209 похожих чатов

Well maybe this is a bit of a contrarian take

but I think I'm less anti big investor or institutional investors than many.

To me it really doesn't matter about the size of the investor it matters what we know about them and what their intentions are. It's true having large holders can introduce some systemic risk if they did decide to act badly but steady hands can also help reduce herd dynamics during panic times which I think retail can be more susceptible to.

Like for example is a good or a bad thing that Warren Buffet control such a large % of Berkshire Hathaway? Is it good or bad Elon controls such a large % or Tesla? If you were a Berkshire holder would you want to decrease Warren's share and spread it out across more small holders?

3 ответов

12 просмотров

Cool perspective 😎 Understand your point of view! My main philosophy revolves around fairness and transparency. If everyone has the same options and starting point based on their current holdings then in theory balance should not shift too much. Long term it still may due to bigger wallets getting more rewarded with emissions, but that would in one way happen anyways 🤔

Very good point and even better point I want to add: most of the large investors in FXS are veFXS stakers since FXS has a lot of utility, usage, and yield (soon the rev share and FXTL points too). Most investors of size (Tetranode, Electric Capital, Dragonfly, Brevan Howard, other VCs etc) are all staked onchain and part of the community rather than bagholding to "sell on retail." Very few projects are as organic as Frax where almost everyone is aligned.

Sam Kazemian ¤⛓️¤
Very good point and even better point I want to ad...

Hence, a capital raised based on veFXS would also be in the interest of them I would think 👍 If only they or similar groups gets the option to buy after Frax has matured this much I would be shocked tbh

Похожие вопросы

Обсуждают сегодня

Карта сайта