Key Indirect Risks To Pangolin Reputation, Team Update?

Hi guys

So I’ve just read the tokenomics update from our good fellows @Leo_Pangolin @hariseldon2

The Problem
One key aspect stands out to me that could be a big reputational risk to Pangolin.

This will also become a direct risk to PNG token holders if not properly resolved executed - all it takes is one FUD so we don’t wanna have lose ends at all. It’s all in the administrative setup and constitution of the board.

The key issue and solutions are expressed here: Pangolin Tokenomics Improvement Proposal - #47 by Kinetic and proposed a deeper AMA )

Note: Please read Hari’s full proposal first if you can. Everything in there is great, just this aspect could end up becoming a little trojan loophole.

Summary of the concerns (seriously, I highly suggest you read Hari’s full tokenomics update first, then the full concerns):

In summary,

a/ On one hand, I’m hundred percent for the treasury allocation and sustainable ways of improving rewards for community. This is fantastic for driving TVL if done right and knowing you guys, I know it will.

b/ However very important (I.E. WITH REGARD TO FOUNDATION), on the aspects of control, accountability and recourse to the community I think the gravity of this proposal is a little to weighty to pass off as just another update.

A lot of things need to be clarified regarding the foundation and what novel solutions the core team / core members will come up with for preserving community underpinnings and decentralised administration of Pangolin.

As well as creativity in the legal department (give Sabo my good tidings!) for administrative instruments to be used for running a Pangolin trust or foundation via proxy vote on critical matters.

On this matter, I’m hundred percent against overly bureaucratised processes - so articles/rules of the will need to clarify key matters and expense threshold for which community must vote.

However, absolute power corrupts - thus, accountability and recourse to the community on control is a non-negotiable.


It’s been a few months since community voted team in.

Can we get a quick update from the team on the current administrative setup of Pangolin vs. the proposed foundation’s setup? That as well the current status of the balance of the multi-sig, in light of new need for foundation funding (proposed).

Because I feel like understanding where we are currently will give us better perspective on whether or not this proposal should pass - and will inform what solutions we can come up with as a community to refine it’s execution and setup so it’s no longer a reputational risk to Pangolin or threat to the PNG holders

Now Before You Run Off FUDDing…
Now I normally don’t post on here cos idealogical principles can be divisive / even construed as FUD. So I hate posting those types of things on an open forum. But this is pretty major for Pangolin’s long game.

Reason being there’s great risk due to lack of clarity of the Foundation aspects of the new proposal.

How much exactly will the allocation to foundation of the proposed 13%? Why is the multi-sig not enough? Since Pango is 100% community owned, what are the methods setup by the team where the community may elect / proxy elect the board.

This has seemingly gone unnoticed by most but could undermine community involvement control eventually, since once legal structured are setup they’re pretty much baked in except new ones / auxiliaries are established.

Also if there’s this big an allocation so quickly, isn’t there also the risk of Pangolin’s adminitstrative instruments and it’s staff becoming a legal target for regulators? I mean this will of course depend on where current entity for simple operations is situated, but it remains that 13% is simply too juicy for some ambitious AG or fiscal regulator not to go after.

(Team, seriously please provide an update well in advance of the tokenomics governance proposal).

Absolute power as they say, corrupts. That goes for regulators as well as vesting too much into an as yet unclarified foundation whose board constitution will certainly change over time from the people we know and trust.

A More Balanced Perspective - Simply A Crucial Fail-Safe For Protection…
Now to be clear, I actually know quite a number of the Pango team and pretty well too! I genuinely don’t think we have nefarious participants in there.

That said, as newer people come and go over the next four years who may not have the same love for the project, it’s important that we have checks and balances baked right into corporate structure and administrative instruments so that community retains control and recourse for accountability.

This is a crucial fail-safe.

Once again this is not FUD, just something important that was worth making my first post.

Rest assured it will all be clarified as admins reply in a couple of hours and we’ll figure out solutions to address the concerns addressed comprehensively.

Hopefully we can have the AMA for this ‘foundation aspect’ and administrative / long term price impact of the tokenomics update before the week ends.

