ContinuumDAO Forum

@Selqui I have been thinking about this. We appear to have a burn rate of 20k/mth atm. I suspect our current DAO community is able to put together another six months or so or funding since it's not a huge amount - until we find other sources. Is crowdfunding an option?

Thanks Selqui for the good ideas and I agree with most of them. From my own experience bridging tokens, I value speed and ease of use over differences is tens of dollars in USD equivalent value. Paying only once at the source chain is a major and important feature and cannot be compromised. The idea of paying for users for low cost chains is sound. I assume governance will need to come together if these chains start getting expensive down the road.

@Selqui said in Fee Structure for C3Router and C3Caller:

Using Ethereum as an example of the destination chain, the frontend would call a function on Ethereum that calculates the gas price and which returns one of LOW, NORMAL, HIGH, VERY HIGH. This would require the user to pay an extra fee of 0, 10, 20, 50 USDT

I like this idea and can we change this scale of success probability to 3-pt as in "LOW, RECOMMENDED, HIGH" - with RECOMMENDED being the default option. 3-pt scale is much easier for users to navigate.

@Apxymous said in Fee Structure for C3Router and C3Caller:

If we could implement a fixed fee and they get CTM or Theia tokens if they overpay a transaction and have it airdrop on BNB chain

I disagree with this. There are times I am VERY HAPPY to overpay if my bridging has a high certainty of completion. If a user chose to overpay, CTM should pocket the excess fees.

@Selqui said in Fee Structure for C3Router and C3Caller:

How to top up the gas in the MPC in a decentralized way? We don't want to have to rely on a 'team' to do this. I suggest that we create a function on each chain that ANYONE can call to add gas to this wallet address.

I like this idea very much. Is it possible that part of the excess fees collected be used to incentivize top-ups? For example, to top up FTM to the MPC, I could deposit FTM in exchange for USDC tokens the MPC had collected as excess fees at a 10% discount. I wonder if this is too complex to implement.

Sorry for the slow reply - been busy. Great work Selqui!

Emission numbers look great. I also agree with the initial distribution. Also agree with governance.

A $5 fee sounds reasonable and competitive. Regarding the max fee of $50, is it too cheap for someone who is using up 80% of liquidity on the destination chain? If cross-chain liquidity is all but dry, I suspect users would be willing to pay more.

The reward model calculations are a little beyond me but the key variables look good.

Does Theia pay CTM for using its network?

Thanks Jerry and Selqui for putting this proposal together.

@Selqui said in Theia Proposal:

The major difference is that veTHEIA is an held on one chain.

I am unsure what this means.

@kips Agree that a breakdown of team members, each role, and salary is important for transparency. This also acts as a way for the community to get-to-know our team.

In terms of specific marketing channel (e.g., YouTube or competition), I think these can be reported in the next budget proposal so that the team as room to maneuver.

I also like to know, with the increased budget, and are we expecting our overall funding to deplete before the original project period of two years. Are we ahead of schedule? When do we think our funding will run out, and potentially need to launch CTM tokens and sell some of them?

An additional feature, building on those on TG, is to allow Opensea users to see how much CTM is locked within a veCTM, and for how long. The system used by Multi had a gazillion zeros behind each NFT and it was too difficult to read.

I am good with the cost. It is wonderful that a dev is interested in owning veCTM. Great proposal.

I appreciate both @Insomniac and @Selqui thoughts on this, from both competitive fees and long term decentralization perspective. I do favor a design that makes possible (and in the most simple way) complete autonomy of the network, and hence (still trying to wrap the tech info in the thread in my head) keeping a fix fee makes non-upgradeable contract possible.

In a long run, and I believe most here would agree, that CTM is going to be autonomous; CTM is going to be a core cross-chain infrastructure for crypto. So that all the new chains are able to connect with existing financial ecosystem readily and easily. And $10 is a very small fee in doing cross-chain transactions - almost nothing compared to what it will cost for doing any form of ETH settlements.

I really really like the simplicity, both concept and marketing wise, of this proposal. Thanks Selqui and everyone who chimed in!

