lowhash.hl retweetet
There's been a ton of debate over @pumpcade's ACE round recently. As someone who:
1) has written numerous times about how token-equity relationships in crypto are broken, and
2) holds a meaningful position in $PUMPCADE,
I believe I bring an interesting perspective to the debate over whether ACE is good for PUMPCADE and, more broadly, for token-equity relationships.
First off, and what is being greatly overlooked in my opinion, is how the PUMPCADE token came to be.
Last September, @PopPunkOnChain launched the PUMPCADE token for a PvP streaming game on @Pumpfun. The token was fair-launched, and Pop reserved no supply for himself, as it was just a fun side project.
This detail is critical. There was no intention of raising funds for Pumpcade, so a fair-launched token was sufficient.
Since then, Pumpcade has evolved into a short-term prediction markets project that is *completely* different from the original vision. And to execute on this new direction, Pop very clearly needed to raise funds to build out a team.
However, this created its own set of challenges as Pop did not reserve any portion of the supply. As a result, he couldn't raise funds by selling tokens. At that point, there were two options:
1) Abandon the token. While it would've been a shitty thing to do, it would've been perfectly legal and greatly accelerated Pumpcade's product and roadmap. After all, what the PUMPCADE token was originally launched as bears no real resemblance to what Pumpcade is today, aside from the name.
2) Forge a new path that somehow retains the PUMPCADE token. This path was undoubtedly harder than the alternative and would also delay product development, but would keep tokenholders happy.
Thankfully, Pop chose the second option, and the ACE fundraising mechanism was born out of it. It’s extremely important to understand that Pumpcade is offering ACE *because* the token matters. If Pop wanted to abandon the token, he would’ve taken the first option long ago.
Now, does ACE solve the token-equity relationship? No, I don't think so. But did ACE offer a workable solution that allowed Pumpcade to raise the necessary funds while not screwing over tokenholders? Absolutely.
It’s still TBD how value accrual will ultimately be split between the token and equity, but I’m extremely confident that there will be value accruing to the token.
Tokens contributed to the ACE round are allocated to the team. In other words, Pumpcade is effectively comfortable exchanging 10% of its equity for 25% of the token. Assuming they are not nefarious actors (and based on every interaction I’ve had, I’m 100% confident they aren’t), they would only be willing to do this if they believed the token itself was valuable.
As for what I'm going to do with my tokens, I'm still undecided. This is my own opinion, but I believe that the token will be the primary value accrual mechanism, and the equity is there in case of an acquisition. So, therefore, my mental calculus is that the amount of tokens you convert is based on your assigned probability on how likely an acquisition is. High probability = convert more, Low probability = convert less.
Pop Punk@PopPunkOnChain
English