Enjoy your week

1 Like

I’m rushing this answer, so please excuse brevity.

Main summary here is we need to be competitive. We are competing in a VC driven landscape. For example, all on the core team made more from our side projects than we did from Pangolin. Indeed, we took pay cuts. So without getting paid a fair market rate, we run the risk of the core team leaving. I don’t think alot of the community see how many hours we put in and how hard we work. All of us sometimes do 100 hour weeks, constantly pushing ourselves at the expense of our families and mental health. If we aren’t remunerated via market rates, there lies a real risk that we’ll move off and form our own projects or be poached by projects that can offer us fair market rates. Burn out is very real in this game and we want to protect our people that will be here in the long run and continue to innovate.

So the proposal is currently 30 million PNG to the Foundation, with 6 million set aside as a “founders” portion. Please note This is still significantly less than the market rate. However without this, I’d be very suprised if Pangolin would be able to retain and attract talent.

If I can speak for myself. I would have made a shit ton more money releasing my own projects. Money isn’t my primary motivator, but a fair market rate. That is all I ask for.

We have already engaged a plan to deal with this eventuality.

I’ll leave by saying this is a great post. I wish more in our community cared enough to post these types of article. You’re a true friend of Pangolin and I love to see this engagement. Would be happy answering whatever else you’d like to throw our way :slight_smile:



Hmm. There are several other concerns I’d rather address privately so they can be resolved before governance / public discussion.

This is the one that stands out most glaringly to me:

We’ve had a previous impasse on what constitutes fair market rate on a much more trivial sum, based on which I no longer applied to be a core advisor / core team member despite doing a lot to quell the storms that would’ve prevented much of the current team from getting community vote as well as deep assessment / recommendations of what should have been done to prevent this TVL loss to competition.

It’s an open secret. I shy away from discussing some of these matters on an open forum till critical issues have been thrashed out at the leadership level and have always preferred back office conversations.

That notwithstanding, I’ll put together an open community forum to discuss / explain the implications of this governance setup and how it’s power can be tethered by accountability to the community.

At the same time, perhaps a lot has changed behind the scenes in terms of operational dynamics so please reach out along with Leo and Brandon so we can discuss what these new dynamics are before the community-led exposé is put forth. Today or tomorrow would be ideal. Gov and treasury accountability is always a critical matter.

This way I have better perspective and can better give a fair assessment to the community on the comprehensive implications of new proposed tokenomics, as well as Foundation allocation aspects of this proposed update.

Wholeheartedly, I agree with this. We need to be competitive. Especially in the context of TJ’s impact and supposed funding from SBF. And several projects that will follow.

Furthermore, being ever alert to future risks that seem far away because they’re as yet unrealized, I’d say the operational aspects of what we do regarding staying competitive needs to be prolific to recover our #1 DEX spot and especially strategic during the bear years:

a/ for the survival of Pangolin DEX

b/ for the ultimate good of PNG holders, LPs and farmers who’ll stick to the project in the bear market

c/ for consolidating internal strength of the project so we’re formidabble in tech and treasury, while having refined a fair, open and equitable decentralised governance which allows everyone to be involved.

Point ‘c’, stands to be the what would seem most far away in risk terms -

But this could either be our ultimate strength as a community project going up against several VC-projects - or a perpetual governance risk that continually begs the need for governance refinement and creation of a stable and accountable middle ground which still allows the team flexibility to perform well and achieve incredible things for this DEX.

My man, Hari :facepunch:t3:

Appreciate your recognition of the need for open dialogue and presenting reasonable solutions on such a key matter for a community owned project. It’s not that most people don’t care, it’s that they don’t understand what’s going in the first place so we must explain to them if we’re to ensure fair and equitable involvement with gov.

Personally, I have a lot of faith in you guys’ ability - just doing what must be done to ensure community retains franchise and is given full perspective for pivotal governance decisions and their implications, in clear language that everyone can understand.

Very ardent about this because -

If concerns go unnoticed and solutions aren’t presented, history shows we’ll inevitably devolve into the same old governance mistakes in tradFi and political leadership that lead to the creation of Satoshi’s alternative in the first place. I should probably issue a paper on this topic and offer practical means of addressing them given my lineage and couple years of business experience and I guess now, the intersection of those with the DeFi world. And I probably will.

