Burn it all

Burn it ALL

BURN all the $AJNA for this grant cycle.

Recieving Address: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
AJNA Amount: 7,308,186.882216

  1. What is it?
    Burning $AJNA

  2. What problem is being solved, how?
    The introduction of $AJNA as a new protocol is an intriguing development, focusing primarily on its technological framework rather than ancillary money-grabbing mechanisms such as ‘discord support,’ ‘weekly governance calls,’ or ‘Reports.’ Given the current situation where liquidity remains notably constrained—making it difficult to transact significant quantities of $AJNA without affecting its price—Many of the grant askers already have substantial $AJNA allocations, either through delegation, previous team involvement, or initial allocations. In light of this, it is suggested that we dedicate this cycle to reinforcing the core essence of $AJNA as a protocol, devoid of governance activities. This approach aims to underscore the protocol’s intrinsic value and functionality.

  3. What is/are the objective(s)?
    The primary goal is to reconsider the allocation of 7 million $AJNA tokens in light of the current liquidity and market demand challenges. Observing the total value locked (TVL) within the app, which appears to have plateaued at 30 million, it’s apparent that growth has stalled in comparison to other protocols which have demonstrated significant expansion in a short period(ie Morpho Blue with no incentives).

This scenario presents an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the protocol’s foundational principles and its operational independence from governance processes. I advocate for a cautious approach to token distribution, particularly in these early stages. Once $ AJNA has achieved a more robust growth trajectory, it may be more beneficial to focus on supporting projects that contribute to the protocol’s development and utility rather than governance in future grant cycles.

1 Like

I doubt this will win but I love you for proposing it! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like

I don’t think there is any need to discuss this further, the author can use this cheap gas opportunity to submit it right now.

1 Like

Thanks, Chris, I’m glad that at least 2 of us are on the same page.

There’s little point in expending gas if the proposal has been neither read nor considered. It appears that a majority of the delegates are more interested in perpetuating their “governor lifestyle” rather than showing concern for the protocol itself.

This proposal was intended primarily as a wake-up call, more than anything else.

The grant program’s purpose is to fund things that increase the probability of protocol success.

I think burning it all is counterproductive. These assets would be better spent funding productive things in the way of UX, BD, Marketing, and more.

The Grants program was designed to empower a class of delegates to make decisions about funding. So I don’t understand your “governor lifestyle” criticism. I know many of the delegates and I can vouch for their concern about the protocol. We’re all trying to fund things that help with the protocol’s growth.

Anyway, it would be better if you could be specific in your criticism rather than vague. Which proposal do you have an issue with?
Do you think it’s money wasted?
Comment on those proposals.

Doing that is more productive imo.


Why didn’t you submit this proposal on-chain? It should be available as an option in every funding stage, in case any delegate/voter doesn’t like what’s happening with the other votes.

pretty sure he got shut down by the community, notably users who run the platform elected or not