Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

ContinuumDAO Forum

ContinuumDAO Funding Proposal

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Proposals - Treasury
30 Posts 10 Posters 8.4k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • SelquiS Offline
    SelquiS Offline
    Selqui
    wrote on last edited by Selqui
    #2

    The numbers in the example table were arrived at after discussions with some VCs. My own feeling is that we offer CTMDAOVOTE tokens as soon as an investment is made and that these would be convertible 1 CTMDAOVOTE == 1 CTM vested in a veCTM for 4 years, with full voting rights with our TGE. We should not make sales to any person of USA citizenship or residency, any US business, or any person or business in any other proscribed or sanctioned country in line with other recent crypto funding initiatives. I see our series 'A' Fully Diluted valuation at about 400 mm USD at a stage when we have ~100 blockchains connected, several hundred MPC nodes, audited contracts and code, mainnet launched and healthy initial traffic and revenues. We could offer 10% of the Total Supply at this valuation, but that is the subject of another DAO proposal when the time comes. We could launch our token along with the series 'A', together with CEX listings and DEX liquidity.

    1 Reply Last reply
    <img src="https://forum.continuumdao.org/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f44d.png?v=04d8207ff88" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--+1" style="height: 23px; width: auto; vertical-align: middle;" title="" alt="๐Ÿ‘" />
    2
    • J Offline
      J Offline
      John CTM
      wrote on last edited by Selqui
      #3

      @Selqui this all sounds great for Series A in December and I agree with your vision and strategy it will be a great place to be once we reach there

      For the seed funding round in June Iโ€™m guessing the valuation will need to be a lot lower so I think maybe limit the amount we sell at seed round how many was we thinking maybe 2.5 % or less Iโ€™m guessing valuation becomes difficult at this early stage and we need to make many concessions to Series A if we want to attract a serious investor

      SelquiS 1 Reply Last reply
      2
      • J John CTM

        @Selqui this all sounds great for Series A in December and I agree with your vision and strategy it will be a great place to be once we reach there

        For the seed funding round in June Iโ€™m guessing the valuation will need to be a lot lower so I think maybe limit the amount we sell at seed round how many was we thinking maybe 2.5 % or less Iโ€™m guessing valuation becomes difficult at this early stage and we need to make many concessions to Series A if we want to attract a serious investor

        SelquiS Offline
        SelquiS Offline
        Selqui
        wrote on last edited by
        #4

        @John-CTM We should only sell as many tokens as we need to at this lower valuation to fund ourselves until we can offer a seriously attractive series 'A'. The figure in the table is for 2.5%, with gradually increasing valuation. Note that the suggestion has the sale of the final part spread over 3 months, approaching the mainnet launch. Another objective of this seed round is to attract early stage VCs, who would be able to guide us through the series 'A', as well as other communities (e.g. investment DAOs), who could dramatically increase our community.

        1 Reply Last reply
        2
        • J Offline
          J Offline
          John CTM
          wrote on last edited by
          #5

          I like this proposal and think it will get us were we need to be good job guys

          1 Reply Last reply
          1
          • A Offline
            A Offline
            Apxymous
            wrote on last edited by
            #6

            The total allocation for investors are 15%. I would like to see this:

            • Seed 2.5% at FDV $100M
            • Pre-sale 5% at FDV $200M (unsold back to investors allocation)
            • Series A 5% + (2.5% unsold allocation) at FDV $400M
            • Series B 2.5%+ unsold allocation at FDV $1b
            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • 0 Offline
              0 Offline
              0xCTMC
              wrote on last edited by
              #7

              Given the prevailing market dynamics, it seems prudent to establish the seed round valuation within the range of 10 to 20 million. This strategy aims to entice competitive VC investors to join the venture. The primary objective of this funding round is to secure sufficient capital for ongoing project development until we're prepared to unveil an enticing offering to the market and initiate our Series A phase. It's worth noting that excessively valued projects tend to underperform in the secondary market due to inadequate liquidity and insufficient support from retail investors, leading to a decline in token prices.

