Push Chain Tokenomics: The Next Evolution(CLOSED, MOVING TO VOTE)

🗳️ Governance Proposals
23

The issue here is that there is no concern, care, transparency for OG PUSH investors. Most people who cheer this proposal on either 1. simply just don’t care enough given they have little to no holdings, or 2. like in @david.marquez6658 ‘s or essentially all of us PUSH holders’ case, are left with no options given Push protocol is dead and we need to move forward somehow. After taking 99% price decline in the face, the least we could do to protect ourselves from massive dilution is with better conversion rate. At the end of the day, the technology of Push chain was developed with the money OG PUSH investors and supporters put in. The community exists because of Push protocol. If there are new investors, be transparent with who they are, how much Push chain has raised at what valuation. What is the Push labs treasury and what is it for? How many and who are the core contributors and why are these “core contributors” receiving more than half of what the whole PUSH protocol holders are receiving? Forget airdrops, we already have people down 99% from PUSH. Instead of having an allocation for airdrops, take care of OG supporters better instead of trying to dilute existing holders by 85%. What’s really hard to take is that we were promised a proportional ownership post migration with the initial Push chain proposal, which is why I voted in favor of Push chain. Forget money, I get Push protocol is zero, but the principle at least needs be there even remotely. The current proposal has none of that for existing holders.

2 Likes
24

I think these concerns are legitimate, but I nonetheless voted in favour because the new allocation is 82% for the ‘community’ (broadly defined, if we combine community distribution, ecosystem reserves, and investors).

The 1:15 is sensible because a direct 1:100 would create huge sell pressure and undermine the great work being done by the team. Anyone who’s been following recent updates (both in terms of partnerships as well as the vision) will know that Push is grossly undervalued right now.

Instead of triggering a mass price-driven exodus, current tokenomics is nudging holders to be more involved with everything that’s happening (push points, staking, new use cases like email, chess, rumours etc.).

That said, I completely agree that we need more clarity going forward on the 70%, and how it will be internally distributed. The goal should be to let current holders self-select: those who feel burned by the project may wish to leave with a 7.5 x, and those who believe in it may wish to re-engage in new ways.

The sensible option for both (at current prices) is re-engagement. And if that’s the central message of the new tokenomics, then it’s a good one.

(p.s.: those who’re just angry at the team for not doing enough to pump their bags need to re-read the howey test.)

1 Like
25

The 70% allocation to the ecosystem & community is a strong commitment to decentralization and long-term growth.
Fully support this proposal!
#LFPush

2 Likes
26

This is really exciting! The launch of Push Chain marks a big step for Web3, bringing universal apps and cross-chain interaction to the forefront.

1 Like
27

This proposal effectively establishes the groundwork for Push Chain governance and the development of universal applications.

I’m particularly enthusiastic about its focus on rewarding early adopters who are genuinely using and embracing the product.

I believe in Push and its goal.

2 Likes
29

Push Chain is set to revolutionize Web3 with universal apps, interoperability, and deflationary tokenomics! :rocket:

1 Like
30

Exciting times ahead with push. A big step for Web3. Wow.

1 Like
31

Thanks for your feedback man. We are on the same team. I think all of us share the same sentiment that we have no options but to move to Push chain at this point. I am 100% on board with moving to Push Chain, just believe we need to rework the tokenomics. All of our perspectives also depends on how long and how much PUSH tokens we hold. That said, I believe we can all agree that the promise made by the PUSH team has not been fulfilled (referring to the below statement at the initial Push Chain proposal) and the team has grossly misled PUSH token holders on what the tokenomics were going to look like.

“A priority for Push Chain tokenomics is to ensure that all Push Protocol $PUSH holders are able to migrate their tokens to the Push Chain native token (ticker TBD) for a proportional ownership in the new blockchain,”

