This post has been removed by the author.
4 Likes
Wholeheartedly disagree with this proposal.
Directly from your audit: âThe protocol inherits the vast majority of functionality from the Aave protocol, and their documentation can largely be relied upon for these configurations.â
Moola Protocol is a direct fork of Aave Protocol with basically zero new development. The governance tokenâs distribution is a complete joke with >40% of supply going to insiders with another 50% going to a âcommunity treasuryâ controlled by those insiders. (33% of vested tokens on a 12 month linear unlock schedule)
Fee Revenue from Moola Protocol will be basically nonexistant & the MOO token distribution is terrible.
3 Likes
Very interesting and forward thinking approach.
From a risk/benefit approach, that allows Aave to be exposed to various emerging markets and continue to tackle real world use cases while having a positive impact at no cost â as Celo and moola approach is to serve the Unbanked.
This also allows both parties to experiment:
/1 Aave could test the concept of licensing the software (like Salesforce is doing) while generating revenues and also making a difference in emerging market (good for marketing).
Aave has not plan on deploying v3 on Celo anytime soon.
/2 moola could be compliant and focus on serving and developing a market Aave is not currently going after (Celo, mobile first and emerging market). It would also likely benefit > 40m users that has limited access to debt financing (via credit delegation).
What is the real downside ?
1 Like
Congrats, forward thinking approach.
Like it or not please just be respectful â « joke » is inappropriate!
This post has been removed by the author.
MOO is >90% controlled by insiders and âgovernsâ a minimal effort fork.
Truth hurts.
Minimal effort fork with 12 month lock up. Why should early supporters (VCs & Founders) be rewarded with a larger share of tokens so early in the projectâs lifecycle if not much has been actually done?
What does Moola intend on innovating? As of right now youâve raised over 1.2 million dollars by forking code & printed millions of $'s in your own token. All done off the backs of Aave developers who couldâve done the same thing in the current environment.
Apologies if I might seem harsh, but the optics donât look good on first glance.
1 Like
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This was exactly what I was talking about in the original licensing thread. The BSL1.1 would be to protect users from low effort projects like these, investing and then being fâed over with no chance of participation.
Carbon copy fork, dodgy allocation at token launch, no governance in place (controlled by Multisig), offers payment because there is no innovation to speak of, that could be bartered.
Thatâll be a no from me.
3 Likes
After getting some information and reading the comments form @neptune and @RyanRam i wonât support this proposal.
1 Like
This post has been removed by the author.
You really want to do this? OkayâŠ
I have not, nor am I planning on ever using your protocol. I also donât think any of the points you described would disqualify my statement of âlow effortâ from being valid. You carbon copied a protocol which already has an impeccable UX and slapped a mobile friendly UI on it - that is it.
And you did it twice. With V1 and V2.
I have no idea why you keep saying that. We get it. That is not the point. Only because you donât want to f us over, doesnât mean that weâre not sensible to what youâve done prior.
Even if youâd turn on governance immediately (Why havenât you from the start? Itâs not like youâve got to do a lot of building anyway, everything is ready madeâŠ), insiders as well as âMoola Inc.â control at least 85% of eligible votes. Right now, nobody can vote - because you control it via Multisig.
The proportions are enormously off here. Did you even have a public sale? I canât find anything on that one.
Pff. Sure. 51,03% goes into the âCommunityâ Treasury. That who controls? Thatâs right - you. Both now and for a very long time after you âtransfer controlâ to the community. If the liquidity mining incentives are kept at 100.000 MOOLA a week, itâll only take a few years until enough trickles down to dilute yours and the insiders voting share enough for the actual community to be eligible to participate in decision making. Donât bullshit me with this. Everyone whoâs able to perform basic math can debunk your âfairâ allocation. Only because you slap the word âcommunityâ in front of it, doesnât mean itâll actually be true.
But wait, you were so incredibly generous with an airdrop of 1,872% of total supply. 200.000 eligible claimers you say? 2450 holders right now? Massive successâŠ
I donât remember a governance vote on deployment on Celo. If the AAVE protocol is so good and so important for the Celo ecosystem, the first thing that may have been helpful is to advertise for a deployment there, wouldnât it have been? But the motivation wasnât to get a lending protocol onto Celo, because itâs good, the motivation was grabbing cash with minimal effort.
See above.
No.
Did you literally Alt + F the thread and the first post in which I mentioned Open Source you posted? You both misinterpreted that particular post (which was to motivate people to participate in the Snapshot vote, because I believe a high participation in governance is important for the AAVE protocol) and you failed to read the rest of the thread, which shows once again that youâre not really interested in AAVE or the governance process or the process of temperature checking if a licensing would be possible, youâre interested in having a quick and easy way of carbon copying AAVE a third time without actual innovation or effort.
1 Like
I think AAVE should be planning to deploying on Celo themselves If the community chooses not to support this proposal. Also, I do think that accusations of low effort fork are premature? Forking a solid protocol with minimal changes just seems like a rational thing to do, and I think thereâs lots of room for different lending pools that want to experiment with different assets and ecosystems. I also think that token or governance issues generally lie outside the scope of things the community should care about when granting a business license.
Every ecosystem needs a solid protocol like AAVE. Unless we plan on bringing it to them, I think itâs pretty awful to users of other ecosystems to deny others the ability to bring it to their ecosystems themselves, and makes the business license look pretty bad.
2 Likes
This post has been removed by the author.
I have read all the above reasons and will give my brief comment. I agree and disagree with the above allegations against the adoption of such an offer. OK, it may need to be regulated by certain items, but this is a limited time license.
So I donât understand why it would be bad for us to support him. In short, the license is for a limited time and in complete control of the Aave protocol. If Moola succeeds, it is 100% security for us, precisely because of all the above as others meniont
1 Like
@Patrick thanks for your well-written proposal and for coming to the Aave governance forum with a âfriendly forkâ project.
Iâd like to invite the community even when they disagree which is completely fine to keep the debate civil @RyanRam consider yourself warned, your opinion is as valid as any other, the way to express might need to evolve if you donât want to get moderated ser.
On the core of this proposal, I guess itâs up to the community to decide if they want a native deployment of Aave on CELO (thatâs one of the option described here) or a friendly fork, or both at the same time.
1 Like
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.