In the discussion, we had converged on 21 days voting period, 7 days temp check + 14 days voting. Why was this not implemented?

@Insomniac said in [002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal:

Suggest 7 days for temp check (informal vote of interest in proposal) and 14 days for actual proposal vote.

It's 21 days in total and enough time for those saying they're not online all the time to participate. add the discussion period in between and its over a month for anyone to notice and participate/comment/suggest/etc...

at the end of the day, tech in the crypto space moves fast, if anyone wants to participate they need to be monitoring for updates or proposals initiations that are happening. am sure the team will communicate this via all official channels. saying irl things get in the way is not something that should hinder the progress of development and is entirely on the individual to manage for themselves

@Selqui said in [002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal:

Alternatively, we could create two groups now :- Committee and Multi-sig signers and for now make them the same people.

I agree with this, and they being the same people for now is no concern while CTM is a low stake project. Gradually, we have the option to elect independent signers when the stake is higher.

@Ulliee Agree with all the points, but unsure about 4/7 multi-sig - it sounds like a good number. Is it reasonable to say, that a bigger issue, is that all the signers are from CTM? Since they already know each other, even 7/7 may not enough? In other words, at least four signers should be from outside of the community; that is, (eventually) we may need signers from matured projects like Curve, YFI, Abra, etc. What does everyone think?

@Insomniac I can live with a 21 day (7 +14) voting period. It sounds reasonable enough.

Great start. The items covered are comprehensive, and the decentralization measures are well thought out, and thanks Selqui for the draft. Most of my suggestions are to include clearer language to what is modifiable, timeline, and so forth. Needed two reputation to post quotes. So here're my in text comments:-

Introduction:
"Some of the rules and procedures in the Constitution ..." "Some of the rules" is ambiguous. The document later says that constitution can only be modified by a 67% majority so let's just say "All the rules?"

ContinuumDAO Governance Structure:
"They will be responsible ... in a timely manner." "...timely manner" is ambiguous. How about "...seven days?"

"...then the old Committee will stay in place and a new election will be implemented as soon as practical." Ditto. How about "... within three months?"

The Governance Process:
"Proposals will have a temperature check for 5 days." Just for the record (since this has been discussed twice on TG), I am oppose to 5 days as such tight timeline will exclude participants (even if they are few in numbers) who have real life commitments and needed to stay offline for a period of time. I propose a "14 days" temperature check so that citizens (who are willing) has a chance to take a look.

"Once they collect enough feedback (1/10 of the veCTM holders commented effectively on the proposal) from the community..." I am confused here as to the difference between "Ideas & Suggestions" and "Temperature Check." "Ideas & Suggestions" appears to be period for discussions, but "Temperature Check" also serves the same function to "collect enough feedback." In many communities, temperature check happens through forum vote, and if passed, move on to on-chain vote. We need to define these clearer. (I noted that this constitution did not undergo "Ideas & Suggestions" process)

"The formal voting period for the snapshot will be 7 days. The governance for Emergency proposals will be shortened to 4 days." On the period of Emergency proposal, I am taking a different stance - to encourage us moving faster than 4 days - to "24 hours." The reason is I have seen enough shit happening, mostly due to rugging, hacks, and regulatory actions, leading to a major token losing their treasury or funds suddenly. Recent cases include Multichain, Curve, Luna, etc. I have no idea if CTM is going to hold such tokens, but given how hard it is to change the constitution, I rather we are ready to act quickly. In this case, many citizens will not have the chance to vote. Can we make this process difficult to initiate by changing "Only a Committee member can initiate an Emergency proposal" to "...four Committee members," i.e., simple majority. This is to avoid the situation of a committee member went "rogue."

ContinuumDAO Proposals and Voting:
"The quorum for the voting must meet 20% of the total voting power." CTM citizens are relatively active though many other projects have 1% participation rate. Is 20% realistic base on the turn out rate for 001 temp check?

For the fun of a dnd player, Router - "Teleporter," and AnyCall - "Sending Stone."