@Bluecrypt thank you! can you also provide a numeric representation of this? I’d use these for pool liquidity:
@vfat can please elaborate on Bounce.finance? i’m not aware of how it works, probably not alone in this
@vfat and @spartacus both of your points hold merit and i think we would need to consider to meet those positions somewhere in the middle.
For one i agree with @vfat that since our end goal as a treasury is to distribute PCT we might as well consider riskier options in terms of IL.
However, @spartacus is right in pointing out that a) we will be able to generate much more income running our own pool with more skewed weights and b) we will retain the majority of PCT for future use-cases. I think both are too important to ignore.
You can see my calculations from the the original thread - if the protocol remains at around $30m TVL (which is a non-0 chance possibility, although like everyone else i’m super bullish, of course) - we might only have about $200k in annual income to support growth of the project and/or distribute it to token holders. This is minuscule.
Also, it is my firm belief that we do need to attract top talent to grow this into a real product. We may also need to incentivize them with our token (perfectly aligns interests), so need to keep a good chunk of that.
But i do want to point out that we need to realistically approach the assesment of the use of a Balancer pool. We will have ~2.7m PCT left for Phase III due to issues with MM distribution, as revealed earlier today.
So i would suggest to @spartacus to adjust the base assumptions. Also, both @brisket and @Spartacus have been calling for continuance of the MM incentivisation, which i’m sure is echoed by others in the community as well.
So the way i see it, the pie isn’t that big to begin with and splitting it for multiple purposes or running the risk of losing no less than 40% in the run-up (which if you don’t believe in, i don’t know what you’re doing here 
), and i would argue a 50 or 100x is not outside the realm of possibilities at all here… So why risk losing all of this much needed coin, when we already have largely distributed the supply?
Look, the token is already well distributed, we have a good working product. what we need is to be able to sustain it and turn it into a real competition to all of these other teams that are better capitalized - like Comp, Aave and even Cream.
I’m all for actively managing the 100% of the remaining PCT supply with a Balancer pool (TBD which we end up choosing as the best option) for 6-12 months. And then depending on the price appreciation of the token and the amount of income generated through the protocol and BAL LM+pool fees, put the proceeds to the developer fund for at a 24-36 month runway + a good chunk of PCT for the “stock option plan” and either continue managing the remaining PCT that way - targeting to have a long-term stock chest for future hires (something i’m inclining to) or try to incentivize user behaviors beneficial to the protocol, if there’s any growing slack in that area.
Are there any more beneficial alternatives you guys see?
.