The team simply cannot talk about proportional ownership post migration 3 months ago and then come out with a 15% allocation because there are many holders who have bought more PUSH tokens on that statement alone after being down 99% from a failed protocol. That is borderline rugpull for people who bought in with the confidence after the initial promise was made. Also, it will take well over 100x pump and dump for OG Push holders to get near break even, so I don’t believe the intention here is for a quick pump and dump for the vast majority of us. Any OG holders would be very lucky to be down 90% from initial investment rather than 99%. I am 100% in agreement to moving to Push Chain like the rest of us, we just need to move the 1:15 conversion rate. It’s already very clear from the market that even post this tokenomics proposal the market hardly cares, the very least we could do is to make sure we are rewarded what was promised. On Push chain being undervalued, I am not so sure about it given everyone thought Push protocol was always undervalued yet it seems to hit all time lows everyday as the product with its subpar UX never was able to attract real users coupled with lack of marketing. Let’s all be honest with each other, anyone who has used Push Chat more than once knows it’s unusable, notification product also didn’t work a good chunk of the time etc - so all these partnerships Push chain honestly hasn’t meant much. At the end of the day Push protocol has partnerships with the biggest protocols out there and that never seemed to matter because there were hardly any real users. We all just have to be honest with ourselves on why Push protocol failed, stop glorifying stats that doesn’t tell the real picture, and make sure we do our best as the community to help Push chain become successful even if it means saying the truth. I would love to believe that Harsh and Richa can execute and somewhere in my heart I still do to an extent, but with the track record so far it’s more hope than confidence. The only thing we Push holders can have confidence in is if we receive the fair tokenomics we were promised and deserve. Thanks again for your feedback big dawg.

1 Like
32

The launch of Push Chain is a major milestone for Web3, paving the way for universal apps and seamless cross-chain interactions.

2 Likes
33

Exciting times. Looking forward to seeing how Push Chain Tokenomics evolves. Fully support this proposal.

2 Likes
34

Can you please share the URL where I can delegate my tokens for voting? Or can I vote directly with my wallet that holds my tokens?

@SixtyKeys @Carlaupgrade @harshrajat

35

For everyone, for voting, a reminder. Push governance has two phases, discussion and voting through $PUSH tokens. Currently, we are in discussion after which everyone who has $PUSH can vote through it once we move to the voting phase.

Timelines:

  • Governance Proposal Start discussion, Delegation Begins - March 18, 8am EST / 12pm UTC
  • Governance Proposal End and Delegation Ends - March 25, 8am EST/12pm UTC
  • Snapshot proposal goes live - March 25, 9am EST/1PM UTC
  • Gov Result - March 29, 5pm EST

Ways to get your rights to voting

Anything you held in staking is automatically counted for snapshot voting, you can check if your voting power is correctly shown by visiting: https://snapshot.box/#/s:pushdao.eth/proposals

Delegating via Etherscan

To delegate your voting power:

Delegating via basic frontend

To delegate your voting power, we have created a basic frontend here: app.push.org/govern, Once delegated, check your voting power is correctly shown at https://snapshot.box/#/s:pushdao.eth/proposals

3 Likes
36

Thanks Ian. I checked my voting power and it looks like when you have some tokens held in a wallet and some staked, it only is counting the staked tokens and not the unstaked tokens held in the same wallet. Can we make sure this gets fixed? Thanks man.

37

I will check it out.

1 Like
38

Everything is working as intended, it’s the same voting logic for snapshot that has been used for the past year. In case you have extra tokens in wallets that are not reflected, we recommend using either of the options(delegate via the etherscan / frontend or put unstaked tokens back to staking) outlined above(in the previous response) to ensure that your voting power is reflected.

2 Likes
39

Hi everyone - it is nice to see the community discussing aspects of the tokenomics proposal. I am writing this post to address recurring questions.

(1) Questions about the token migration and ratio

The migration ratio of 1:15 was determined to balance rewarding existing $PUSH holders while ensuring Push Chain’s long-term success. This ratio is reserved only for Push Protocol ($PUSH) token holders. It is worth noting that Push Protocol team members will go through this same migration — there is absolutely no preferential ratio for team members. A layer 1 with the capacity to scale and connect every financial and non-financial application has a significantly larger addressable market and valuation than a notifications protocol. It is our belief that the ratio will still result in $PUSH migrators seeing significant impact of their holdings. At the moment of TGE, between the regular migration ratio and yield farming, airdrops, and distributions, ~26-27% of total token supply is going to the community. Over time, per the token vesting and migration details, 1:70 goes to the community through additional incentives such as rewards, airdrops, and other ecosystem distributions. The vesting graph has full details for total token supply & distribution.

