GolanTrevize

Hey Golan, i believe currently there aren't any trading charts of those pools in trident given the beta phase it is in. Personally i think volumes going through these pools is more of an issue for ubo/klima and nbo/klima bonds as we would actively be facilitating liquidity for these assets so want to ensure healthy volume. We plan to keep capacity low for the first few weeks to see how things scale.

From a policy standpoint the spirit of this decision was taken because we believe that the content of those tonnes that meet the ubo/nbo criteria are of high enough quality to be in the treasury especially with the exposure gold standard that we haven't had previously.

You mentioned that moss gave a marketing fee, governance and initial bonding. For initial bonding i am not entirely sure what you mean. Note that unlike moss,c3 doesn't have ubo/nbo tokens themselves since it is a persmissionless bridge and so they bootstrapped all the liquidity pools through the LBP buyers farming.

As for the marketing fee, i can't speak on how the conversation with moss took place since i wasn't part of the dao at that point but from the outset it seems like moss offered this amount rather than it being negotiated by klimaDAO (apologies if this view is incorrect). With that being said, the question is whether some amount of funds for marketing is a prerequisite for all future partnerships especially for the inclusion of new assets into the treasury; though i am sure that C3 would be happy to take part in publicising klima related news given the amazing partners they have been so far.

One final point is that the governance tokens of c3 are not exactly the same as the ones of moss because we now have partial control of a) a liquidity engine through their emissions b) a persmissionless bridge , both central to the future of the on-chain carbon market. I think this could prove to be much more valuable than any lump sum we could use for marketing. I certainly don't think we have 'lowered' the bars for C3, rather they have gone above and beyond to be good partners with us.

      KingArthur33 @optima okay thanks for the responses. That was the type of color / rationale I was looking for. I wasn’t saying we should strong-arm C3, but just to explain why we accepted material “deal” terms less than before (Flow also offered a marketing fee of $100k as I recall, plus bonding GNT), in lieu of other “strategic” value-add. It’s true that Moss and Flow are curated bridges, but I understand that C3 like Toucan although both permissionless are still companies with VC/angel funding, so it’s not like they don’t have some resources. The last point to consider is like @Sirob is wont to highlight, one of KLIMA’s (greatest) strengths is our community, the 40-60k+ Klimates’ attention/enthusiasm (which is the scarcest resource in crypto) and bearing the financial risk of bonding & 3,3’ing, whereas bridges are more toll takers. And while C3 can incentivize KLIMA pairs / single staking with its token emissions, there is no cost basis/risk (except opportunity & time) of its C3 tokens. Whereas there is for KLIMA bonders / stakers / bagholders who are buying from their pockets.

      Just before I left contributing, we were starting to think of inventive mutual value-add ways to use the marketing fees (especially as our own DAO wallet is constrained), starting with Moss’s. @Brian33 mentioned he’d ask C3 about this, so not sure if he did and they said no, or instead hadn’t yet?

      As for C3 bonding some of their UBO/NBO and commit to a certain staking period of say 1-2 years (KlimaDAO is locking its C3 perpetually after all too), that aligns interest and is a signal to Klimates bonding that C3 “walks the walk” & “puts their money where their marketing is.” (P.S. @KingArthur33 Moss bonded 15k MCO2 for KIP-6.) (P.P.S. Just being factually descriptive with my quotes, not baiting at all.)

      I wouldn’t vote against this KIP for the lack of these 2 value-adds, but would be interested to hear C3’s take on them. Keep in mind whatever terms we accept for C3 will become the new benchmark for Toucan with NCT and Flow with GNT.

      Lastly, on the trading volume, since we pledged to that as a barometer for bonding UBO/NBO, I just wanted us to ensure consistency in our commitment. For instance, then we couldn’t turn around to Toucan and say lack of NCT demand is still a reason not to bond them. I know the circularity of demand catalyzed/manufactured by Klima bonding is a real issue for us Policy has on their radar. So I just wanted to know if there were green shoots of alternate UBO/NBO demand, since NCT is struggling with that still, and I couldn’t find UBO/NBO volume yet on popular DEX/coin screeners.

      In sum, I like the C3 and would vote in favor, but I just want to remain consistent / neutral / thorough in our review process.

      cc: @Archimedes @MarcusAurelius

          GolanTrevize also of course C3 isn’t just an independent startup, but has Aither as a partner. It could be a good idea for us to invite Aither to bond UBO/NBO & stake KLIMA, even on C3’s behalf. That would be great signal as well for the market, whether CEXs or KI institutional users.

              GolanTrevize Why does KlimaDAO not get a marketing fee and some initial bonding by C3? Moss offered/gave both of those, plus 10% of their governance token. Is there a reason Policy is lowering the market terms for bonding into KlimaDAO? If so, it should be explained why; and if not, then those should be added in agreement with C3.

