agree. cash is king. so is the use case.
1.Yes. External party and have been vetted by Wonderland leadership.
1a. Wonderland would get 10% of the rewards earned by users of the platform. The dev team would get 25% of that 10%. This is their fee for maintaining the platform.
1b. Yes, revenue for the DAO. Will contribute to overall revenue for TIME holders once we start phasing from rebase rewards to revenue share.
2.Why is that too long? We have to incentivize them. Though I would like to hear understand how they came to 25%.
3.TIME stakers are currently not receiving any share of revenues generated from deployed treasury assets. Rebases do not come from treasury either. Rebases are revenue generated from minters.
3a. Wonderland is not staking AVAX. Yes, it makes more money, cause it’s treasury assets not being used. So we go from $0 revenue to $12.5 million (not including fee to dev team) on a $6 million investment. And how much we generate depends how many people join the protocol and stake AVAX. Could be more, could be less. I’m bullish AVAX so I think more.
The dev team is selling a product to us for $6 million. This investment helps the “Frog nation” does it not? The entire point of Wonderland is to act as a fund for investments such as this.
4 Likes
I would love to see detailed information of the proposing team OR any story of your team with Dani and his team.
When I click your profile @j_rana you joined 8 hours ago to obviously write this post, so to many frogs including me it’s bit surprising and scary.
We would appreciate your people’s information
Here you go.
2 Likes
dev team should be paid – yes. im thinking a base payout + performance encapsulated in the initial proposal.
Yeah seems a lot more reasonable as crypto is a very fast moving space and within 4 years things change A LOT and so does performance. Therefore, an approach where you re-negotiate things after shorter time frames and re-evaluate the situation is better in the way that it might correct the path of the DAO in case things go the wrong way or if its on track you hold the course.
Love the idea but having trouble with two things
- Split with the team, should be lower. As well as 4 year contract should be 1 year with break clause having no penalties, i would feel allot safer.
- Trustworthiness of team/more info needed
11 Likes
I agree 100% with your post ser. 75/25 is too high and 4 years too long.
1 Like
Yup, just saw. Though think he was referring to an actual ‘background check’ which would never happen. I could be mistaken.
Still comfortable with the Team knowing they were even able to have a private chat with Sifu and the rest of Wonderland leadership, but if it makes people feel more comfortable he could expand on it a little more.
I think people are making this a bigger deal than it is.
4 Likes
You can buy an existing stake pool cheaper than the terms of this deal!!! 25% going to the “management team” AND 10% going to the Wonderland dev team leaving TIME holders with 6.68% return on AVAX with 100% of the treasury exposed to avax volatility AND a 9 M MIM grant. What the actual fuck is this proposal?!? Suits aren’t even this blatantly greedy and I use to work in that world.
5 Likes
Specially when considering they want 6 MIL dollars just to develop it. Seems a bit excessive to me. Are they a huge company or something ?
1 Like
Sorry, you have a misunderstanding of what this is. We would be exposing none of our AVAX. We are paying $6 million for this dev team to build Wonderland a platform for other AVAX holders to liquid stake.
Not even sure where you get your numbers from. We would charge 10% of the staking rewards users earn by staking on our platform. 75% of that would then go to Wonderland and 25% would go to the dev team who manages the platform.
6 Likes
why are they taking 25%? that makes not fucking sense. is the team doxxed? give 5% to team that should be more than enough
Give em the staked time instead.
I agree with your numbers more, The value that wonderland is providing should be rewarded more upon success.
Agreed, would like to understand that more. I also think the numbers need to be tweaked a little more in our favor.
To me these types of projects are as Frog Nation as it can be. Removing limits for everyone to have a chance to jump in is Frog Nation 101 if you ask me.
This provides us the opportunity to be the first to give these services on two chains that are generally bullish from what I’ve seen. Potentially even more chains in the future if this proves to be successful.
Does this mean that Wonderland (the DAO) will have control of this new protocol and will be able to vote on whatever parameters or will that protocol have it’s own DAO with it’s own governance token ?
I’m not opposed to the 25% revenue share. As mentioned, I think both teams need to be incentivized. Wonderland making 3/4 the profits should be enough to cover the risk of the investment and the team making 1/4 of the profits keeps them motivated to ensure it’s success and improve the protocol.
However, as other people have pointed out, 4 years can be a long time. I think a review of some sort midway (2 years) would ease the community and still work for the team should they deliver as expected.
I have an issue with this break clause. What would we be breaking off from ? Paying the rest of the investment ? I believe for the break clause to be more fair it should also take into account that if the team doesn’t deliver we should be able to back out without penalty. If we back out because our DAO decided not to honor the deal, then a penalty seems fair.
As mentioned above, I think a two year review of the terms could be interesting. For example, we agree to the current terms, in two year if everything goes as expect or that whatever issues that came were not the team’s fault, we continued as agreed. If after two years, the DAO is not satisfied of the team’s performance as they did not deliver what was agreed upon, we just be able to break the contract or renegotiate if required. Something to keep both sides accountable.
Sounds like a buy one get one free deal, so that’s cool. As mentioned, expanding this to other chains in the future would be great!
Personally, I would prefer the 6M MIM. Giving staked TIME would be giving “significant” voting power to a team that still has to “prove themselves” to us. Giving staked TIME also open the possibility of them dumping.
Overall, I think this is a good opportunity and hopefully a relationship that can be extended in the future should this come to fruition.
This also could allow further development for Abra and the whole ecosystem.
3 Likes
The way I see it, the value is the product they are building for us. Two of them actually. Buy one get one free.
I’m all in to this as long as user guides are produced for users with less knowledge on the functionality of all the benefits and how to physically do it, to make it work
You should make that clear. That is a brilliant idea and much better terms.
1 Like