Regarding ARMOR token value, sharing profits with investors

Ideas
1

Not a secret that ARMOR token holders were punished badly, value decline over -95%.
Armor protocol has $500m in TVL (used to have over $1b), so i believe it is making profits.
Armor should share profits with token holders by periodically buying back tokens on the market and burn them (or store in treasury for future use). In addition purchase back tokens at such discount must be profitable for the protocol for sure in long-term.

1 Like
2

Before I produce my personal opinion, let me state that, as far as the social channels go, I’m a moderator there and may be considered part of the Team. However, I don’t have any inside information (aside from being as informed with the official documentation as anyone else can be), I am an investor and I hodl vArmor in my personal wallet, therefore my opinion concerns my own private interest.

I vouch for not supporting profit sharing at this stage.

  1. Armor is a DAO in its infant stages and is not yet established in its field of action. It’s major concern should be making a name for itself and developing its product/solution. Profit sharing is definitely the direction Armor should take at the end-game stage.

  2. In terms of manpower, I don’t think the current Team has the capacity to both push RCAs into fruition and implement profit sharing. I wager RCAs will take a reasonable time to mature after going live in Q1 (as pointed out in the Whitepaper). I think a profit sharing vote would be best placed on the time axis no sooner than a year from now.

  3. In terms of revenue and protocol profits, I agree with opinions expressed in TG channels that Armor would need those for full scale marketing campaign, as well as to fuel a process of successful rebrand.

  4. Speaking of rebranding, this is disrupting and expensive enough (in terms of attention, devotion and resourcefulness) by itself, let alone doing it just as a prelude to RCA launch and start of marketing campaign. Asking more of the Team at this stage isn’t logical.

In conclusion, I would say profit sharing is a model every successful company should adopt and I’m no different than any other investor when speaking of personal interest. I would definitely vouch for profit sharing some day.

But today, considering the early stage of the Armor endeavor (1), the time and effort needed for the protocol to find recognition (2), the resources needed to obtain said milestones (3) and taking into account the risky and cumbersome rebranding process (4) I would say profit sharing should be out of the question for now. I would vouch against.

1 Like
3

So all-in-all I think this will be the direction we go. Likely not a burn system but a buyback system with profits being distributed to stakers.

While I agree it’d be great to do now, at the moment we don’t have enough profit for it to go anywhere but back into the protocol for operational expenses. The TVL on defillama is misleading because it includes Nexus underwriting funds; our coverage system doesn’t have any of its own underwriting funds until we launch RCAs so our actual TVL is mostly what’s in arNXM.

2 Likes