Unfortunately governance tokens have been only a medium to transfer wealth from retails to VCs.
I think, and I hope to be wrong, that matter labs at this point, considering the amount of institutions and banks that are being involved in Prividium, are trying to clean their history about the $ZK token.
The more the token is useless the more they are clean and most likely not accused to have generated an unregistered security.
Banks would never get involved with an entity involved in such a scheme.
And I still do not understand how people don’t realize that private companies will have a lot of problems if they start doing things that accrue value to the token they emitted based on the company performances.
So, as far as this sucks, it’s obvious that all these L2s tokens generations, were just a mean to give VCs an easy and quick way to become future share holders, and at the same time recoup their investment in the first 12-24 months by launching at high FDV low float dumping on retails that were sold an unrealistic dream.
Token holders will hold nothing when zksync will make an IPO and launch on wall street.
On the other hand every VC that invested in matter labs will receive their fair amount of shares as per the original contract of investment.
I really hope that gluk finds a way to keep the company revenues, and the company clients separated enough from the zksync era economics, so that it will be possible they keep operating as a private entity and at the same time the elastic chain can start a flywheel and funnel value into the $ZK token without them having to fear about the SEC and other global regulators and banks strict rules.
But at the moment I don’t see that happening.
It can only happen if the token distribution becomes decentralized enough that the DAO effectively begins working as a decentralized organization, because right now the regulators consider the De Facto controllers of the DAO to be responsible, meaning that if just a bunch of entities own the vast majority of the tokens, they are held responsible, it doesn’t matter if the protocol is called a DAO…
This said I think this proposal is good, but I doubt it will pass, because the actual main entities that hold the token are VCs that have interest to further dilute the token to make it useless and harmless for the future business of zksync/prividium and its relations with banks.
I hope to be proven wrong, because I’m a holder, but this is what I’m seeing lately, especially after they posted the upcoming Omar’s summit speech:
”Should protocols have Shareholders instead of Tokens Holders ?”
Also the recent $ZK token audit they performed, is probably something that was demanded by some of the banks they are involving, to be sure that they have acted inside the legal framework, and that the token is a useless asset with no value accrual logic or utility/ demand.