I think this is a good idea. These tokens were meant to be airdropped, if everyone who could have collected them would have, they would be out there, so these are tokens the protocol expected to be circulating. And the proposed number of tokens being discussed are a small % of what’s out there.
Secondly, I like this idea because recently we have decreased ACX emissions for liquidity providers in both the ACX pool AND the multipliers. So this would be something good to encourage continued support of the bridge.
And it’s funny, TheRealTuna and I have talked about this before, and I love you man, but I’m just not on the same page with you that the circulating ACX tokens, especially at this point, have a real impact on the value. If the token goes up, it will be because of the confidence people have in Across and the value in provides, not because tokens are held close to the vest by the protocol.
I can’t get it to make sense to me that the token volume can impact token value when there are 1 BILLION of them. If the concern of the protocol was to support token value by limiting the supply, a much smaller number would have been created. Creating so many ACX tokens just tells you that the protocol did not intend to strictly control the supply of the token to prop up value.
But the use of the bridge and attracting new liquidity providers is probably best accomplished by word of mouth. The word of mouth to attract new bridge users will likely be because of the speed and value of the bridge, however, incentivizing users to attract other users can’t be a bad idea. It is possible that I agree the 30% of tokens proposed to go to bridge users could be part of the referral program possibly?
But the only way word of mouth with attract more liquidity providers is to keep liquidity providers happy and provide a good return. And let’s face it, who should Across like to get a good ROI more than those who supported the bridge from day #1? I can’t get on board that my ROI improves if I have less ACX tokens.