Upon migration, 50% of tokens are released and the remaining 50% will be released after 3 months. This is a required step of the migration, and this is done to support a more balanced ecosystem during this migration. This step is not abnormal for migrations, and the tokenomics proposal includes an incentivized yield farming to ensure migrators benefit during this time period.

(2) Questions about yield farming

A dedicated yield farming pool will be live exclusively for migrated token holders, separate from other incentive programs. This structure is specifically designed to reward long-term supporters of the project. This same benefit given to long-term holders is present throughout other forms of community allocation. With this yield farming pool, only $PUSH migrators will be able to benefit — new Push Chain token holders will not be able to access these benefits.

(3) Questions about Push Protocol (notifications & chat)

Push Protocol has shown significant growth over the last four years, despite crypto market challenges and shifting macro crypto narratives. Performance stats are publicly available for anyone from the community to view at: app.push.org and push.network. Generally, Push Protocol has doubled its subscribers and notifications sent YoY, with annual performance reports published. See the most recent: Push Year In Review 2024 | Push Chain | Any Chain. Any Wallet. Any App.

However, roadmaps change. The Push ecosystem is evolving beyond its original intention with the launch of Push Chain. This is a significant moment for the community, yes, and also a needed evolution of the Push ecosystem to have an even greater impact on the app ecosystem in which we’ve been building for years.

Push notifications and chat are not going away. These applications will be among the first to launch on Push Chain, and still offer those users and protocols all the functionality they’ve been used to over the last four years.

(4) Questions about voting and governance

The governance process for this proposal has been structured to ensure full transparency and community participation.

Timeline:

  1. Discussion and delegation period: March 18-25, 2024
  2. Snapshot proposal goes live: March 25, 2024
  3. Governance results announced: March 29, 2024

Staked tokens are automatically counted for snapshot voting. You can verify your voting power at snapshot.box/#/s.eth/proposals.

You can delegate your voting power in two ways: etherscan or the frontend.

Delegating via Etherscan

  1. Make sure you have your tokens in your wallet
  2. Go to Etherscan Push Protocol: PUSH Token (0xf418588522d5dd018b425e472991e52ebbeeeeee) | Address 0xf418588522d5dd018b425e472991e52ebbeeeeee | Etherscan
  3. Connect your wallet via the “Connect to Web3” button
    1600×739 128 KB
  4. Expand the delegate button, enter the desired delegate address, and submit the transaction. In case you want to delegate to yourself, then enter your wallet address instead of the delegate address.
  5. Check your voting power is correctly shown at: https://snapshot.box/#/s:pushdao.eth/proposals

Delegating via Basic Frontend

To delegate your voting power, we have also created a basic frontend here: app.push.org/govern. Once delegated, check your voting power is correctly shown at: https://snapshot.box/#/s:pushdao.eth/proposals

3 Likes
40

Appreciate the response Harsh. Again, I want to start by saying that I have been the biggest supporter of Push Protocol. Biggest supporter however doesn’t mean that you need to be a blind cheerleader all the time. It means supporting the protocol’s vision, providing real feedback, walking to talk by taking action, and being courageous to hold the team accountable for their actions. Respectfully, you are still not answering the questions asked. Please see comments and questions below.

  1. The below statement was made by you 3 months ago to get everybody on board to get Push Chain proposal approved.

"A priority for Push Chain tokenomics is to ensure that all Push Protocol $PUSH holders are able to migrate their tokens to the Push Chain native token (ticker TBD) for a proportional ownership in the new blockchain.”

The community continuously was trying to make sure you confirmed your own statements which you decided to just evade at the time. The current proposal is nowhere near representative of the promise made below and you are still not answering this question. The statement above only pertains to the MIGRATION TOKENOMICS and isn’t representative of what is reserved for the whole Push Chain community long term as I am sure you understand. Your answer completely disregards this fact and dances around how much goes to the “community (past, present and future)” long term when the promise was made to “existing PUSH token holders”. Hopefully you can see why your answer does not answer the question. Also for the existing Push holders, the DAO and the future Push Chain holders, we never want to set the precedent of approving a proposal that is not at all representative of what was promised. This is condoning unethical behavior which we all know will lead to bad things in the future.

