ContinuumDAO Forum

@Apxymous We certainly will use the allocation from departed core contributors if this proposal passes. We will have a vote at TGE to decide how much of the CTMDAOVOTE tokens convert to veCTM and therefore how much ex core contributors will receive, but in this proposal, it is suggested that it will only be a small amount, capped at 0.1% (100k veCTM).

@Apxymous Hal did the smart contracts part and he is developing the Governance frontend at the moment. He may incorporate a newer version of the staking into this new Governance frontend

We are currently offering the VCs tokens at a Fully Diluted Valuation of 20 million USD, so each CTM is equivalent to 0.20 USD. Hopefully the value will increase to 1 USD and more after TGE, but those helping to build our products now deserve the same terms (in my opinion).

Arkman has worked for more than 1 year on the frontend for AssetX, as well as the homepage for ContinuumDAO, the C3Caller page, the MPC Dashboard and the veCTM Staking page. So far he has only been paid less than 5k USD in total. He believes in the project and I will certainly vote in favour of awarding him 500k veCTM now and another 500k veCTM at TGE, assuming that he continues working as he has been (I am sure he will). Regarding Lex, our new legal web3 expert - we cannot successfully launch our RWA Security issuance platform without his experience. Securities are heavily regulated and our existing DAO core contributors have no experience in legal matters. He is also advising us on incorporation and he came to us with his excellent idea for Lawracle that will benefit us all. I will certainly be voting to give him 500k veCTM now and another 500k veCTM when we go to mainnet with Lawracle. Let's keep the big picture in mind. We need Arkman and Lex in our DAO.

@sanderrrrr Per contributor. We should make this clear

I would like to include application for the Dubai DFSA Tokenisation Regulatory Sandbox. See the details here https://www.dfsa.ae/innovation/tokenisation-regulatory-sandbox

If ContinuumDAO is successful in its application, we would need to apply for a Dubai license in addition to the RAKDAO license, but I think that if we can afford it, it would be very beneficial

@avgCrypto I think that it might be true in Dubai, but the process seems simpler in RAK

@rebe2a @motki Any community sale would follow TGE, securing a license and would have to conform with regulations and follow legal advice. This would be the subject of a separate DAO proposal.

@sanderrrrr No need for any of us to move there (though RAK does look beautiful). We would need to secure a crypto trading license when we launch our token and the Middle East and especially the UAE could well be where we grow our business fastest initially, so it is nice that we have the option of making this a base, with people possible in the future.

@Raini-Ng Crowdfunding is an option, though we need assistance from someone who has experience in organising this. The real funding issue is that we need money for the code audit and listing on a CEX before we can go to mainnet and this could be a substantial amount, even if we limit the code we audit to MPC code, C3Caller, veCTM. Unfortunately this is not cheap and is why Jerry mentioned the figure of 1 million. Let's see how our new deck and RWA focus goes down with VCs.

@avgCrypto Completely agree with you about creating manageable goals. Thank you!

To be clear - we won't get VC funding unless we present a UNIQUE and INNOVATIVE proposition for funding. They are interested in backing the next unicorn, not another cross-chain interoperability protocol. We may get some backing from other sources such as DAOs, crowd funding and private funding, but I'm not sure we will get 1 million USD.

Regarding performance across market cycles, let's not forget that stable coin based RWA strategies are favoured in bear markets.

Regarding whether we should explore other avenues than VCs for funding, I think that we need to now, since our funds are so low. This could include a private sale, or crowdfunding through another DAO or company. Let's explore this.

Continuum was founded as a DAO for very good reasons (we all know about what happened to Multichain). Being a DAO and having exclusively open source code is the only alternative to a centralised company led project and for me this is non-negotiable.

