Concept of DeGov.AI Tokenization and Its Potential Implications

[hackfisher]

Background

We are considering the idea of implementing tokenization for DeGov.AI. The preliminary concept involves issuing a total of 1 million DGAI tokens. Of these, 50% (i.e., 500,000 tokens) might be allocated to RingDAO for an initiative tentatively named RINGburndrop, while the remaining 50% would be reserved in DeGov.AI's Treasury to support future development and operations. It's important to emphasize that this is merely an initial concept, not yet finalized, and we are seeking feedback and suggestions from the community.

Envisioning the RINGburndrop Initiative

In this concept, the RINGburndrop initiative aims to distribute DGAI tokens by burning RING tokens. The proposed mechanism includes:

• Burn Address: RING holders would transfer their RING tokens to a designated burn address, such as 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dead.

• Distribution Rules:

  • If Less Than 100 Million RING Are Burned: Should the total burned RING tokens be less than 100 million by the initiative's conclusion, the proposal is to grant 1 DGAI for every 200 RING burned.

  • If More Than 100 Million RING Are Burned: If the total burned RING tokens exceed 100 million, each RING burned could yield DGAI calculated as 500,000 divided by the total burned RING, i.e., each RING burned would receive 0.5M/Total_Burned_RING DGAI.

Potential Support from RingDAO for DeGov.AI

Currently, RingDAO has sponsored DeGov.AI with $15,500 through a Request for Proposal (RFP), supporting the development of an open and extensible DAO application platform integrated with AI agents for next-generation governance. Detailed information can be found in RingDAO's GitHub repository.

Additionally, RingDAO may consider providing an extra $30,000 in sponsorship if DeGov.AI successfully implements tokenization and achieves a burn of over 60 million RING through the RINGburndrop initiative. It's important to note that this is merely a preliminary concept, not yet finalized, and we are seeking feedback and suggestions from the community.

Discussion Points

1. Token Allocation Strategy

   • Role of RingDAO: Would allocating 50% of DGAI tokens to RingDAO for the RINGburndrop initiative effectively incentivize RING holders' participation and enhance community engagement?

   • Treasury Reserves: Would reserving the remaining 50% of DGAI in DeGov.AI's Treasury as a financial reserve for future development and operations ensure the project's sustainability?

2. Potential Impact of the RINGburndrop Initiative

   • Supply and Demand Dynamics: Could burning RING tokens to reduce their market circulation enhance their scarcity and value?

   • User Incentives: Would providing RING holders with the opportunity to acquire DGAI tokens encourage their participation and expand DeGov.AI's user base?

3. Independence and Future Collaboration

   • DeGov.AI's Independence: Post-tokenization, how would DeGov.AI's independence from RingDAO affect resource management and strategic planning?

   • Collaboration Opportunities: In an independent operational context, how can DeGov.AI maintain collaboration with RingDAO to explore mutually beneficial opportunities and jointly advance ecosystem development?

Conclusion

We present this tokenization concept with the aim of enhancing DeGov.AI's autonomy and market competitiveness. However, this also implies that we must address new challenges in resource management, community building, and market promotion. We earnestly invite the community to provide valuable opinions and suggestions on this concept to help us better assess its feasibility and potential impact.

[sonoferin2000]

i know nothing of this DeGov.ai. other then it is some sort of dao platform with ai agents. the website isn't very informative. what is the use of DGAI token, is it equity,is it native token for the protocol. some details would be appreciated,

[SasoLithops]

Hey Joe. Sorry for late reply. Good point on website. Will will need to do more work on being more informative. @hackfisher or Bear will reply in details and correct me if I am wrong but DeGov.AI will be a platform for any DAO to use. Similar is Tally platform we use now for RingDAO governance. We have to pay Tally for using their platform, so we developed our own to save that cost and plan to market it as it is platform made for any DAO to use.
As for DGAI token it will be token used for governance in DeGov.AI ecosystem.
I am sorry I wasn't more informative I was not available when it was presented. So I need to learn more too. Would you be interested if it was presented in Twitter space?

[sonoferin2000]

thanks for the info Saso.thats cool, i didnt realize tally charged anything unless you utilised certain features, like treasury management. in that case,yes,i agree with building our own and keeping funds in our own ecosystem. if this could be built into subdao,would be very convenient.could require a small amount of ring to initiate a vote.that could drive demand for ring on the market.could see it being utilised more broadly.especially if it can be made chain agnostic.

[2xJDubs]

I think the proposal in the current form is a great idea to support DeGov.ai. Though I do wonder if instead of burning the RING and then DeGov getting the grant from the RingDAO treasury, could the funds raised by people sending RING for DGAI be used to fund additional development?

[sonoferin2000]

i like this idea, of utilizing funds raised being earmarked for funding future development, rather then burning the tokens. I understand the desire to embrace deflation, but think it is being taken too extremely,

[sonoferin2000]

@hackfisher I am hoping that Ring deposit nft's will be eligible to be used for the Ringburndrop event.

