Very likely the @SonicLabs new governance proposal is going to pass in its intended timeframe, but very few people are asking meaningful questions considering how short and vague the proposal seems. 🔷My initial thoughts after reading the whole thing: 🔹The proposal feels quite light on specific details 🔹The voting window seems pretty tight for such a big decision 🔹Some concerns about how the voting dynamics play out 🔹The timing feels rushed given how significant this change would be whats being proposed: 🔷Approve Issuance of Tokens For 🔹$50M ETF Allocation 🔹$100M NASDAQ PIPE Development 🔹150M S Tokens Sonic USA thats +600m in new token issuance 🔷Intention behind the proposal: Institutional adoption: 🔹Support U.S. ETP/ETF, NASDAQ PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) 🔹Sonic USA LLC and new US base for Sonic 🔹Increase burn rate in gas fee mechanisms to strengthen long-term deflation. (I like it) Questions that needs to be asked: 1⃣:Where is the demand for a $S ETF/ETP? Current market demand and positioning for $S is insufficient to justify meaningful adoption by US TradFi institutional players. We've had discounted $S available through fNFTs, yet demand from crypto VCs and treasuries have been minimal or nonexistent so far. Thinking there is a massive demand from institutional players once we have an ETF is highly optimistic without proven retail/developer adoption first. 2⃣ Massive userbase and on-chain ecosystem should be the catalyst for institutional demand, not the other way around, is there really a need for this at this stage? I'm all for institutional adoption but given Sonic's current position and relatively low adoption rate for new users/developers compared to other chains (who also lack ETFs but are actively growing), institutional adoption should be a later-stage priority. Even with expanded SEC approval processes for 2025, ETF providers prioritize assets with established institutional infrastructure, futures markets, and substantial market capitalizations. Sonic's ~$1B market cap places it well below the $8-10B threshold demonstrated by viable candidates like Solana ($81B) and XRP ($210B peak), all of which have much larger user/developer bases than Sonic currently. 3⃣The overall vagueness and how short the actual proposal really is This represents the biggest change proposed by SonicLabs in FTM/Sonic's history besides the rebranding 9 months ago. A super vague proposal with a short voting period is not the appropriate approach for such magnitude changes. A proposal of this significance should have been proposed, discussed, and analyzed for much longer before voting commenced. 4⃣The competitive disadvantage narrative appears a bit exaggerated The analysis of successful L1 competitors is incorrect. Those L1's technical excellence and developer/user adoption drove institutional interest more than treasury size. Ethereum's institutional adoption preceded major foundation treasury accumulation. Solana and SUI's growth occurred through developer ecosystem building rather than institutional token distribution. 5⃣The claimed "missed opportunities" lack justification: 🔹Robinhood: Has built on Arbitrum for technical/strategic reasons, not because Arbitrum offered token payments. Robinhood's blockchain choice was driven by proven infrastructure and user base. 🔹Polymarket: Faced regulatory scrutiny over wash trading (33% of volume identified as fake). Their platform challenges were compliance-related, not about lacking blockchain partnerships. 🔹GameStop: Actually launched their NFT marketplace on Ethereum L2s (Loopring/Immutable X) in 2022. They chose these chains for gaming-specific infrastructure and proven NFT ecosystems, not token incentives. 6⃣Performance metrics and success criteria are notably absent How will the community evaluate whether the ETF partnership generates value? What constitutes success for the NASDAQ PIPE vehicle? Without clear KPIs and accountability structures, this represents massive resource allocation based on optimism rather than demonstrable strategy. 7⃣The emphasis on CMC and CoinGecko ranking manipulation?! The proposal's emphasis on CMC and CoinGecko ranking manipulation through treasury control doesn't make sense, This is like chasing vanity metrics over fundamental value creation. Sustainable ranking improvements typically follow organic usage growth rather than artificial treasury inflation. 8⃣The proposal is missing adequate accountability mechanisms While multisig addresses will be public, actual deployment decisions remain centralized with the Sonic Labs team. No governance framework exists for community oversight of institutional partnerships or Sonic USA operations. 9⃣ Voting power concentration raises representation concerns With 40 validators, some holding 20-30M tokens ($6-9M stakes), voting power is naturally concentrated among large stakeholders. The compressed timeline makes it challenging for smaller holders to meaningfully participate, creating a dynamic where larger stakeholders have disproportionate influence on major tokenomics decisions that affect all holders 🔟Dramatic shift from recent positioning This represents a hard fork from the original rebranding strategy just 9 months ago. For months we emphasized that Sonic was a fully diluted chain compared to centralized cabal competitors, and we rallied on this as a key differentiator. Now, 9 months later, we're proposing such a dramatic reversal with minimal notice and short timeframe ------------------------------------ Alternative approaches with better risk-adjusted returns 1⃣Organic institutional development through continued technical excellence, developer ecosystem expansion, and partnership building could generate genuine institutional interest over 2-3 years without compromising tokenomics or governance structure. 2⃣Alternative 1: Performance-Based Token Vesting Structure: 🔹Issue tokens gradually based on measurable milestones Start with 50M-100m tokens for Q3-Q4 goals, unlock more only upon achievement 🔹Metrics: TVL growth, developer adoption, institutional partnerships delivered Benefits: ✅Aligns team incentives with results ✅Reduces dilution risk if goals aren't met ✅Community retains control through milestone approval 3⃣Ecosystem Revenue Sharing Model 🔹Take equity stakes in major dApps building on Sonic (instead of just fee sharing) 🔹Sonic Labs becomes ecosystem investor, sharing in dApp success 🔹Revenue from successful projects funds growth initiatives Mechanics: 🔹Provide development grants in exchange for 5-10% equity in dApps 🔹As ecosystem grows, portfolio value funds expansion 🔹Similar to how Coinbase Ventures operates 4⃣ A hybrid of all of the above alternatives