Good to see you here Johnny! And I’m glad we have a dissenting opinion on this topic to make us think more.
Definitely good points and I wonder if the decision here will be indicative of/influential to what our true mission is.
The way I see it is that Armor is a protocol singularly created to provide the best DeFi coverage possible. With this mission, the treasury is important to get us going, grow the community, take advantage of what the community has to offer, entice skilled members to the team, and maybe give some strategic funding to protocols that help us achieve our goals (for example, our bug bounty partnerships that lower the chance of hacks occurring). Burning, with these goals, will help to grow the community and make more people interested/comfortable in participating in governance, and we have many more tokens for all those other purposes before needing to use profit from the protocol for them.
What I believe some see as Armor’s ultimate goal is more of a security “powerhouse” (more like Yearn or Sushi than MakerDAO or Uniswap). In this situation, we will need all of the above benefits but will also want much larger treasuries to make large investments in new products/protocols, in which case it would likely be more beneficial not to burn anything.
I always prefer focus, think there’s a huge benefit to having a singular goal–especially when we’re not sacrificing much of anything in terms of the size of the protocol given that our market is the entirety of DeFi–and burning will help us to get there more quickly, but this is something definitely worth talking about and if people disagree of what the ultimate goal is maybe burning isn’t the best idea.
There are also more things we haven’t talked about such as using the 250M tokens as a pool that can be used to pay for RCA losses if a particular year is very bad, which could theoretically lead to free insurance with enough capital and enough interest.
