Following the successful temperature check on LP-focused NIGHT distribution (100% Interested), I propose a parallel, non-dilutive initiative using the DAO’s independently earned NIGHT from protocol-owned liquidity (POL).
Proposal:
Allocate ~250,000 NIGHT (~3–5% of total DAO-held NIGHT, TBD via final audit) from the DAO treasury (POL portion) to a one-time airdrop for SUNDAE token holders/stakers.
Details:
Snapshot: New, fair snapshot of SUNDAE in wallets or official staking contracts
Vesting: 6-month linear vest to align with long-term governance
Purpose:
Reward governance participants not captured in LP snapshot
Lower entry barrier to Midnight ecosystem
Drive TVL & DEX volume via network effect (est. 15–25% TVL lift, per Aave/Uniswap models)
Funding: DAO treasury only — zero impact on LP allocations in current proposal
This runs in parallel to the LP proposal and can be bundled or voted separately on-chain.
@jerry This is still invalid; The poll should include a single option, “Interested”. In the future please follow the instructions in our Governance Procedures. Also, please don’t include unrelated media, just from a procedural standpoint it’ll be annoying to host that image for the official vote.
If it reaches the threshold of Yes votes, I think it’s fine to go on chain, but we have these processes in place for a reason.
Thanks for the clarity. appreciate you keeping things on track. You’re right I see now from the Governance Procedures that temp checks should stick to a single “Interested” poll option for clarity. Apologies for the oversight on that and the unrelated media I’ll avoid that moving forward to keep things Inlined. On the image, I figured it was harmless fun since Sundae’s whole Project is ice cream themed, but point taken. no more unrelated extras to keep things professional and easy! can you please delete the last temperature checks. Let’s get this over the threshold the right way and push forward on the NIGHT token strategy!
no worries it’s less about professionalism, since we don’t mind a bit of fun, and more about having to replicate that to IPFS to create a permanent durable copy for the official vote if this reaches the threshold, it’s mildly annoying
Haha, got it IPFS replication makes total sense for durability, and yeah, dodging that extra is key. On deleting the previous checks If that’s doable, awesome =) Or should we keep them as a “How NOT to Create a Temp Check” LOL
it’s less about professionalism, since we don’t mind a bit of fun, and more about having to replicate that to IPFS to create a permanent durable copy for the official vote if this reaches the threshold, it’s mildly annoying 