But having spoken to a large number of VCs over the last few months, I do not think that this is the issue at all. In fact if a VC is looking for a preferential token allocation on different terms from early investors (i.e. a 4 year lock of veCTM with voting rights), then this for me is a huge red flag. They likely want to do a quick 10x from Seed to Series A and dump on retail as exit liquidity. If a VC believes in our long term vision, then this would not be an issue. But like I said - I think that other factors are in play

Typically this is how the conversations with VCs have gone in the past - I emphasise that we are building a public good for web3, with no central control and as a trusted base layer for cross-chain dApps. This does not get a strong reaction (neither hostile or positive). Sometimes they will point out that there are other solutions (L0, Axelar etc.). They simply don't care that we are Autonomous and have no central control. I then point out the security advantages of MPC, but again this does not bring a strong reaction. Usually they simply don't know what MPC is and I do not have enough time with them to explain it. I say that we are integrating non-EVMs (TON, NEAR, Solana, SUI). This is more interesting to them, since we are entering unploughed ground here, but not enough. I say that we have incubated an open source router, but some say to me that the profit margins are not very good anymore and that there is a lot of competition in this sector. The feeling I get is that this was the last bull run's narrative.

So I don't particularly agree with your analysis @Insomniac The main issue is that we need to align our goals with TODAY's narratives.

Recently I attended ETHCC in Brussels. I went to many side events. By far the most exciting one was the RWA event. There were many new RWA protocols, VCs and tradFi representatives there (e.g. Stripe, VISA). The packed audience were voting on how long it would take the next 1 trillion USD of tokenized RWAs to arrive. The consensus was 18 months. There was much discussion about how tradFi could increase their profit margins by a few percent by cutting out middle men using DeFi. Also there was agreement that RWA was much more immune to bear/bull market cycles, since investors typically use USD stable coins. Several panellists said that almost all alt coins would die, that retail would only hold stable coins and that mass adoption of blockchain would not come from the 'casino' of trading alt coins, but only through more sober investing though useful investments such as :

• SME loans
• Invoice financing
• Fractional tokenised assets such as real estate, rental properties, commodities (including gold)
• Bonds
• Securities (e.g. equity)

Interestingly (and this is where i think that our opportunity lies), some panel contributors talked about how early block chain was in this field and how the solutions still do not exist in DeFi, leading to prohibitive costs for participants, poor access to liquidity, regulatory challenges, poor user experience with wallets and more.

When I got back from ETHCC, we started to develop a deck that re-focused Continuum towards RWA. Here is the link to it and I would value your views on it : https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-5FEB905Ff54cDkKnkauCilbT8OQdWU0Rn2u29JVYbE/edit#slide=id.p

We have sent this new deck to some VCs and I would say that the feedback is quite good, but it is early and as Insomniac points out, it takes time for the discussions to bear any fruit. I think it is fair to say that not all contributors believe that we should pivot 100% to this new narrative, rather than maintaining that we should address ALL sectors (e.g. GameFi, AI, liquidity aggregation etc.). I think that we should pivot with COMMITMENT now and focus exclusively on bringing RWA products to RETAIL investors by creating cross-chain solutions to cheaper faster blockchains like TON, Solana, NEAR and SUI - playing to our strengths. What do you think? Please read the Deck and comment here. Some feedback we have got is that this is aspirational and that we do not have our new RWA Toolkit yet. We are in the same boat as Axelar and Wormhole here - no one has developed solutions yet, so it is a race. This tells me that we are in the right direction though. We need working Proof of Concepts for things like fractionalised cross-chain NFTs for assets and the ability to access RWA vaults on Ethereum from non-EVMs etc.

@Arafat Thanks! It is complicated but fair. We gave this a lot of thought

Funding proposal vote was passed 13 million votes to 0 against. Congratulations everbody!

https://snapshot.org/#/continuumdao.eth/proposal/0x019c5383e36eca103d1bf163df6645e0b4766d497266b65676d8ca7a8ea40d20

@chookz The forthcoming proposal will be for a VC seed round only. That is what we will be voting on. We had an airdrop for early supporters already, based on anticipated community effort (a lot of people did nothing however) and there will be a further airdrop to MultiDAO based on veMULTI holdings. The only way right now for anyone to get more veCTM is by actually contributing to our development through the Guilds, by coding, marketing etc. You have to work to get veCTM.

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.

@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.

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