              I see the marketing fee as a plus rather than a must; We're focusing on the quality of the asset, as well as attracting demand overall which their methodologies can be seen here:. C3 also gave 10% of their governance, but also signaled heavy alignment by requiring all carbon tokens to be paired with Klima. Those emissions could be seen itself as a fee for the Klimaconomy. I personally find the value of that priceless, and value that more than a marketing fee.

              Also its to note that C3 didn't come to us to make a KIP, but rather policy team decided to make the KIP, so its a bit different from moss as well. I've discussed to C3 about the marketing fee but we have agreed that it wasn't necessary, and while we definitely could've gotten more, I don't see a huge need to hard ball on a protocol that has already signaled alignment.

              GolanTrevize And while C3 can incentivize KLIMA pairs / single staking with its token emissions, there is no cost basis/risk (except opportunity & time) of its C3 tokens. Whereas there is for KLIMA bonders / stakers / bagholders who are buying from their pockets.

              There is a cost basis for C3 tokens as the supply expands due to liquidity emissions in my opinion.

              GolanTrevize So I just wanted to know if there were green shoots of alternate UBO/NBO demand, since NCT is struggling with that still, and I couldn’t find UBO/NBO volume yet on popular DEX/coin screeners.

              NCT's situation is a bit different from NBO/UBO as the liquidity was sourced by launched partners such as Regen and moss, where as NBO/UBO liquidity was sourced from the ground up purely from the community (50k liquidity was sourced for UBO/KLIMA and NBO/KLIMA each, and now has grown 3.5x and 6.5x in TVL respectively).

              GolanTrevize Also in general, I recommend @Cujo update the template for a KIP to include a Counterpoint section of what might be reasons against the KIP and why they’re mitigated. This has been more than once a request from community members and generally makes for better/more informed decision-making (you can see KIP-15 as an example).

              Personal opinion, I don't think a counterpoint is needed (why argue against the point you're making) to facilitate a KIP - I think our community is very intelligent and can 1) discern downsides of the KIP and determine whether the strengths outweigh the rewards, and 2) can be discussed within the forums themselves (not to prevent anyone from doing so, anyone is free to organize their KIP how they see fit)

              GolanTrevize also of course C3 isn’t just an independent startup, but has Aither as a partner. It could be a good idea for us to invite Aither to bond UBO/NBO & stake KLIMA, even on C3’s behalf. That would be great signal as well for the market, whether CEXs or KI institutional users.

              Agree with this, though this is more of the partnership team's discussions rather than policy.

                          Brian33 the marketing fee is a nice to have (especially the $100k last proposed by Flow), but since we had 2 bridges propose that, plus initial bonding, plus grant their tokens, I still feel we are diluting somewhat our value. I really would at least like to see Aither bonding as part of this KIP. Policy may have written this KIP, but it was in consultation with C3 (maybe without aligning with Partnerships?) who has made the initial “branch” proposal.

                          This is what I wrote in the #Policy Forum channel in our Discord which you already saw. _The KLIMA/USDC incentives are nice. Those paired with UBO & NBO are both smart & in their self interest. For the C3 airdrop/grant, I think that’s on par for Web3, rewarding your (biggest) users.

                          Not to forget we’re giving back to C3, funneling our community to their IDO/LBP, helping mod their Discord, and Partnerships (soon) shilling UBO/NBO via KI.

                          I’d like C3 to respond, since don’t think we should negotiate against ourselves or potentially sell Klima short. The other point to keep in mind is that Klima is sometimes accused of C3 favoritism, so my suggestions would mitigate that too._ (P.S. While I appreciate your guys’ feedback, normally the bridger replies, so I think C3 can speak for itself here too.)

                          I’m curious on @Sirob’s thought, since I agree with his point Klimates play/pay a uniquely critical role in ReFi as the buyer/bagholder of first and last resort. Unlike C3 or KLIMA, we can’t print new tokens and have to attract/deposit & hodl fresh capital to keep the flywheel expanding. I would have liked to see more recognition/reward and alignment on that, as our community is the one (by far) most taking long-term price risk to grow ReFi.

                          Again, I don’t think those terms were hard-balling anyone, but what the market was indicating our worth was (I would know from 6 months contributing in Partnerships). So I’d recommend a closer coordination / co-authorship between Policy and Partnerships on these new bonding KIPs to avoid inadvertently shortchanging KlimaDAO going forward.

                              P.S. While UBO/NBO’s criteria do appear to be of higher quality, don’t forget Toucan proposed to similarly raise their standards of BCT, and NCT isn’t fair from it (excepting GS which regularly insinuates disdain/rugging against us). And then there is GNT in the pipeline also based on N-GEO.

                              ReFi is a buyer’s market at the moment. That is objective, so KlimaDAO should be more rewarded for its risk-taking and let’s proceed accordingly. Pretty normal for sellers to sweeten their terms when competing on offering a large sale of their products/commodities, which is what’s really under consideration here.

                              Just so people are totally aware, keep in mind the dollar value our carbon bridge partners are getting when we endorse / open bonding for their assets.

