Rari Capital began in early 2020. It was a project that was started by Jack Lipstone, David Lucid and I to try and make the yields in the DeFi ecosystem accessible to all. After we had launched our beta, it quickly became a part of our lives, living and breathing Rari. We spent night and day iterating on the design, starting from a centralized bot that individuals ran on their computer all the way to the decentralized powerhouse that is running today.
To get to this point, we as a community, have explored many different paths. Before the token was released, we explored working with VC's. We opted against this because we wanted this to be a community-owned protocol. We wanted to be a fair-launch, we believed everyone should be treated as equals. Decentralization was achieved, cumulatively the founding team didn't even have 10% of the tokens (even when you include the founding tokens as a lot of these went to advisors). As time progressed, and as people realized that Rari Capital was not just a Yearn fork, the spirit shifted. The community grew stronger, the number of contributors grew significantly and it was amazing to see. We started iterating on fundamentally new products like Fuse and the community saw how powerful the Rari protocol truly was.
The way the contributors within the DAO organize has evolved a lot over the past few months. It began extremely unorganized with every decision going through governance. Then we attempted to implement a bubble-like mechanism to organize people. And most recently, we've implemented a task force design to enable independent teams to work towards their own goals that also contribute to the protocol. Read more about the task force design here. Each of these changes have been us progressively trying to find a solution that enabled creative capabilities and also organization. I truly believe that this latest design will pave the future of the protocol.
So why am I talking about this? Back in December, governance voted in a proposal to mint 10m more $RGT (here). This was to enable the contributors to scale, so more people could spend more time on the protocol. The multi-sig never initiated this transaction because priorities shifted towards the new Fuse product and this required audits. Many individuals within the community questioned the rationale behind this proposal during its vote. These were valid concerns, I would be scared that contributors would just run away with the designated tokens as well. But over the past few months, I'd like to think that the community has seen how powerful our contributors are. With proper incentives, the contributors inside of task forces can take the protocol to unprecedented heights.
Given how much the Rari protocol has changed over the past few months, many contributors have proposed re-aligning community sentiment around this proposal with a new vote. I know it will be contentious, similar to how any emissions discussions are. I don't want this RGT to be treated as slosh, but instead I envision a world where this RGT is actually deployed effectively to help scale the protocol. The protocol should create strict guidelines to ensure this happens. When the protocol was hacked earlier this year, RGT was being dislocated from the contributors allocation. With this updated format, I propose all the RGT to just be held by the DAO until further proposals put it to work. Not only have contributors been able to ship successfully but they have also outlined an ambitious roadmap for the future, located here: https://medium.com/rari-capital/the-roadmap-for-various-rari-capital-task-forces-716039e841ee this future will not be able to happen without the proper incentives.
RIP-1's implementation would be similar to how it was initially proposed and we can backdate it to its initial proposal date so that the treasury instantly receives resources. This should spur the creation of numerous task forces that will be able to spearhead the future of innovation in the protocol. I am posting this on the forum, not only in accordance with the rules for on-chain governance, but because I'd like to hear your thoughts. Think critically about this, think about why this is bad and let's talk about it. The point of on-chain governance is that we can make a better protocol together. That begins below.