Yeah, you’re right, I started reading and then thought “WTF? Didn’t we discuss this already?” and basically stopped reading and stumbled across your comment and went “OK, I am not going crazy”! 
1 Like
Where? I did read it and I see nothing about addressing Avalanche governance, subnets, or incentives tokenomics. There was supposed to be a technical design document. Where?
You are way too ahead of yourself. This will not be the last vote we take as a DAO related to the platform. As stated in the original proposal “governance over selected validators, fees, other parameters, and matters such as upgrades to the protocol will be carried out by DAO token holders.”
What incentive tokenomics?
The technical development started last year. The team doing this has been vetted by Dani. If you want to get involved as a dev, reach out to Sifu with your resume.
2 Likes
100% agree on this.
Much more clarity is indeed needed before being able to sign off on this. Dev team needs to choose to either have more of a fixed compensation model or more of a variable one.
I personally believe that revenue sharing makes more sense, since it helps align incentives, but then would need to give up most (if not all) fixed compensation awards.
Assuming we just go for revenue sharing:
- Revenue for Wonderland is expected to be $12.5M to $50M a year. Let’s take $20M.
- Constant rev share of 15%
- Yearly rev = $3M
How many devs are there? 3? 6? More than 500k/year seems outstanding comp. If you want to value it as a project, in just 5 years, with a 40% discount rate and 10% implied growth, this yields about $7M for the dev team, still an incredibly good deal, but more reasonable for the community.
Link here
I don’t want to be part of it (as I said I am full-time employed in crypto). But I want more clarification on the technical design. A document was promised for 2021Q4. Where is it?
This proposal did not even exist in Q4 of 2021, where did you see it promises a document ?
3 Likes
I have read through the RFC streams and know that there was discussion about contract terms, costs of DEVs, and a little about tracking. Respectfully, it does not change my view that the resulting proposal does not offer an attractive risk/reward for Wonderland and that the contract could be better structured either as a fee or as a partnership.
It seems that part of the underlying problem is that this is an activity that requires some degree of project management and subsequent protocol management. The current structure of Wonderland does not lend itself easily, so this contract structure seems to be the solution. I would argue that the time might be better spent focusing on other types of partnerships that do suit the type of involvement that Wonderland can manage effectively.
I recognize that you feel these comments cover some of the same ground as the RFC discussion and appreciate your time in reading them. The proposal has moved to a new stage and has invited comments, so I am offering views based on influences my choices in the vote.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about when you say
Risk: $3 million of our $1.1 Billion Treasury. That’s 0.3% Even before BCGG it was less than 1%
Reward: Capturing enough market share to more than double the initial investment and become a bigger player on AVAX.
Likelihood of failure: I say low, but even if you say it’s “high”…
Impact of failure: Immaterial. We make close to $1 million a day on assets already deployed.
It doesn’t really require any project management. The dev team has been vetted by Dani and will be running the platform. So again…no idea what you’re talking about here.
Seems like you did not read the post above:
Breakdown of the timeline:
:white_check_mark: Research: Q3-Q4 2021
:white_check_mark: Initial technical specification: Q4 2021
And to be honest I am posting my concerns in good faith but reading this discussion over here seems like there is not honest intention for discussion. Just back and forward attacks. I don’t know who is involved in the actual project here but it would be helpful if they are identified here at least for purposes of these discussions.
They are an independent dev team selling us a product. Nowhere in your quote is documentation of their work promised. Dani. Go tweet Dani about. He’s fairly responsive to tweets.
1 Like
Seems like you assumed things that were not actually written.
Nothing wrong with being concerned. It would be nice to have the documentation you are talking about. That being said, saying something was promised when it wasn’t doesn’t sound like honest intention for discussion.
If it’s a misunderstanding, fair.
However, telling me I didn’t read something that doesn’t say what you said doesn’t fix anything.
I don’t understand. It’s right there: Initial technical specification by 2021Q4. This is the document I am looking for. And it has a green checkmark next to it. We are already in “protocol development”. At least this is what the first post in this thread seems to indicate. I checked all links and there is no hint of such a document.
You mean to say that this is an internal document for the dev team? So how are we suppose to evaluate the design? If you outsource a product to a 3rd party dev house either you have your own design or you evaluate the design they come up with.
Yes, the dev team started last year Before Wonderland got involved. They approached Dani and made the initial offer which was their first proposal post in General Discussion.
The team has been vetted by Daniele.
Sifu: We have plans to integrate this into the frog ecosystem and Dani strongly believes that it is well worth the expenditure to have this done properly by an experienced and competent team which he trusts.
Sifu:Yes, he was talking about our liquid staking proposal. Dani is a big fan and introduced us to the deal. He also completed his DD on the team.
Ok, great that has been vetted by him. But don’t we get to see it?
Can you confirm what the final compensation structure for the team is? There are a few messages here and there mentioning that it’ been updated and that all the pay is tied to market share performance, but would like to see that updated in the core post.
1 Like
I agree that we should have an [Avalanche Liquid Staking for Wonderland], but as far as details go, i have no idea whats going on. It seems like a huge project by the sums of money I see floating around.
So, while I agree with the idea, i think its foolish to let frogs vote on the details. Daniele, Sifu and the team should better know the industry standards and details.
While we, the frogs, think millions of MIM are a lot of money for the job, the industry standard might be just it. How would i know? All i’m thinking now is that i should become a blockchain developer.
So bottom line, i cannot be asked to vote on details i have no clue about. And i think many around here are in the same position.
1 Like
“Official info” is in the main post. Lots of comments are just confused.
1 Like
This will never happen. You have no idea how much work is/was to get Lido to where it is and how much work has been put on the solutions for Solana. To go by was I’ve read in these post they will deliver get 3mm MIM and the project dies after that.
Okay then, snapshot closes tomorrow, quorum hit, in EOY we all be celebrating or you guys will come after us. Nothing left to do.
Now ask where are all of you with McDonalds proposal, the mining proposal? We need someone with experience there, could be a cool venture.
1 Like
Há várias pessoas de alto nível de conhecimento financeiro, que superam em muito minhas habilidades e especialidade. Não sei o que é melhor. Confio na lucidez do grupo. Que se faça o melhor.
1 Like