This proposal discussion was initiated by Dennis who wrote the last IQ proposal “IQ inflation reduction and buybacks”.
The proposal almost passed, with several whales who voted no adding in their comments that they would approve a similar proposal with more comprehensive planning.
Lets discuss a comprehensive plan to reduce IQ selling pressure and increase the value of IQ.
Id like to discuss a scalable method to utilize newly minted IQ to generate spendable revenue without selling IQ.
By deploying IQ lending markets on Fraxlend, Curve, and Dtrinity, the BrainDAO can quickly and easily gain access to several million dollars worth of stablecoin loans that are collateralized by IQ tokens.
Then, the BrainDAO and IQ team can divert 20%-40% of IQ emissions into being used as collateral instead of being sold on the open market, which would have an impact similar to reducing IQ token emissions by 20-40%.
In order for this method to be sustainable and scalable, the majority (60%-95%) of IQ collateralized loans would be deployed into top performing DeFi strategies with the lowest amount of risk. APRs range from 24%-50%+, which will far exceed the cost (6-15% apr) of IQ collateralized loans.
After borrowing costs are paid, remaining revenue should be partially (20-35%) compounded in order to increase returns over time.
Remaining revenue can then be used for IQ Team expenses and IQ protocol developments and partnerships.
As the revenue from IQ collateralized loans increases over time, the IQ team will be able further reduce IQ token sales by generating spending capital with sustainable revenue streams rather than selling IQ
Ive gone ahead and researched the exact requirements and processes to deploy IQ lending markets on Dtrinity and Curve.
Team members from Dtrinity and Curve have approved IQ and are waiting to hear back from the IQ team in order to deploy IQ markets.
I would love to fully handle the process of deploying IQ lending markets and increasing IQ lending TVL over time. In order to do so I need permission from the IQ team as well as compensation.
As a HiIQ Staker of BrainDAO, I appreciate the open discussion and all the thoughtful ideas being shared around strengthening the IQ ecosystem. I wanted to offer a perspective that reflects both the data we’ve seen and some concerns about implementation timing.
It’s been clearly communicated that the team’s monthly IQ sales through TWAMM account for less than 1% of total trading volume. Given this, the actual sell pressure originating from the team appears to be relatively minimal. From that standpoint, I can understand why efforts focused on reducing this already small portion of volume might not be the most impactful strategy in the short term—especially when the team is prioritizing long-term ecosystem growth and visibility as a leading AI token.
Additionally, looking at the BAMM pool, we’ve observed that a single user currently accounts for a substantial portion of activity. This is likely due to the strong staking incentives, which allow large holders to leverage their positions with little friction. If a new IQ-collateralized lending market were launched without proper guardrails or incentive design, we could risk repeating the same pattern of concentration, where a few participants dominate the system.
That said, I do believe this kind of strategy has real potential—if it’s introduced at the right time and with careful safeguards to encourage broader participation and decentralization. While it may not be the top priority right now, I think it’s a valuable idea to refine and revisit when the timing aligns with the protocol’s broader objectives.
Thanks again for fostering a culture that welcomes experimentation and strategic thinking. It’s a great environment to be a part of.
Does the IQ team only sell through TWAMM account or how does that work, can we know for sure it’s only 1% or is that something we should take with a grain of salt.
There’s not enough transparency for us holders to see how much the Brain DAO team is actually selling on a monthly basis, fuelling suspicion it might have a bigger impact than it does, perception goes a long way. Does it actually sell the 7,33M a day minted or is most of those tokens just being used for certain pools? Because knowing that information would make a world of difference.
My two cents on the BAMM pool, it has not been profitable using any of it, high interest rates, and I got a suspicion that upon bigger loans bot just detect liquidity and you get dumped on.
I’m here to set some things straight,
Nearly nobody dared to dip their toes into the BAMM pool, even after repeatedly attending them on it, but it’s some of the same people who criticise from a distance that “only one person uses it” the people who use it take the risk, and in my case didn’t really benefit, it felt counter productive, and I couldn’t help but think but oh am I just being used as exit liquidity at some point, given that I don’t fully understand the protocol and I could be fully mistaken.
I don’t like the narrative of one person takes the lead and puts on risk, is someone who should be caged in and confined. I know many people who just lay back, only cash rewards while in the back of their mind still think it’s a scam token and it will all be over soon, I’ll happily take their share.
As I exit the BAMM pool it’s drained for weeks and months to come, as no one dares to take one for the team.
I think the inflation reduction will see more participation especially on the exchanges, rather than the staking program itself, because it would actually make holding itself be profitable.
There is so much to be said, but. For now, while the votes didn’t pass the idea came up to make a IQ vault token on ATP, it’s a token where everyone is welcome and could have a positive price impact on IQ, and bring people together towards a common goal.
Still, my idea is that 7,33M a day, which I think we could put at least 4,33M a day on hold for a while, the 3M to keep business rolling would make a huge difference if otherwise it would simply be dumped on the market.
Another proposal within the group I’ve also mentioned staker rewards reduction, that didn’t get good responses and I’m not going to stick my neck out again for something that most likely will be shot down again.
in stocks, it’s normal that the one who owns 51% of the shares gets to decide the outcome of the future direction.
if we want a change to the voting system, be clear about it, we could make a change, but right now, there’s a situation where the one who stakes the most, partially due to luck partially due to good investment strategy, gets a lot of slack even on topics that could benefit all holders like for example, loaning a lot of IQ on the BAMM pool (creating direct demand) or reducing inflation which could increase the price again, reviving the market cap.
As the biggest staker, I think on the last 3 votes I’ve voted for an opposite direction than the majority, and my will wasn’t the winning outcome. But my suspicion also goes especially with inflation reduction, is it simply voted no because of the fact I’m out performing everyone on the staking pool or are we really just trying to keep this inflation thing going?
which is fine either way, it does make me reluctant try to make use of my fair share of governance power, and try to seek other ways that could benefit my portfolio and IQ as a whole, like right now IQ VAULT on ATP
My concern is that exchanges exaggerate volume, misleading Braindao’s judgement. Because how much of that volume is real buying and selling vs bot tricks.
Therefore that one percents effect could be 10-20%
it might be a wild speculation but not a unrealistic scenario.