              SelquiS 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • 0 Offline
                0 Offline
                0xCTMC
                wrote on last edited by
                #8

                Seed 5% at FDV $10M
                Series A 10% at FDV $40M
                Raising 4.5M USDT in total should be more than enough for project development and token listing

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • 0 0xCTMC

                  Given the prevailing market dynamics, it seems prudent to establish the seed round valuation within the range of 10 to 20 million. This strategy aims to entice competitive VC investors to join the venture. The primary objective of this funding round is to secure sufficient capital for ongoing project development until we're prepared to unveil an enticing offering to the market and initiate our Series A phase. It's worth noting that excessively valued projects tend to underperform in the secondary market due to inadequate liquidity and insufficient support from retail investors, leading to a decline in token prices.

                  SelquiS Offline
                  SelquiS Offline
                  Selqui
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #9

                  @0xCTMC Point taken. Let's re-evaluate

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • B Offline
                    B Offline
                    brianpeng
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #10

                    Concurred with @0xCTMC โ€™s point that seed and Series A funding round doesnโ€™t necessarily need to be very high; secondary markets will price the project fairly over time, and launching at a lower FDV benefits participants with no access to primary markets. From my perspective anywhere between 15-25M FDV for seed and 50-100M for Series A, depending on traction and market conditions, seems fair (5% seed, 7.5% Series A would be a fundraise of 4.5-8.75M USD)

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    • T Offline
                      T Offline
                      toast
                      wrote on last edited by toast
                      #11

                      Our tech is good, we should offer another round at higher valuation to people who want less unlocking period, we will need to agree with our lead investors for this.

                      Round doesn't have to be open, just a commitment from them

                      SelquiS 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • T toast

                        Our tech is good, we should offer another round at higher valuation to people who want less unlocking period, we will need to agree with our lead investors for this.

                        Round doesn't have to be open, just a commitment from them

                        SelquiS Offline
                        SelquiS Offline
                        Selqui
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #12

                        @toast I strongly disagree with this. I can accept that we need to offer our seed round at a low valuation to attract investors, but if we gave future offerings with a shorter unlock period, then these people could dump on early investors, the existing community and future retail holders. Our veCTM voting escrow contract has a 4 year lock, BUT it allows liquidation with a 50% penalty at the beginning, decreasing linearly to 0 after 4 years. So anyone can either sell their veCTM as an NFT, or liquidate at any time. Meanwhile they have voting rights and their veCTM gives them a share of the profits. This is very fair to anyone.

                        We need to attract investors who hold our long term vision, even if it means losing some potential investors, who would probably not be the right fit for us anyway. I will vote against any proposal to offer a shorter unlock period for investors.

                        A 1 Reply Last reply
                        <img src="https://forum.continuumdao.org/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f44d.png?v=04d8207ff88" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--+1" style="height: 23px; width: auto; vertical-align: middle;" title="" alt="๐Ÿ‘" />
                        1
                        • A Offline
                          A Offline
                          Apxymous
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #13

                          Our contributors have been working in the past months and also been rewarded in veCTM valued as $1. I assume with TGE itโ€™s fair to put minimum $2 per CTM for DEX liquidity. VeCTM are locked for 4 years and can get unlocked with 50% penalty. If we sell with low FDV for seed we need extra cliff vesting on top of veCTM. There is no way we want seed and investors dumped on our holders.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • SelquiS Selqui

                            @toast I strongly disagree with this. I can accept that we need to offer our seed round at a low valuation to attract investors, but if we gave future offerings with a shorter unlock period, then these people could dump on early investors, the existing community and future retail holders. Our veCTM voting escrow contract has a 4 year lock, BUT it allows liquidation with a 50% penalty at the beginning, decreasing linearly to 0 after 4 years. So anyone can either sell their veCTM as an NFT, or liquidate at any time. Meanwhile they have voting rights and their veCTM gives them a share of the profits. This is very fair to anyone.

                            We need to attract investors who hold our long term vision, even if it means losing some potential investors, who would probably not be the right fit for us anyway. I will vote against any proposal to offer a shorter unlock period for investors.

