[DAO Discussion] Avalanche Liquid Staking Proposal đŸ”ș

Governance DAO Discussion
,
23

  1. Can someone from the core wonderland team list the potential downsides?

  2. Wonderland should be getting higher revenue share.

13 Likes
24

Another thought


Does Wonderland need “Lido” to do staking as a validator? Ultimately, I think the answer is no.

This boils down to a simple question. Does Wonderland need the AVAX it provides as a validator to be liquid or does it just need to be illiquid but the REWARDS from staking be liquid?

This comes down to community confidence. If Wonderland becomes a validator, the whole point of being a validator is to lock up AVAX (intentionally illiquid) to stabilize network value as a protocol as an authority the respects the future of the blockchain.

Wonderland can vote to deploy AVAX as a validator and reap 100% of the rewards without additional risk AND when AVAX eventually support smart contracts as validators, migrate to that format.

I think that vote should come before this one.

“Should Wonderland deploy some of its AVAX to become a validator?” is the first proposal.
THEN ask “Should Wonderland use a derivative platform partnership to empower a different platform to validate on Wonderlands behalf, lose profit, BUT better accounting of the treasury”?

The more I think about it, the more I think there is a better way of doing this.

49 Likes
25

100% behind this. Id switch 4 year down to 1-2 year and switch the 75/25 to 85/15. That being said, if Sifu and Dani think the proposal is fair in its current form Id vote for it. I am not one of these fools that think they know better than these two.

21 Likes
27

Love the idea of liquid staking to expand these opportunities to more people. I also like the potential movement to other EVM like Fantom.

Revenue share needs a lot of work. Committing to that much share for 4 years and beyond is not smart at this point of new a dao. Money would be better spent creating a different incentive program to find other teams that can do the same work, but settle for lower revenue share.

4 Likes
28

The time frames are too long and amount to “team” is too high at 25% because you using wonderland funds to generate a huge income to do nothing which just seems like a cash grab. First of all you need clarification as to who the team is before anything. And secondly taking projects funds and just staking them shouldn’t give the team any pay out as they’re not actively doing anything

24 Likes
29

As others have mentioned, I think 4 years is too long. The 25/75 should also be discussed further.

16 Likes
30

I like the idea of the liquid staking

I do not like the revenue share model of 75/25 for 4 years.

I need more info on this team if we’re going to be paying them 30m a year

I suggest 95/5 revenue share with a 1 year contract

20 Likes
31

Also, I’d rather take more risk with a higher grant upfront, than to submit to higher revenue share, or any :smiley: Especially since we are not sure how hard this task really is and how it is to be managed over 4 years. It seems to just be difficult mainly because of limitations of multiple chains within avalanche.

2 Likes
32

Like the idea, but not the monetary arrangement.

  • Upfront payment: $6M MIM or $9M staked $TIME. Would prefer staked $TIME as it ties the success of Wonderland to the project. If we do well, the developing team does well and vice-versa.
  • Revenue sharing: 25% for 4 years + 15% every year after sounds way too high. Again, I’d prefer to pay in $TIME or reduce the revenue share to 10% for 4 years and a one-shot payment based on accomplished KPIs.

(As an FYI - The average salary for a blockchain developer is $175K/year, unless we’re hiring a team of around 15 people to work solely for Wonderland during 4 years, the numbers don’t make sense to me).

Also, more information about the team and previous project is definitely needed.

33 Likes
34

That’d be great for sentiment! I think we all agree with the project, it’s just the payment terms where some of us have questions marks.

Thank you, @0xWicked

5 Likes
35

I 100% agree.
75/25 profit sharing is way out there.
Also, we need to know more about this team. What are these existing financial products that they have, and also who are they? If we are gonna pay them 3 mil in MIM before any work has been done - “Half now half after” we need background checks.

10 Likes
37

Backing this 100%. A different form of staking to add to the current :slight_smile:

38

I think, these are the key points from this proposal:

  1. They ask Wonderland for a $6M MIM grant ( half at agreement and half upon delivery), OR $9M (staked) TIME (vested linearly over 24 months) to develop a Liquid Staking Solution.

  2. They expect Wonderland’s gross revenue between $12.5M - $50M per year if the project is successful.

  3. They want a 25% revenue share for the first 4 years of operation (i.e. 75% of revenue to Wonderland, 25% to the team)

So basically, Wonderland invests $6M MIM and gets a revenue stream of minimum $12.5M per year, minus the revenue share for the first 4 years.

7 Likes
39

Shorter contract, Lower numbers and the large break clause of minimum 10M USD does not provide protection and is rather a large risk for Wonderland.
Don’t see the big value of this with the current proposed terms.

12 Likes
40

Exactly a 12.5$ revenue from a 6M upfront investment + revenue share is not a good idea or lucrative deal for anyone involved in Wonderland DAO.

7 Likes
41

I like the idea but the numbers don’t look fair to me.

85/15% in favor of Wonderland would be better and also a 1 year term instead of 4.

I want to know the opinion of Dani and Sifu regarding these terms.

We also need more info about the team and any meaningful projects that they might have.

Aside from that I’m for it.

24 Likes
42

Love it. Let’s do it

43

I agree with the proposal, in that liquid staking will be overall good for Wonderland by widening the available assets that people can use to invest in the DAO. Four years seems like a very long time especially in crypto-years. Perhaps, a 25% revenue share for the first 12 months where the DAO can vote on additional option years once the community can see the actual numbers that the DAO is taking in from this proposal.

6 Likes
44

Let’s do this​:raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed::100: am in full support

45

Sounds great, behind this idea