Definitely appreciate you guys’ hard work as I’ve been with you in those trenches for a time. Pretty much par for the course till we’re in the clear of this bull run, hey? :sweat_smile: With several roadmap milestones still lined up, someone has to do the work so we appreciate your involvement :slight_smile:

You should be fairly rewarded.

That’s my reply piece. Reach out and let’s talk back-office to address and resolve minutiae in advance of communal discussion to avoid any controversial FUD that could impact the governance vote, cheers

1 Like

I strongly believe that both the user and the team have a shared responsibility. I don’t need to be here. I can leave and just jump from app to app. I want to be part of something more than just rewards. There is a tone of ways we can help each other. Why can’t we use the team for services not crypto-related and vice versa? I’m a psychologist, I would be more than happy to help a member in need? I would like to hear success stories besides gains, maybe a user hires a dev or intern for a tech issue. If it is solely about gains I understand that, however, you don’t need a forum you can just use 1000 of apps. I have nothing against that.

I see arguments breaking out in all groups that is why I’m giving this ago. I used the app a long time, never the forum. I like the input and vibe. Hopefully, we can make this a more personal experience.

Cheers everyone!


This is such a great suggestion. One of the biggest issues I’ve found in this space is the burnout of buidlers. They’re under so much pressure, work crazy long hours and are often abused and denigrated by maxi’s and sometimes even their own community.

It’s a real problem and I think it’s something that really needs to be addressed in this space


I think every job has a description and baseline requirements and crypto being at such an infant stage, a lot of work will be required. You contributions are appreciated and should be greatly rewarded..

That said,

These contributions cannot constitute an effective argument for taking sole administrative custody of all the community’s treasury. It’s also not a warrant the move against community’s request to have an unexploitable corporate setup for the Pangolin foundation. Power should always reside impartially with the community and/or a balanced board for practical purposes of execution. The wealth i.e. treasury, is the power.

Without it and control over it, the community has no bargaining chips and thus no power even this is called a ‘DAO’. There are several ‘democracies’ that are effectively oppressions, due to similar power slants.

The same machinations lead to the same outcomes.

If we use the same slanted power plays in registering and administrating DAOs & treasuries, it’s only a matter of time until the same oppressive governance takes play in Pangolin and the crypto community at large. Resulting in the crypto community left as powerless spectators with zero power beyond empty protest - while they’re fed slivers of trivial control over less important decisions and definitely zero power to hold admin / leadership accountable.


You probably won’t do this. I hope not. However, as succession happens say 5 or 10 years from now, you can rest assured that new nefarious teams will attempt this and be effective because of loopholes you’ll have created if concerned & loopholes addressed here aren’t effectively resolved.

None of this is an attack at you. I need you to understand that.

It’s simply not worth the risk to assign 30M PNG to a ‘foundation’ where only 3 core members are the sole board and also executive directors who can stand to benefit from propositions. There is immediately apparent conflict of interest. More importantly, human nature has proven itself fallible and errant when such unrestrained power is granted in a way where so much money can be gained without recourse.

Furthermore, the granting of 6M PNG (whether vested over time or not) would eventually grant core team discretional ability to immediately activate Snapshot voting proposals even without community’s full involvement.

We don’t want to be at the discretion of any parties, rather to have decentralised power coded both into the crypto technology and administrative setup.

You’re already doing a bang job of ensuring audits are robust and that code is not exploitable. Now, in administrative setup where power can easily be lost and legally irrevocable, we’re asking you to hold the same standard of impregnability.

This makes both code and administration trustless and less prone to exploitation. I hope this argument I’m making is coming across as reasonable and practical for the good of the community as intended.

Counting on your usual commitment to the good of Pangolin and executing to community’s advantage. I’m done arguing this point, and as I don’t have the 50K PNG minimum balance to start the vote, I’ll leave it up to you and/or engaged members of the Pangolin community to create the snapshot vote to halt ‘Pangolin foundation’ until better corporate structure is created if you think this proposal and it’s concerns raised hold any merit.

