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