Four years is reasonable. This is a long-term investment. The crypto market is still in its early stages. Long-term vision is needed. Distribution is fair. Both parties are incentivized. However, it is best if Wonderland can get more. This is fully supported.
3 Likes
Yeah, my opinion is worthless. I think if Sifu needed money to build a team, he could just ask for it and no one would vote no.
Seems like a good idea, thanks.
It took me a lot of reading and asking on discord to understand it. It could have been better to start by introducing who you are, what is your project. I thought you guys were asking for 25% just because you are going to stake AVAX to the blockchain. Now I get it. Deal sounds fair, my concern is with the duration. 4 years seems long for the crypto. But Iâm sure you guys are agreed with Sifu and Daniele before proposing this, and I trust them. I hope it will be beneficial for both. (Also Iâm quite happy to see a long term deal proposal). Good luck 
6 Likes
So the proposal is to put a huge amount of Wonderlandâs treasury into Avalanche Liquid Staking for almost 10% annual profit? This is suicide. That amount could be put into infinite pools/farms with more than 25% annual profit!
9 Likes
Read again ser. Itâs to create and take 75% of the profits of a new liquid staking protocol initially on Avalanche and cross chain in the future.
1 Like
This seems very strange⊠Only because its saying 4 years. Like its a way for the devs to guarantee their return on investment even if wonderland fails. It feels like a bet against the longevity of TIME and more a bet on the longevity of AVAX. Even tho time-avax mints are disabled. Right???
9 Likes
Agree with the idea, but 25% is too much.
4 Likes
I think before we just agree with this the team should come forward with Who they are. This sounds great and all but without knowing whoâs behind it and their backgrounds (other than their development background) we shouldnt just go handing things over to them.
8 Likes
The influx of 125 million is good for the DAO, we need to find ways to make our money functional, This, in the long run, helps to secure Avalanche so Iâm all for it.
very interesting concept. I think its important to build a broader range of products.
Great idea! Fully supporting this
even 80/20 would be cool
sounds good. lets go
very good idea, altough numbers should be discussed⊠im for 90/10
2 Likes
Very smart input. Thanks. Totally agree to split this bigger project in smaller votes. Hope your comment is read by Sifu and Dani.
2 Likes
Interesting proposal. A couple of parts have peaked my interest (all according to the proposal):
-
Projected Revenue and Split - 5% share of staking would amount to $12.5 and 20% would be potentially $50M. A 25% split to the devs would amount to $3.125M ($12.5M total) at 5% share and $12.5M ($50M) at 20%. This leaves Wonderland with potential first year profits BEFORE subtracting the initial investment (see point 2) of $9.375M and $37.5M, respectively.
-
Initial Investment - Option of $6M MIM upfront or $9M TIME vested over 24 months. This is an interesting offer. On one hand $6M MIM upfront would decrease the year one profits for Wonderland from point 1 to $3.375M (5% - $12.5M fees) and $31.5M (20% - $50M fees) without compounding interest on our native token which already has dilution built into itâs framework given the high APY. Using $6M MIM from a treasury balance of $800M (DAO currently $885M) would be a capital expenditure of .75%.
I am assuming the $9M (staked) TIME means the amount of TIME staked now, minus linear distributions, to end at $9M TIME total in the end. This is big brain maths
that is beyond me. I feel I could be misunderstanding this aspect, but for me, I still see more TIME being minted that will add to greater dilution as opposed to less than one percent of capital in the treasury that (according to the proposal) would have net positive returns in year one. -
Break Clause - Larger of 10M or 12 monthsâ revenue multiplied by 3. Smol brain maths: Letâs keep using the 5 and 20 percent hypotheticals from the proposal and point 1. Assume the DAO executes the break clause after one year. At 5% the devsâ revenue would be $3.125M, so 10M would be more than 3x ($9.375M) this revenue. Devs would get $10M. At 20% the devsâ revenue would be $12.5M, so 10M would be lower than 3x ($37.5M). Devs would get $37.5M.
Given the large discrepancy in payouts as the fees increase, I would suggest a reworking of this clause and possibly put a âSMALLER ofâ or a straight 10M (with a potential percentage increase for years vested).
-
Fantom - The most interesting part of this is that the proposal includes setting up a similar project on Fantom as well while being covered with the same initial investment from Wonderland in point 2. I would like to know more about projected revenue from liquid staking of FTM as there has been here for AVAX. This would potentially add more revenue to year one projections than already stated above.
If Iâm not entirely missing the mark here, these are my final thoughts. Given Wonderland would be outsourcing a dev team to create innovation on the Avalanche blockchain, with a second similar project (without projections as of yet) on Fantom, while potentially becoming profitable in the first year, I feel 25% fees to the devs would be reasonable for 4 years, with it sliding down to 15% in perpetuity thereafter. I donât like the break clause because it leaves Wonderland exposed losing potentially a yearâs worth of fee revenue around the 20% parameters. As above in point 3, a 10M base with vesting per year sounds more reasonable to me.
This is a long response, and I accept if I miscalculated or misunderstood the information in the proposal. Please offer corrections and clarity as you see fit.
11 Likes
Sound like a good idea but please consider one use suggestion to split this huge project into several smaller votes, instead of just one final and decisive vote.
âShould Wonderland deploy some of its AVAX to become a validator?â is the first proposal.
THEN ask âShould Wonderland use a derivative platform partnership to empower a different platform to validate on Wonderlands behalf, lose profit, BUT better accounting of the treasuryâ?
4 Likes
25% is too much.
And then an indefinite share of 15% sound ludicrous. The share should be revoted by the DAO every 1-2 Years, according to market and business developments and the health of Wonderland. That should come before remuneration.
8 Likes
Looks good to me! Always interested in opportunities to keep my money working for me with passive income.