting params covers this and if any alterations are needed (such as whether to use hedgey or sablier or some other mechanism) before it goes live the community can follow up on those.

I don’t think such a 4th option adds much when we already have a 10/10/80 option to cover the “low” end of starting params. If you and others would prefer your suggestion (5/5/90) to replace the 10/10/80 option I would be happy to swap that out, but I don’t think we need both a 10/10/80 and 5/5/90 option for starting params (especially considering the community may wish to change these params before things go live anyway). I also don’t want to include more than one “treasury lock” option as opposed to the burn and I think the option added by GK covers that.

I don’t know that many users know to “ask” for tokenomics upgrades (and despite that I have seen such requests in the community before and recently) and I think it is important this proposal moves forward even if this isn’t a top feature request given the strong community sentiment we saw voting “for” during the ideation phase. I hear what you are saying, but this is a case where I think these is some disagreement among the community about the relative importance of this and thus governance is the best way to gauge that community sentiment.

I get that is your opinion on this and a number of other contributors share the sentiment its “too early” for this tokenomic upgrade proposal. However a large portion of FOX voters seem to disagree with that and think now is indeed the right time for this proposal (and talking to a number of those community members they seem to believe it significantly helps the vision instead of detracting from it), i’ve already covered this particular argument earlier in the ideation thread (notably here [Ideation] SCP-166 ThorFOX, a FOX tokenomics upgrade proposal - #25 by jonisjon but also multiple times elsewhere) but suffice to say that I think this question and community disagreement around this is best answered by governance voting and those that think its premature for this tokenomics upgrade should indeed vote this proposal down.