Cujo

  • 16 Aug
  • Joined Nov 28, 2021
  • Hi AndrewSaul, thank you for your comments and questions.

    Re. conferences and events, you raise a great point, and we've had several conversations internally about how much we should be allocating toward events and conferences, and how we can track their success. Where we have landed is that in order to generate activity across both sides of the marketplace on our infrastructure, we need to build trust and develop relationships. The VCM is an industry entirely built on trust and relationships. When thinking about our relationships with registries, developers, traders and retailers, the ROI of attending a conference is very hard to assess - though it is essential to our success.

    On the other hand, as we think about commercialization activities, the focus over the past six months has been on three main areas:

    • Speaking with customers to de-risk product and marketing decisions (e.g. our Web2 API)
    • Building real-world integration use cases (e.g. SushiSwap) to showcase the solution and its benefits
    • Educate the market on these use cases and how companies can leverage it to their advantage

    Attending conferences with the goal of finding potential users of our technology does have ROI, and we are now hitting a point where we are going beyond POCs to real B2B sales deals. The sales cycle in our industry is typically long, at least with respect to an integration. This means that meeting decision-makers in-person at these events can often be a really important part of building the relationship and closing the deal.

    Re. crypto versus VCM conferences, the team had a conversation last night about this topic in fact, and we are going to be prioritizing attendance at the largest commercial crypto conferences going forward, including Consensus (which we were at earlier in the year) and TOKEN2049, amongst others. This will be in addition to some of the larger carbon market / environmental conferences and events, e.g. the S&P Global Carbon Markets Conference. It is important to remember that the market opportunity in the broader VCM is ~ 1,000x larger than the current size of the Digital Carbon Market. However, we also recognize that being a DeFi project and our relationships with other builders in the space is a key capability that we'll continue to leverage going forward. Staying close to the latest developments in DeFi, as well as exploring opportunities to partner with others in the ecosystem (e.g. Polygon and others) will certainly continue going forward.

    Of course, we would always welcome any warm introductions you could provide with contacts in your network from other projects in Web3/DeFi.

    Re. our plans for tapping into Web3/DeFi and plans for broader adoption of sKLIMA, I will defer to @Cujo or @MarcusAurelius on the protocol / tokenomics side to explain their thinking.

  • @Cujo
    I agree with the objections by @SVNatK-Lo and @andybash12 . The numbers in the table do not seem to make sense. Providing 50k KLIMA to retirement bonds should amount to 58k = 50k x 0.7 x 1.66 BCT being burned. At the same time, 50k x 0.7 = 35k KLIMA would be burned and 15k KLIMA kept by the DAO as the fee.

    The numbers in the table suggest that the 50k KLIMA lead to 83k BCT being burned. Hence, the bond-retirer (or "customer") gets BCT offsets/retirements with no fee at all. At the same time, not burning the whole 50k KLIMA, but keeping 15k alive seems to lead to undue inflation. If this is indeed the intended model, then a different word than "fee" should be used.

    Is it possible to receive a better insight into how the policy team performed the modeling, testing and parameter evaluation for this concept?

    Also, on a different note, is it planned to undergo an audit with the new functionality or what is the opinion by the policy team here?

    • Cujo replied to this.
    • 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).

      • @Cujo What change in operation has Policy team made to ensure such a mistake is not made and maybe proactively monitored in order to secure the stability of the economics in this. Because this "bug" mistake is SUPER crucial for liquidity.

        Next question is how will the outcome of this vote affect the runway - do you have calculation to share for each scenario?


        With that said im voting FOR as its the only right thing to do for the project... its beautiful how we can openly point at a problem and view it collaterally and share our vulnerability and hence be judged by the actions we take to improve and resolve. :