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.
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 Iāve 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 itās own DAO with itās own governance token ?
Iām 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 itās 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 doesnāt 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 teamās fault, we continued as agreed. If after two years, the DAO is not satisfied of the teamās 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 thatās 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 āsignificantā voting power to a team that still has to āprove themselvesā 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.
The way I see it, the value is the product they are building for us. Two of them actually. Buy one get one free.
Iām 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.
I think this all sounds great. It is definitely a Great market to capitalize on. Especially with the growing rate of the AVAX Chain.
My counter offer/ Number issues
75/25 revenue share needs to be changed more in favor to wonderland, considering the value we are putting upfront. I think 85/15 sounds more then fair.
Upfront payment would prefer it to be 7.5 mil in $Time, for 24 months staked. This also gives more incentive for $Time to do well. If Time does well devs do well.
The break clause should be lowered, As it is only a 2 year contract now. 1/4 of the upfront value provided by DAO, seems fair. As we are already paying 7.5 mil in $TIME. We would pay another 1.875 mil to cancel the contract. This Makes the investment much safer on our side, because if it does fail we would not be getting hit as hard.
Everyone Voting on this needs to remember, The only one taking a risk is us(we are fronting all the money), so if this fails we all take the hit, the goal is to minimalize the risks as much as possible, Well still being reasonable and incentivizing, for Teams to work with/for us.
I Also would like a more clear view on what we would be paying 2 years worth of work for. How many employees? what actually needs to be done/moderated? What is the actual work being done? Tell me why you think your team deserves 15% of our revenue to continue work on this project for years to come.
Thanks
Shouldnt a background check be kinda needed in this sort of bussines engagments? Have no knowledge as they do but plenty of us here trust Daniele and the fact we know who he is and Sifu has done a lot to gain the trust of Frog Nation.
Any frogs out there still feeling uneasy about this, I recommend you go take a look at the success of Lido Finance.
I read that and welped over here to say lesssgoo! This proposal is a bet that we can accomplish the same or better than Lido. Always gotta bet on yourself. 
I share the common desire here for a little more transparency on the Human Resources front. But letās get real yāallā¦if youāre truly worried Dani and Sifu are going to fuck with anyone not worth their time then you shouldnāt be in Wonderand.
Who is this team? Who is j_rana? Great investment idea, but why give away 25% to these people we know nothing about?
Great idea. Love the team. Absolutely in favor.
The cross-chain function is implementing by Ava labs without this project anyway right?
25% share is for manual operation while the function is implementing?
For me the price is too high for risk and return Wonderland get
Should we publish this treasury investment requirement and we will have other proposals to compare
I think the numbers need to be tweaked a bit. 25% revenue share for 4 years / $6mm MIM team reward is steep.
Agree with the overall proposal at the condition we tweak the teamās remuneration. Seems way too high, especially as we have no clue who and how many they are.
We are talking millions here, a minimum is for the team to present themselves and show their background.
Questions:
I think Iād feel more comfortable in this proposal if I knew exactly WHY they needed Wonderland for this project because this is something VCs will absolutely throw money at (Lido recently raised $73 million).
My understanding is that they are selling a product that theyāve built for $6 million, and charging 25% of revenue to maintain the platform going forward. They need $6 million for exactly what you saidā¦VCs would easily throw money at this. $6 million is nothing.
$6 million treasury investment. The risk seems pretty low considering this is less than 1% of our treasury and could easily make it back in a week.
With a 5% of staking market share, we would potentially make $12.5 million in gross revenue. $9 million after revenue share. May be other basic expenses keep the platform running like web hosting.
If we capture more of the market, more revenue. $50 million with 20% market share.