Should we burn a good chunk of the supply of $DOG?

it looks like the two largest holders of $DOG (PleasrDAO and Daoge, over 60% of the supply)

Are both running uni pools.

So basically, owners of over 60% of the supply will be net sellers on the way up providing upside resistance to the price. Its hard to find tokens that have this kind of upside resistance (compare that, for instance, to Bitcoin where you have guys like Saylor actually adding on the way up and Satoshi doing nothing with his stake). I feel like its going to be hard for prices to regain previous levels without the community doing something about it. I believe we have several options, one of the them is to do a one time burn of the supply (ideally matched by PleasrDAO) to decrease this future overhang on the price. Other options would be to lock a good portion of these tokens into a smart contract (not a LP). I think this problem is one of the main reasons why this project has struggled price wise, it just turns anyone away when they see the two biggest whales controlling so much of the supply being sellers as prices climb. It looks like a benign behavior (we are just providing liquidity), but the net effect is a giant stake that gets sold as prices rise, preventing prices from going further and it makes the token/project look bad driving people away

just my two doges

1 Like

Hey Nando,
A few months ago I joined this project to focus on tokenomics. Rest assured these concerns are known and shared by all, and it’s something I intend to solve in my time here.

First off, burning isn’t an option for fractionalized tokens. Because of the auction mechanism that backs the token with the original NFT, any burned tokens would equate to burned ETH in the event of a sale. The point of a burn is to equally increase the total share of all other token holders; this can be achieved in other ways, like actually redistributing tokens directly to holders, which is something that has been suggested.

The second address pictured is the community DAO containing the treasury. This is considered equally governed by all DOG holders proportional to their share of tokens. This means you can vote on actions on-chain. For example, if the community were to vote to redistribute the DOG held by the community DAO directly to the community, they would do that! This essentially means your holdings are boosted by the treasury of the community DAO.

The community DAO only intends to benefit the DOG community. While it does aim to preserve some runway, it will never sell DOG into the market. Moreover, all LPs owned by the community DAO are purely funds dedicated to market making and are not intended to generate profit for any other purpose. Per my proposals, these were recently reorganized into a much more efficient system that has benefitted holders significantly. For example, the wstETH LP will never be removed; all DOG bought through this becomes wstETH that will support the price in the future. All fees generated are fed back into the LP, and all interest from the wstETH pool also feeds directly back into the market. This will be locked soon. The community DAO has also ceased all payments in DOG, to prevent extra market pressure.

PleasrDAO does deploy their own LPs, but unlike the community DAO they can do this for profit. That being said, they operate under my advice. As the largest holder of DOG, I am heavily aligned with the community’s wishes. Pleasr have agreed not to sell any DOG directly into the market. They are comitted to redistributing and managing their share of the supply in the fairest way possible. This includes but is not limited to OTC rounds, airdrops, token swaps, and locks/vesting. However, as they are a private organisation, we cannot vote on this. That being said, I am dedicated to getting the best compromise from them for us, and we are working together closely.

Pleasr have already expressed interest in redistributing significant amounts of the supply in various ways, but these have yet to be finalized and have to stay private for now. As someone who is well known in the broader crypto community, and as someone who has a large exposure to the token and experience in creating fractional tokens, my hope is people can tust me to manage this process with their best interests in mind. We’ll be making many new proposals in the new year to tackle this issue.


As Path mentioned not reasonable due to the fractional nature of token.

Apart from attempts i.e. projects to get viral. I can’t really imagine there being that many tokenomic tricks at our disposal e.g. Pixel lock compounding doge etc.

Mind you I don’t believe distribution is the cause for current pricing… I think we’re still too niche a token dass all, which ties in to getting viral.