Hi Orca Council / team and all tokenholders.
To be clear upfront: this post is not an “attack” and not FUD. It’s a request for predictability and verifiable transparency on two governance decisions that directly impact ORCA holders and trust in the protocol.
TL;DR
- Regarding the summer-approved proposal “ORCA Treasury Utilization for Token Buybacks and Validator Staking”, the community still lacks a clear buyback mechanism: when buybacks happen, in what amounts, and what happens to the repurchased ORCA.
- Regarding last year’s fee distribution decision 20% / 30% / 50%, there is still no clear breakdown of where exactly the 50% “for development” goes, and how that spending maps to the roadmap and delivered outcomes.
The core issue in both points is the same: lack of transparency → lower trust → lower willingness to hold/stake long term.
1) Treasury Buybacks: we need a transparent mechanism and reporting
The problem: the proposal was approved, but the “execution” side still looks too vague to the community. As a result, holders are asking:
- the buyback program described in the proposal hasn’t started, USDC is sitting in the wallet — why is the program effectively “paused”? Over ~6 months, zero tokens were repurchased;
- what decision logic is being used?
- where do repurchased ORCA tokens go? Based on the proposal text, they should be routed to xORCA — is that correct? Right now, we can’t verify.
What we’d like clarified (specific questions)
A. Status and timeline
- What exact date marks the start of the 24-month program window?
- Have buybacks started? If yes — since what date? If not — when is the planned start, and why has it been delayed?
B. Execution policy (what’s missing today)
Yes, the Council can have discretion (“depending on market conditions”), but the community needs a clear policy:
- Is this DCA (regular purchases on a schedule) or opportunistic buying based on conditions?
- What are the triggers to buy vs pause? (e.g., volatility, events, liquidity, volume)
- What execution tools are used: DEX (TWAP/limit/market) or via a market maker?
- If a market maker is used — what guardrails/constraints exist so it’s transparent and doesn’t look like a “black box”?
C. What happens to repurchased ORCA
The proposal (at a high level) mentions options like burn / staking rewards / grants. But we need the practical rules:
- Is there a target priority? For example: “mostly burn,” or “mostly to xORCA,” or a mixed approach with ranges.
- Will repurchased tokens go to stakers/xORCA? If yes — under what conditions and in what proportions?
- If some tokens go to grants — will there be a public process and a list of recipients (at least post-factum), so it doesn’t look like “tokens were handed out to insiders”?
D. Why this matters right now
One of the arguments for buybacks is to improve the efficiency of Treasury usage, especially when ORCA looks undervalued relative to SOL and/or near historical lows in USD terms. A reasonable holder question is:
- If not now, then when?
- What logic defines a “good time” to buy back?
2) “50% for development” spend: we need a clear breakdown and linkage to outcomes
Previously, the protocol fee distribution was set as:
- 20% → programmatic ORCA purchases intended for stakers (xORCA)
- 30% → Treasury
- 50% → development/team/operations
The community is not arguing that the product shouldn’t be funded: payroll, audits, infrastructure, legal, etc. The issue is that today, for most tokenholders, this 50% still looks like a “black box.”
What we’re asking for (practical, non-invasive)
A. A public quarterly “Development & Ops” report
Without exposing personal data or naming individual salaries — categories and order of magnitude are enough:
- How much flowed into the “50% dev bucket” for the quarter (USD/SOL/USDC — whichever is easiest)
- Spend breakdown by category (ranges are fine):
- Engineering/Product (payroll)
- Contractors
- Security (audits, bug bounties)
- Infrastructure/hosting/tooling
- Legal/compliance
- Marketing/community
- Partnerships/BD
- Other (with a short note)
- Current operating scale (e.g., total FTE count, no names needed)
- Very brief: what key releases/results shipped this quarter and what’s planned next
B. Governance alignment and the “trustless” ethos
If such reporting already exists internally, a sanitized public version can be shared. Tokenholders are not asking for “doxxing,” but they do want accountability — confidence that this 50% is actually turning into product/security/growth.
If I missed existing quarterly reports on buybacks or dev spend, please share links. I will edit this post and mark the questions as resolved/partially resolved.
Thank you. I genuinely believe transparency here is not “optional,” but a competitive advantage and a foundation of trust — which is exactly what a crypto project should be built on.