In light of recent changes and the proposals made by the trustees, as well as the reassessment of the work of subDAO L3 participants regarding retrogrants, I would like to request a review of my retrogrant.
My request is based on the following factors:
In June 2024, a decision was made to allocate retrogrants to the following participants:
Ihar: 2000 USD + 5000 ECOx,
Lexus: 5000 ECOx (previously awarded as an influencer in the ecosystem),
Docdim: 2000 ECOx, who redistributed his retrogrant among all participants, granting 400 ECOx to each.
Given this distribution and my significant contribution to the project, I kindly request a review of my retrogrant. Based on my involvement, completed tasks, and active participation in the community, I ask for an allocation of 80,000 ECOx.
This amount is justified considering the current token price $0.08 and the future unlock schedules. With the expected price drop to $0.02 due to fund unlocks, I believe the requested amount is reasonable and fair.
I appreciate your attention to my request and hope for a just decision.
Thank you for your opinion. I believe that my request is reasonable, and I have done what I thought was necessary. I wish you all the best. You may close this thread; there is no one else here.
That is not how things work; by default, rewards or compensation or any other form of value transfer is resolved at a specific date due to its speculative and volatile nature. Your reward was evaluated in the past, on a specified date, thus it should not move back or forward in time. If we do this for you, we must do the same for everyone who has used cryptocurrency since its inception. Can you imagine going back years of evaluation because the assets granted to people have decreased because of free market conditions? Why only you and not all of humanity?
That sets a precedent for the opposite to happen, and if the asset rises too high, do we need to ask people for their excess “money” back? However, if these people have already exchanged the assets in free markets, should those who purchased them at a loss or profit also seek compensation or return profits? Then we realize that’s why stable coins exist, which is why there are two broad categories in cryptocurrency: speculative assets on which people “bet” and assume responsability, and stable coins on which the value is based on trust and guaranteed by a third party institution or government.
Unfortunately, you will have to rethink your request becuase I don’t think it makes sense. I think you posted the thread in the wrong section because this section is for EGPs but the governance is halted due to the protocol upgrade.
I have moved this to an idea. You can continue the discussion or close it, but for me the issue is resolved. If I need your criticism in the future, I’ll be sure to reach out on Eco Discord and tag you. All the best!
@Dave_Eco Why did you hide my proposal? I will return to this suggestion later, as I am observing market volatility relative to current prices (six months have passed). I will continue monitoring for another year and two months to see the reward dynamics of the retroactive drop. Thanks to Saulo and his questions, which gave me a hint.