Good luck to you and the team @hariseldon2

We haven’t proposed any legal entity, so this entire post is based upon assumptions.

We need advice from Deloitte before we can even consider a Legal entity. So the Foundations 30 million PNG will be directed to the on chain Treasury.

This is exactly as it is today.

Except foundation registrations in Singapore and Switzerland do not constitute legal entities?

As a community voted leader, I really would’ve hoped you addressed the concerns / risks addressed, rather than trying to field and block issues raised by pretending they don’t exist or using attempts at deviation that everyone can see through.

Are you saying foundation in SG and Switzerland aren’t going to be legal entities?
If not a legal entity, what would be the use of the board? Were you talking about a board game? Monopoly perhaps?

All up to you guys and the Pangolin community now. Do as you will.

What part of current thoughts are you misunderstanding?

We are waiting for advice from Deloitte.

Nothing’s finalized. So you acting as if this is some large conspiracy while I’ve consistently explained this to you is proving tiresome.

I’ve explained to you how I want to have PNG holders own shares in any legal entity, but we need to make sure it’s not a security. Yet you consistently ignore what I’m saying.

So if you want to have a reasoned debate and actually acknowledge what I’ve said, great.

What I think is more telling is how you told me you sold all your PNG and then left the community in May or so and have now returned after Avalanche Rush. And how your post is demanding that you get an equal salary to myself and the core team, while you have done absolutely nothing for Pangolin’s future, except post on the forum.

You incapacity to hear conflicting opinions as a necessary friction for sharpening execution is why I left and didn’t apply to the core team / core contributor roles.

I specifically sold my PNG because of my concerns and different perspective on the approach you were taking to on marketing execution and growth talent attraction wouldn’t allow PNG price action upwards. Judging by how the last few months played out this was basically a prophecy that indeed came true..

From a profit perspective, I took the most astute action by selling the majority of my PNG holdings. Several other Pango old-timers did same. Because PNG in fact didn’t grow and rapidly got surpassed by other DEX. And I earned far more in other tokens and yield strategies outside Pangolin.

Huh? My Contributions To Pangolin?
Further, on contributions made to the Pangolin, remember as most of the OG community would - that it was I who stepped in to resolve the issues around the multisig anonymity which allowed most of the core team to be hired. At a time where you yourself were threatening to leave when several members were calling for you to leave. Going above and beyond to make sure that the core team was hired, if this isn’t a contribution to the growth of Pangolin, you tell me what is.

Directly on pay, are your services not paid? How far into your volunteering did you immediately request pay - and not just pay, to be the “Owner” of Pangolin.

Now to re-entrench this point, seeing as you’re not taking the mature steps to safeguard the community against loopholes addressed, would it not be in the community’s ultimate interest to have a guardian with perspective on complex issues that can be slipped right under their eyes. Have I not offered to provide this service for absolutely free should we get Slowcheetah & @abominablesasquatch on board also?

I admonished you to have a more balanced board. Especially going into a new jurisdiction where you’ll necessarily need local content on the board as well as other qualified professionals who can inform a risk-averse and board opinion on direction. Your response was: “I don’t have to explain myself to you”.


Your taking a stance of personal aggression whenever conflicting opinions are raised is an ineptitude for a leader of such an organisation and diverts from the problems that need to be resolved. I hope you address that.

Your desire for ownership and autocratic rule is fine and fair for private enterprise. However, in a community you have to make adjustments in personal growth and principle of putting the community first in security of both code and administration.

Personal Attacks
Never ever seek to attack my person or integrity again. I am far more skilled than you at that and could’ve have easily raised these issues in a light very unfavorable to you.

Yet, I have always taken the more diplomatic discourse throughout discussions, including rallying much praise for the Pangolin core team & staff for what you’re doing already. And making all attempts to resolve things behind the scenes before bringing publicly to gov.

Even to the point earlier, of stepping away earlier when our differences proved too much on growth / marketing fronts, so you could do your job as the mandate of the community originally gave you. Always seeking first the good of the Pangolin community.

Good luck