                            A Offline
                            A Offline
                            Apxymous
                            wrote on last edited by Apxymous
                            #14

                            @Selqui I totally agree. I was typing to slow and missed your message ๐Ÿ˜‚

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            • S Offline
                              S Offline
                              sanderrrrr
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #15

                              To secure and amplify the (ambitions of) the community, i'm a strong advocate of providing community members the opportunity to participate in the seed phase as well. If we take the example from Jerry in the opening post: suppose we aim for 200k and minimum ticket size 50k. That's max 4 investors.

                              Why not split 1 ticket in smaller tickets for community members. With tickets sizes of 50k and up, it will only be the 'big money' that can participate, while i think we need the community members just as much. And therefor they should be able to buy a real stake and become a real part of the project they believe in.

                              A 1 Reply Last reply
                              1
                              • S sanderrrrr

                                To secure and amplify the (ambitions of) the community, i'm a strong advocate of providing community members the opportunity to participate in the seed phase as well. If we take the example from Jerry in the opening post: suppose we aim for 200k and minimum ticket size 50k. That's max 4 investors.

                                Why not split 1 ticket in smaller tickets for community members. With tickets sizes of 50k and up, it will only be the 'big money' that can participate, while i think we need the community members just as much. And therefor they should be able to buy a real stake and become a real part of the project they believe in.

                                A Offline
                                A Offline
                                Apxymous
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #16

                                @sanderrrrr Hi sanderrrr, you have a good point! The only reason weโ€™re looking for a few seed investors is because we donโ€™t have to deal with so many investors. Should we break down $50k into 5x $10k? Maybe just a group buy into $50k?

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  sanderrrrr
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #17

                                  5*10k gives only 5 individuals the opportunity. I'd say tickets of 1k or 2k with a max of 5k per individual.

                                  Maybe we can use a smart contract for this: if is filled 3 weeks before the seed, it's executed. If it's not, money is refunded and we offer only tickets to VC's. Or we accept the partial funding TBD.

                                  C A J 3 Replies Last reply
                                  1
                                  • C Offline
                                    C Offline
                                    chookz
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #18

                                    Interesting conversation going and I am really excited by the prospects and the low valuation proposed to entice early investors is totally reasonable as is the desire not to offer any option to unlocking VeCTM early without due penalty.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    1
                                    • S sanderrrrr

                                      5*10k gives only 5 individuals the opportunity. I'd say tickets of 1k or 2k with a max of 5k per individual.

                                      Maybe we can use a smart contract for this: if is filled 3 weeks before the seed, it's executed. If it's not, money is refunded and we offer only tickets to VC's. Or we accept the partial funding TBD.

                                      C Offline
                                      C Offline
                                      chookz
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #19

                                      @sanderrrrr I get this. The Community should be have the option to be part of the process. Not sure what the implications are with regards to financial regulations.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S sanderrrrr

                                        5*10k gives only 5 individuals the opportunity. I'd say tickets of 1k or 2k with a max of 5k per individual.

                                        Maybe we can use a smart contract for this: if is filled 3 weeks before the seed, it's executed. If it's not, money is refunded and we offer only tickets to VC's. Or we accept the partial funding TBD.

                                        A Offline
                                        A Offline
                                        Apxymous
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #20

                                        @sanderrrrr I think there should be no cap even for individuals. You canโ€™t police who create more wallets. Put a max allocation on each wallet does looks nicer for later. I think we should aim for $5k minimum but we need to add cliff vesting on top of veCTM 4 years lock.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • SelquiS Offline
                                          SelquiS Offline
                                          Selqui
                                          wrote on last edited by Selqui
                                          #21

                                          One of the reasons for offering at a low valuation to VCs in the seed round is that we don't only need their money. We also expect to leverage their network and their marketing reach to help us grow. Frankly, we don't get that with small retail investors. We also have to conduct KYC, which at this time is simply a burden to us. I'm not in favour of a retail offering at this point. There is a way for the community to get veCTM now though and that is to contribute.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          <img src="https://forum.continuumdao.org/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f44d.png?v=04d8207ff88" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--+1" style="height: 23px; width: auto; vertical-align: middle;" title="" alt="๐Ÿ‘" />
                                          1

                                          Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                                          Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                                          With your input, this post could be even better ๐Ÿ’—

                                          Register Login

                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups