[RFC] Build Avalanche Liquid Staking for Wonderland

2. [RFC] Request for Comment
#10

I’m honestly confused as to what you’re saying. The 4 years is not a contractual agreement that we will guarantee keeping them for that long (though I’m unsure how you separate the devs from the platform). The 4 years just details the amount we will pay the devs for services rendered for maintenance, improvements, upgrades, and support. That is what the revenue share is…their salary for working on the project.

I’m not sure what you would vote on after 1 year other than their share of the revenue. This “service fee” they are charging is actually lower than what Lido is paying their devs; they pay a flat 20% to maintain their platform. So it appears acceptable.

And I don’t understand your statement about Wonderland’s revenue model. This project fits that transition.

2 Likes
#11

I think the modified proposal is a fair one and represents a good opportunity. I vote yes.

2 Likes
#12

My 2 cents:

What if someone (e.g., Shard labs) in the future makes a protocol to compete directly with this one? And we don’t have the @j_rana team to keep improving the protocol to compete with new ones because they don’t have any monetary incentive to continue work?

Sure we could reduce our take rate to compete with new protocols in the future, but if the product is crap, everyone will still go to the competing solution.

We need rev share to incentivize improvements. If this protocol takes off, we will need to make and keep this protocol the best one in the market.

4 Likes
#13

Thanks for listening to the feedback and modifying the agreement.
I am 100% behind this looking forward to see the project go live!

3 Likes
#14

I suppose if there is a competing product. This proposed product would need to change for the new market.

#15

Fellow Frogs. Please reconsider apeing into this vote. I am checking discord and I see many question marks popping above the average user.

The offer from @j_rana is very well written and structured, with a good reasoning process behind it. I have no reason to doubt his claims.
However, I would rather propose we do a call for proposal and invite different developer teams to submit their offers, then we compare the different offers instead of voting the conditions on just one team.

As such, we could let the different developer teams submit their proposals & conditions, and we as a DAO could discuss these offers and then cast a vote on the most fitting dev team. I personally think the amount is still too much. I do know developers in crypto are in high demand, but this is exceeding the limit by far. My main points and concerns are that the proposed developer team of @j_rana is anon/not doxxed. We are given no history of projects consequently.

We can set a layout for a proposal structure something along the lines of:

[Name] [Developer Team] [Conditions] [Time Frame] [Milestones] [Break Clause] [Penalties]

As a DAO, we should consider many options and not just one. I have build and constructed many projects and it has proven to be the best for me personally to invite offers and critically appraise them in a structured manner.

Thanks for your time, I vote to discuss more.

3 Likes
#16

This is way better indeed, I really appreciate the $TIME that went into this reworked proposal, and especially the fact that they listened to what we had to say…
It is a definite LFG from me, Frogs! :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#17

@j_rana and team are doxxed to Sifu & Dani

I agree in principle to your idea to solicit proposals from other teams. But who’s going to lead the charge on that? It’s a full-time job to go out there and look for crypto devs who have the knowledge/experience to build something like this and then solicit proposals from them.

Practically it’s not feasible at all, which is why I voted yes on this. It’s a small hit on our treasury (even smaller if they cannot complete dev work), and most of the monetary compensation & incentives is via comp plan and rev-share.

3 Likes
#18

I am saying to open a call for proposals, say until the end of January, to all developer teams. If no one applies then we can go with j_ranas team after all.

#19

You’re free to start that open call for proposals if that’s what you believe in. The community can then decide whether or not they want to move forward with it.

#20

We can consider this going forward, though I don’t think the RFP method would necessarily work in DeFi like it does in traditional businesses.

In Defi, most devs will be anon. That’s just how it is. Consider Sifu and the rest of the Wonderland team. As stated before, they are doxxed to Sifu and Dani.

3 Likes
#21

I think we can do better deals that are not platform dependent. Too many variants on this case.

1 Like
#22

This Is a great step forward from the original proposal, the success of both party’s is beneficial for everyone.

~FROG NATION~

2 Likes
#23

What does that mean ?

#24

We need to raise in house developers to eventually take over maintenance. As a dev I can tell you 4 years on any 1 project is essentially a lifetime to your career. Every day technology moves and you become stale as you sit still keeping your resume high & tight in the corporate world.

At 110k/year/dev this is enough funding for roughly 4 if they are corporate backed with overhead, maybe 8 if they are all freelance developers. Point being as technology shifts so will developer interests and when personnel rolls over what then? They are not contracted to keep the platform alive in perpetuity.

It would be good of them to maybe help train some community developers on the design & functionality of the program once its in maintenance so community coders can pick up the slack over time. At some point I imagine the dev team will want to move onto greener pastures.

4 Likes
#25

Is this included as a part of this contract? If so can we have a timeline for this as well.

I am all for this proposal to go ahead…sooner the better…

1 Like
#26

Great to be a part of this process and see a well thought out compromise come to vote. I approve.

However I do have a few remaining questions: Do we have any guidelines laid out for amending the relationship at a future date if there is significant over/under performance relative to the projected numbers?

Will there be any way for frogs to track progress other than waiting for announcements? If not, how frequently/actively does the dev team intend to provide updates?

#27

@j_rana + team are $TIME owners, and are technically part of the community already.

What kind of in-house developer are you looking for that would build something like this for 110k/year when Lido has raised a ton of money? What agency can you contract to build out a liquid staking protocol for $1mm when there are barely any experienced crypto devs out there, much less crypto dev agencies?

I see what you’re saying but we have to be realistic here. There’s not a lot of people that can build this thing, which is why I’ve advocated to keep rev-share attractive for the devs so that they have an incentive to maintain (and improve) the protocol over the coming years.

1 Like
#28

Great questions. Who will interface with the dev team to keep track and get updates for the community?

CC @0xWicked

1 Like
#29

Yes: Avalanche first, being the much larger (and thus more profitable to Wonderland) chain, followed by Fantom (which, being EVM, we hope to re-use much of our Avalanche work on).

We don’t have a timeline for Fantom, but we’d expect it to take less time than Avalanche for this reason (i.e. maximum a few months).

Great question. We plan to be active both here on the forums and Discord, and we’ll post regular updates on progress (as well as cute teasers for added Twitter hype :rocket:)

What’s the community’s preference for updates?