We believe that a currency can never achieve the status of Universal Currency, but a pure unit of value can. We are building that unit of value: The Unit.
We are creating a crypto-native community-managed indexed unit of account to replace “stable coins” in the long term. Currently, we use The Unit to benchmark portfolios. Later we will also launch a gamified fund pegged to The Unit.
Defi projects now use USD as the unit of value. However, USD is a fiat currency foreign to our space. So why are central banks’ currencies continuously used as a measure of value even in our space?
Right now, USD is the glue that brings all projects together. But should a closed source currency be the focus of our attention? We think it shouldn’t. Instead, an indexed unit of value that’s not a currency is needed to unite all of our networks.
Even though there will be a The Unit DAO aiding the development of The Unit, The Unit will be able to be replicated and maintained by everyone. The Unit is an index including the most significant portion of the crypto market. Our newly redesigned website, https://www.theunit.one, describes what we are doing in more detail.
We propose a token swap to help fund the development of The Unit and tighten our partnership. We can discuss the details of the token swap below. You are also able to join the whitelist for our IDO here The Unit.
Benefits to ENS hodlers:
ENS holders participating in this proposal will receive an airdrop from The Unit governance.
ENS governance will be swapping tokens with an earlier stage project like ours, opening itself for potential gains.
Join The Unit Community through our whitelist page: The Unit
Speaking as a delegate, I will vote against any proposal, no matter its other merits, that offers bribes to delegates or holders to vote for it.
I want to use this opportunity to ask the DAO community for feedback. How should forum mods handle this kind of post? In my mind it’s problematic on two fronts: it’s shilling something unrelated to ENS (it even includes a link to sign up for their token offering), and it’s attempting to subvert the governance process by offering incentives to vote for it. I’m concerned that if we set a norm of even passively tolerating this kind of thing, we will be absolutely plagued by it.
Should we prohibit these kind of posts entirely? Or allow them to be posted and leave it up to the community to respond?
Looking at this, this could be the first of many more of these types of posts. I don’t think we should allow it to remain and have them taken down pretty much immediately.
As another precaution, I’m wondering if there’s a way to block links in the General Discussion since I guess anyone can post there. By the time a mod sees it, reviews it, and takes it down, some damage could already be done.
That said, I agree these should be taken down immediately to not harm the community if it looks like a suspicious post in any way. I’d prefer to error on the side of caution by taking it down rather than leaving it up.
I took a look at your whitepaper on the site, and it looks like you’ve put a lot of thought into this project. I think that presenting the project like this gives the wrong impression as it does, like nick says, look a lot like the shilling projects that aren’t very serious engages in.
I also don’t quite understand what The Unit has to do with ENS other than offering airdrops and token swaps, even though I think the idea of The Unit in and of itself is pretty cool.
I think that we should establish basic guidelines on how to petition the DAO in cases like this, and then remove posts that disregards those guidelines and perhaps ask them to re-petition without things like shilling if the project otherwise looks like a good candidate for partnership
Thank @nick.eth, for your thoughtful reply. Thank you @zadok7. I’m glad my post is bringing some awareness to the possibilities of decentralized governance. While I disagree with outright banning, I understand the initial reaction to the incentives proposed. My goal is to align our incentives, not subvert the governance process. Furthermore, in this case the proposal offers airdrop to voters; it doesn’t distinguish between those voting for or against it.
I want to change the basic unit of value we use for accounting in our space, and since most projects are currently using USD, I make it my mission to approach all projects using this unit as the benchmark; ENS is one of them. In our decentralized partnership with ENS, we are already prioritizing ENS domain holders in our whitelist because we believe in the usefulness and efficacy of ENS and the advanced knowledge of the ENS team.
Thank you, @berrios.eth and @cthulu.eth, for going deeper into The Unit. We are approaching governance communities to build long-term partnerships to change the common unit of value. We can only do this through wide ecosystem participation.
The only way I can think of that this could be useful to ENS would be to peg domain registration costs to The Unit instead of USD in the future. For right now I think that would be far too confusing for users.
Currently I’m inclined to vote against this, but I might change my mind if you’d establish The Unit first and re-petition in the future. I like the idea of eventually escaping the dollar peg, but for now I don’t see it as an option. At the very least I’d like to see it working in practice first.
It’s an interesting idea and whilst I haven’t read the whitepaper (I will try and find time) the concept of moving away from USD as the functional currency is something I’m reading keenly about. I’ve been having this debate for a while with various accounting firms and Accounting Institutes as right now, they are pretty universal in ruling that cryptocurrency is not a currency as they define it, and therefore, you cannot use it as your functional currency. For some businesses - that do nothing in fiat - this really does make zero sense.
To reply to @nick.eth 's point, I do think it has to be up to the user of the forum/site to do their own homework. I’d support banning links entirely (it’s too easy to be tricked) and perhaps a flag that encourages you to do your own homework (e.g. ENS does not advocate for this, do your own research, etc). Something like Twitter was adding to Tweets, but a more toned-down version. Otherwise it’s close to crossing the decentralised vs centralised line in my view, and it’s difficult to find where that should end.
For sure, there will be lots of shills, but also some good projects, and I don’t like the idea of anyone other than the user(s) making that determination. A warning I think would be fair/proportionate.