  1. The below comment really should not be made.

“A layer 1 with the capacity to scale and connect every financial and non-financial application has a significantly larger addressable market and valuation than a notifications protocol. It is our belief that the ratio will still result in $PUSH migrators seeing significant impact of their holdings.”

First of all, the market price action post the announcement very clearly tells us that the market does not agree with your statement. At the end of the day OG holders are still down 99%. With these new tokenomics proposal if the token valuation goes up by 667%, OG holders get back to being down 99% instead of 99.9% if market cap stays given we are getting diluted by another 85% by this proposal. Please don’t blindly believe that market cap will grow just because it’s an L1. At the end of the day the team has to “EXECUTE”, which is what Push protocol failed to do as much as I would hate to admit. For PUSH token holders please don’t think that potentially getting a 667% price action to still be down 99% is a great outcome, because it is not. Regardless of where PUSH investors bought in, having to count on a near 7X price action to breakeven sounds horrible with risk/reward clearly skewed to the downside, not so rosy as depicted in your statements. I understand that many crypto retail investors unfortunately don’t grasp the concept of marketcap, token supply, but the basic math spells doom for existing holders with the only solace being that there is no alternative at this point.

  1. Who is in the “Core Contributors” pool? I am all about taking care of the DAO members and the engineers which I would believe are part of the pool. Are you and Richa also in the “Core Contributors” pool? If so, it needs to be disclosed as I don’t believe it is ethical for the top management to get another allocation after what happened to Push Protocol and what the team intends to do to the existing holders.

  2. How much did “Push Chain Investors” invest and at what valuation? This should be the most clear standard that we have for what the newest market cap may represent and is also relevant to the migration tokenomics. Please disclose.

  3. Referring to the below statement in your answer.

" Push Protocol has shown significant growth over the last four years, despite crypto market challenges and shifting macro crypto narratives. Performance stats are publicly available for anyone from the community to view at: app.push.org and push.network. Generally, Push Protocol has doubled its subscribers and notifications sent YoY, with annual performance reports published."

Harsh, it gives the community much more confidence when you come out and admit where we failed on Push protocol rather than continue to gravitate towards and glorify stats that simply don’t paint the picture of reality. This is like talking about how the recent marketing campaign has been amazing when the business in reality has gone bankrupt. For us community members to have more faith, we need you to own up to where we failed and talk about what you are doing to make sure it doesn’t happen again on Push Chain. Do you use Push chat? Do you use Push protocol? The many features that are available on it? Any users that have actually used the product knows that there are not only serious UX but functionality issues and the product hasn’t been very usable. Do you track how many ACTUAL active users there are? Subscribers sadly won’t show you the real picture and simple notification stats also won’t. I can tell you as a user who was very excited to use everything at the beginning stopped using it because most of the time the product just didn’t work as intended. I would check in every few months to see if things improved and sadly it never did to a point where it was usable. The first step to improvement is getting out of denial and admitting where we fell short. I run 2 companies, one with a 9 figure valuation, I know a thing or two about how important these things are to keep the team engaged and to give them more confidence.

Thanks for reading such a long post Harsh, Richa, the DAO, and all the community members. I sincerely hope you could see why I wrote the things I wrote. At the end of the day I have supported Push more than 99% of the people and I truly care about where Push Chain is headed. If we cannot even agree to the fact that making a promise to the community then breaking it is something that is NOT OK TO DO, we are headed in the wrong direction. I am 100% on board with moving to Push Chain, but the tokenomics does need to change and actually reflect the promise Harsh has made to the community. Thank you.

2 Likes
41

Push Chain’s vision for universal apps, deflationary design, and inclusive tokenomics shows strong long-term potential. Excited to support this evolution.

42

Also, please disclose confirm that “Push Chain Investors” don’t include any of the original capital providers such as Jump, Tiger Global, ParaFi, Sino Global, Polygon Studios, Harmony Foundation etc unless they injected completely fresh capital. I ask this because I could easily see a scenario where the original VCs would obviously reject this proposal unless they are taken care of in other ways through conveniently hiding behind the category of “Push Chain Investors”. Please confirm none of this is related to the original investors of EPNS and the capital they provided and that none of these original investors are getting any special treatment. Thank you.

2 Likes
43

there is been indeed a need to transition so as to favourably compete and keep relvant