@Artem there’s tradeoffs, like in all things, but accomodating the cohort of stakeholders that want to farm and dump $BLAST is not what we should optimize for. Instead, here are more important cohorts:
All 3 are stakeholders that are aligned to contrbuting value to the ecosystem.
I really want to think through the yield aspect more.
This is a core offering of Blast, and I hear you on needing to acquire new users and activate old ones but I’m concerned that ultimately this will turn folks off from the chain if the yield is default blast emissions.
Perhaps think of an opt-in mechanism for both builders and users.
DeFi platforms can opt to have native yield, individual could opt to receive Blast emissions from the buyback.
I understand that that takes away from the cumulative buying pressure of Blast, but we’re seeing meme coins with millions of volume daily and ultimately if there isn’t buy pressure from the market organically it makes me concerned that the sell pressure would basically destroy the point of the buyback.
I am interested in this bit. I think mobile is cool and readily available (easier user acquisition), but I do not see that being our holy grail to fix Blast.
I think you touch on it here, that Blast team needs to look at retaining their medium to small builders. While I think price can certainly help, what I think would really turn on the flywheel is giving more chances to new apps.
It takes months to be noticed by Blast for gold distribution as a builder (or “culture”). In that time, there is silence. I believe we could benefit by loosening up the gold distribution and start supporting small/medium projects sooner. If allocating gold is too much, at least Blast needs a builder outreach program to atleast let them know that Blast knows they exist.
It is high-risk to build as a smaller project on Blast, it is completely possible to go unnoticed. We can do better.
I appreciate the excellent discussion you have facilitated, and I look forward to you sharing more details on this proposal. I am currently very skeptical.
You killed the conversation @Omi
Everyone knows governance is all theater, but on the record, this proposal is bad. Buybacks have never worked and this time isn’t different
Just my 2 cents:
Dormant (not used anywhere) USDB and ETH should not be getting any points - no $BLAST. Full native rewards only. Consider switching to Ethena.
Some impossible-to-miss switch to turn off native rewards for 1 week and turn it into both constant TWAP buy of BLAST and blast points for dormant USDB and ETH at 1x points multiplier. Add a checkbox underneath to make this selection permanent by preventing auto turn-off after a week. Guess it could work even without this time limit, so just the on/off switch.
@jenn sure, we can think through all the permutations of opt-in/opt-out on user-level/app-level… after this proposal is defeated through a vote (if at all).
I want to address your concern as this keeps coming up: TVL will leave the chain if yield is default BLAST. This has resulted in a community paralyzed to be bold, in contrast to the narrative that Blast positioned itself around (“the gambling chain”). Builders agree:
Nonetheless, it’s a good exercise to game this out. The conclusion I arrived at is that this fear is misguided and ultimately does more harm than good for the ecosystem.
First, there are two reasons TVL is here: a) those who believe in Blast upside and b) those who don’t. Those who don’t believe in Blast upside are here for the wrong reasons - you’re better off earning (better) yield elsewhere. If they’ve deployed their TVL on Blast for Points/Gold then it’s in their interest to pass this proposal as this will re-rate BLAST valuation and make farming more valuable on a dollar cost basis. Conversations with whales confirm this:
Second, TVL retains neither user activity nor volume. Look at active addresses and tx counts: Blast - growthepie.
Look at the volume on Thruster:
If Blast can’t retain TVL despite the points/gold, why are we continuing to fear that TVL will leave? It’s already on its way out. You can argue that TVL being down is the root cause of volume, tx count and active addresses but then you’re validating my point that a drastic change is needed. Rip off the bandaid, change the narrative, go hard on mobile launch, spark a Blast renaissance. A community member said it best:
Finally, over-indexing on TVL is also implicitly under-indexing on dev rel and builder experience. And if that’s not the #1 priority for the Blast team, then builders will soon take their talents to one of several incumbent and upcoming L2s: Base, Berachain, Abstract and MegaETH. Without builders there are no good apps, there is no volume and thus no reason to farm TVL. Builders agree:
The silence from Blast team isn’t helping and continued back and forth is making no progress. It’s time to vote with your BLAST.
How do we vote with our Blast? Hating waiting on Pacman and Blast foundation bunch of amateurs so far.
I think trying to find something that might work is always good and maybe tweak some things so that the majority is happy and you could combine it with other good news that is on the way. I think everyone would agree that most of us here are investing, building and grinding to get better in the end and it would be nice if it worked out well 