[hackfisher]

You can also choose to withdraw RING in the Deposit NFT earlier by paying KTON penalty.

[Laki389]

You can also choose to withdraw RING in the Deposit NFT earlier by paying KTON penalty.

That doesn't make sense because he would have to pay x3 KTON...

[nblogist]

We are now successfully onboarding Aquari, as DeGov's first DAO client, inshallah generating $1,900 in the first year, which is a strong early signal of revenue potential. I believe this strengthens the case for aligning DeGov's growth with tangible returns to RingDAO and Ring holders.

For the above reasons, I propose that part of the DeGov's revenue (or token allocation) flow back to RingDAO, here are two ways i am thinking:

• On going revenue sharing model - like percent of income,
  or
• Future DGAI (need more info on the use of DGAI token) distribution or vesting, for RING holders or the RING DAO Treasury.

This would create : Long term incentive alignment, and reinforce the value of supporting early projects esp through the ringdao treasury, and reward the ring ecosystem and its people for early support!

[2xJDubs]

On the revenue sharing idea, maybe the funds could be used to rebuy RING into the treasury. This would lower circulating supply of RING.

[nblogist]

Learning from others and Turkey, rebuying isn't the best option, it also creates an expectation in the future, alternatively sharing the revenue in itself make more people buy so they get more share.

[hackfisher]

Current revenue(20% licensing from hosting service provider) is too small and too early to split to RingDAO IMO, better to put it in dev and marketing cost support for now.

We must realize that the funds RingDAO gave to DeGov are insufficient. It does not seem smart to weaken the use of funds during the growth period. If DeGov.AI TGE goes smoothly, the tokens obtained will be enough to reflect the return to RingDAO. Refer to Gnosis DAO

[nblogist]

I can relate with this @hackfisher perhaps not the best time to start splitting rn but we should at least have a general sense of direction of what would happen inshallah when things flow

And i agree 100% to not use funds from degov rn in early days of growth, but again a future direction/plan is recommended and i would like for us to have some sort of understanding on it

[SasoLithops]

The more I think about it the more I like the initial idea on RINGburndrop Initiative when certain ammount of Ring could be burned for DGAI.

I think we all agree not to split revenue at start, we also see it is time we set this future idea of splitting revenue in motion. Imagine if real revenue is split among DGAI token holders(and we RING holders would have the advantage with RINGburndrop Initiative, but we need to know in advance so we can free some Ring from staking). That would be most attractive to investors and great marketing point.

[sonoferin2000]

I need to be blunt: it looks like the team is quietly abandoning Darwinia and Ring by shifting resources and attention to this new DeGov.AI side project. Using treasury funds and proposing a RINGburndrop to bootstrap DeGov feels like they’re diverting value away from the original ecosystem without clear justification.

What’s missing is a concrete explanation of how DeGov will actually benefit Darwinia and Ring holders. Is this just a lifeboat for the team—a way to move on to something new while leaving the old project to fade? Burning RING tokens in exchange for governance tokens in an unproven platform with unclear utility feels like value extraction rather than value creation.

The community deserves transparency on the long-term strategy here. If the team is moving on, they owe holders a clear roadmap, not token gimmicks and vague promises. Without that, this feels like a quietly orchestrated abandonment rather than a thoughtful evolution.

[hackfisher]

Some history posts:

https://github.com/orgs/ringecosystem/discussions/8

https://github.com/orgs/ringecosystem/discussions/1

https://ringdao.com/

The teams (https://github.com/ringecosystem/collaboration/tree/master/service-providers ) are the service providers of RingDAO, it is not the teams who decide the derection, it is the DAO proposals decide, there are DAO proposals, discussions, round tables, service and grant applications on track provides the transparency, these are open to any community members, more suggestions are welcome.

DeGov are now 100% owned by RingDAO, before split out or TGE, RingDAO proposals can abandon any service providers/teams or any project it owners rather than the opposite.

The final decision must be made by a valid governance system, not any team and individual, not you and me, but the RingDAO governance system, token holders come to vote

[sonoferin2000]

Thanks for the explanation, but let’s cut through the jargon.

Yes, DeGov is currently “100% owned” by RingDAO until it’s spun off or a token is launched. In theory, that means
RingDAO token holders have the power to “abandon” teams or projects by proposal vote.

But here’s the reality no one is saying out loud:
If voting power is concentrated in one whale or a small group, that “DAO control” is meaningless. Decisions are
effectively controlled by a handful, not the broader community.
This “ownership” is just a legal or organizational fiction masking centralized control. It does nothing to guarantee
transparency, accountability, or community benefit.
The power to “abandon” projects or teams means little when those decisions are made behind closed doors or
rubber-stamped by the same dominant holders controlling every vote.
This framing ignores the lived experience of holders who see no roadmap, no meaningful engagement, and no real
benefits from these projects — just shifting priorities dictated by the insiders.
In short, this “ownership” and governance setup is a smokescreen. Until there’s real decentralization of voting power and
genuine community influence, it’s just another way to maintain centralized control under the guise of a DAO.