                              For example, Moss bonded ~$150k worth of MCO2. We now have about $2.25M bonded into our treasury. So Moss got a “purchase order” (still ongoing) worth over $2m.

                              For BCT, we have nearly $40m worth in our treasury. All paid for by Klimates via the LBP and since then.

                              So for C3, they stand to gain millions or tens of millions in economic value. I think to get say a $100k marketing fee and $250-$500k bonding commitment from C3/Aither with a 1-2 year staking commitment is a great deal for them.

                              GolanTrevize

                              Hello Golan. We are very happy about this KIP. We would just want to note, we never pushed KlimaDAO to make a KIP to include UBO and NBO. We believe that our high quality carbon credits, tokenomics, and bridge would be enough in order to not resort to a marketing fee to ensure that we are aligned. Aither is our partner, but funding is separate. It is similar to KlimaDAO's relationship with Mark Cuban.

                              We believe this KIP helps everyone, and no one is getting the short end of the stick. KlimaDAO not bonding our carbon assets, while a disappointment, will not be a major roadblock to our goals. And similarly, we also believe that not bonding our carbon credits will not be the downfall of KlimaDAO.

                                  We would also note that 10% of a token supply is very significant. I would like to see examples of other protocols giving a significant amount of their supply, before claiming that it is on pair for web3. Moss has given a maximum of 10%, while that is our minimum. Toucan has given 0%.

                                  I would also like to emphasize the mechanics of KlimaDAO. KlimaDAO can utilized its treasury to influence the external value, via inverse bonds. A treasury of 17mm carbon tons is amazing, but you must account for the 4.5mm
                                  of Klima supply in liabilities. There is no free lunch here. Both Toucan and Moss success are now intertwined with KlimaDAO's success; if KlimaDAO fails, Moss and toucan will also feel a significant burden as well. Comparing it to an extended purchase order is inaccurate in my opinion.

                                  Laplace thanks for your answer. In my view, the few hundred thousand that C3 would compensate / invest in KlimaDAO with are (very) small compared and would be returned many times over from the economic/community value and (much higher) risk KlimaDAO is bringing to our appreciated partnership by bonding UBO/NBO. C3 may not have directly asked for bonding, but it was expected (if not implicit) following your (welcome) alliance request.

                                  Moss is not a minimum at 10%; they already airdropped additional governance tokens to MCO2 holders like KLIMA. And they have different tokenomics, not being Curve-style like C3 (I understand our Policy advised on collaboratively). As for the 10% C3 grant, of course that is applauded, and the first to do so in ReFi, but if you look across crypto, most projects reserve a high allocation for their users and community. So it follows that as KlimaDAO is/will be a large user and community member of C3’s network, we would commensurately earn C3 tokens.

                                  I note that originally C3 asked to be a branch of KlimaDAO (like Redacted for Olympus). I fear by letting off C3 from what the market has previously set as the terms for bonding just further entrenchs the view that Klima and C3 are the same (which I’ve had to rebut before, but now honestly I have some pause.)

                                  The partnership with Aither is a strategic one, where they are intimately/actively collaborating with C3, almost like a co-founder. That with Mark Cuban is as a notable passive financial investor, although he does try to be helpful now and then.

                                  I would ask that if other Klimates agree with my views (I understand already some do), I’d ask C3 reconsider to contribute to this KIP-21. You yourself for KIP-15 said that neither C3, nor KlimaDAO should approach our alliance with favorable bias.

                                  I really appreciate what C3 is doing; I just want to be sure KlimaDAO’s partnership is not being under-valued because of our close relationship, as objectively measured against market comparables.

                                    C3 has done us some major favors:

                                    • 10% C3 token to treasury
                                    • Paired its tokenized offsets against naked klima (vs wsklima or a stable), Klima does need to seed this liquidity now
                                    • Add C3 emissions to klima-usdc to bolster arguably our most important liquidity pool
                                    • Planning to add single staking of wsklima

                                    However C3 does get a good deal from this as well

                                    • Bootstrapped (100%?) interest from Klima community
                                    • Bonds drive demand aka arb opportunities for bridging more credits on-chain

                                    While I agree from the tokenomics/market design side of things C3 is absolutely killing it and perfectly aligned with Klima. However, it would be great to see what C3 has planned in terms of marketing ReFi in general and driving demand from sources other than Klima community. We have an issue now where ReFi active users is pretty stagnant. What else can C3 do to push fresh demand in our markets?

                                      IBuyShitCoins Adding onto this - We have a demand issue right now. Klima is a large source of demand, but that demand is limited by our total bonding emissions. Any demand we drive towards UBO/NBO is stealing demand from other assets that are backing our treasury. I'm 100% in favor of diversifying our treasury, but we must keep in mind the total market value of our treasury assets is majorly tied to BCT price. Its a rock and a hard place, how to keep demand for BCT to support our treasury value while diverting bonding emissions to other offsets to diversify the treasury.

                                        Excellent long-term strategy. I appreciate and favor

                                        Write a Reply...