FAQs
Last updated
Last updated
Tax revenues are used to buy assets, where profits (and losses) are realized by holders, stakers, and bond holders in the form of net-deflation (or short term inflation). The fast-paced cycles apply aggressive tokenomics that consistently benefit participants.
Holding the $QD token is synonymous with DAO membership, allowing direct participation in the driving forces to become a major investment entity and in crypto markets.
Not directly. Each bull run has produced narratives that are ultimately transient (NFTs) or even painfully ill-informed, preying on ignorance or deceptive claims. However, the general use of AI to enhance the project's goals is valid.
Blockchain's advantages lend for decentralized applications, in which a transparent and readily auditable ledger is needed. Blockchain is not valuable for competition with AI companies (OpenAI, etc) or large data operations and services (AWS, GCP, et al).
Powerful AI models require meticulously curated data that's reviewed, cleaned, adjusted, and manged in a centralized fashion by leading industry experts and distinguished academics.
AI and Big Data applications inherently requires private and centralized computational efficiency, to which blockchain is far from an ideal data structure to build upon.
Cycling assets frequently forces the DAO to become agile and active. Individual traders do not have the same perspective as that of a reservoir that constantly refills. There will without question be periods in which the DAO 'should have held' yet there will likely be many periods in which the DAO 'should have sold.'
As such, a more long term perspective should be adopted by DAO participants, where the objective over time is to achieve sustained, deliberate, unhurried net-deflation of the token itself, not the goal of ever-increasing over-leveraged profit. Moreover, as the DAO aims to be truly decentralized, holding assets presents complications.
However, infrastructure is in place for a more diverse DAO portfolio management approach under V2.
Of course! A smart trader will buy $QD or vote-chosen assets just prior to the scheduled weekly buyback, and sell immediately after for profit, although,
$QD taxes hamper traders' profits, creating potentially adverse short term trading benefits while directly 'donating' to the weekly tax pool. Additionally, the risk of many traders participating in this event presents inherent risk, whereby losses may be incurred.
If QuantDAO "buys the top" then traders did the DAO a service. All buys contributed to the tax pool, and all those selling into the purchase contribute as well. Importantly, buying into the pre-purchase event may devalue the $QD market value to bond holders, as compensation is awarded after market purchase. Overall, the DAO ends up burning a significant amount of $QD, and over time, these volatile periods trend towards positive valuation.
Risk reduction measures prevent the DAO from relative overexposure, which would alternatively give advantages to traders and/or projects/protocols when purchases are directed to low liquidity, low market cap assets.
Absolutely! However, creating a truly decentralized hedge fund adds technical complexity to the primary goal of the DAO. The core contracts of proposals, voting, and bond issuance lay the architecture for this in the future, if the DAO desires it.
Yes! As the DAO grows and the volume-dependent revenues become regularly high a transition to greatly diminishing entry and exit taxes is planned. For example, as $QD generates significant trade volume per day, this would also coincide with a vastly diminished supply from its inception. As such, decreasing tax values would help slow extreme deflationary events in later stages, helping $QD remain less volatile and more available for new entrants.
There must be some risk of inflation in order to create liquidity for the $QD market. If the DAO performs even neutral-to-negative over an extended period of time, deflation is rather extreme.
Thus, the protocol offers a chance for inflationary events to happen, albeit rare. DAO participants may even find it wise under some circumstances to promote inflationary events.
Most, if not all protocols offer unsustainable yields or even blatantly false values on stakers' earnings projection. QuantDAO staker revenues are complex, and are dependent primarily on the tax pool and secondarily on investments, which is dynamic week to week.
In short, long term stakers earn from up to 8 events per month, comprised of tax pool cuts, bonus profit share, as well as the indirect effect of deflation.
The DAO can always repay the bonds. Bonds are limited such that even in extreme cases, the amount of $QD minted to satisfy bond yields is minimal. For example, even with poor performance over multiple cycles the DAO remains deflationary. One week of a "black swan" event may induce inflation, but overall, becomes minor, and may be a welcomed balance to restructure DAO ownership.
Certainly! Depending on the DAO's appetite for the risk of inflationary pressures, bond yields can be added that safely limit value spiraling, for example, offering 5% yield at half the liquidity of normal bonds issued. For example, $10,000 of 2.5% could have $5,000 at 5%, $2,500 at 7.5%, etc. However, the more bonds offered in total, the higher the minting risk.
If bonds are blindly offered from the moving average with no limit, the volatility inherent in cryptocurrency valuations could present a cyclical price spiral. While conservative to cap bond issuance less than or equal to the current tax pool, projections show more often than not it would be safe to create more bonds than the tax pool. Over time, the DAO may vote to remove this limitation, as inflationary pressures may become welcomed.
