Mohammed Bashkeel

@tushar_jain @hosseeb Check out Goodhart’s law - nothing beats time vesting (done right)

Maybe tradfi is correct and the ideal structure is to have some sort of governing body which can adjust the KPIs if needed. Locking things in from the start is clearly suboptimal. Setting the goals to be hard to game is also possible. It's trivial to game active addresses but its hard to game a milestone like "number of large stablecoin issuers" or "X top wallets integrate".

Guys, new tokenomics suggestions: No more allowing unvested tokens to be staked. I don’t know which project originally came up with this, but it’s a stupid idea that erodes trust in private markets. We’ve never recommended this, but some VCs ask for it, and a few years ago it started becoming a popular structure. Let's kill this once and for all for pre-launch projects. Second, a suggestion: I vote that we kill unlock cliffs. The standard tokenomics structure on a 4-year vest looks like this: There’s a big fat 25% cliff that unlocks 1 year out that everyone freaks out about and becomes a big FUD event, and the market argues about whether these are “bullish unlocks” or if the VCs are going to decimate retail, and then there are continual unlocks events every month after that. Markets hate step functions, so why introduce one? We should just instead do this: no cliff, vesting begins after 1 year and then continues linearly. You can do this in two parts so by month 24, VCs are indifferent and unlocking at the same pace as the previous function. With this, tokens vest daily, not monthly, so there are literally 0 kinks or special days when tokens unlock. Makes markets way more orderly and lower drama. You can keep the 4 year vest and end up with a much smoother market. Thoughts?

Further Managing Partner @reachhamdy kicking off @GITEX_GLOBAL with a conversation with @hassano_82 about building companies in 🇦🇪 for the 🌍.