The funding dapp Luke refers to is not released and it would not be reasonable to wait that long for further funding (you want to always have treasury in advance to face unforeseen events and not have to take bad deals or sell tokens in bad circonstances).
Moreover there is a convenience (people are less likely to have ANT than ETH/DAI) and liquidity cost (it’s easier to pay people in ETH/DAI compared to having to liquidate ANT positions to pay people) to accept specific tokens compared to widely used ones.
This cost may be low compared to the benefit of collaboration but it should not be paid unilaterally.
Flock and nest members receive funding from Aragon. So they are incentivized to participate in Aragon governance.
It is unreasonable to ask for Kleros to do it unilaterally. As if no agreement are made, Aragon would be a competitor (at least on DAO constitution / proposal agreements), so it would not make sense to dedicate time to the better functioning of a competitor.
If this proposal (or any other fair counter proposal incentivized parties to work together) pass, Kleros would also have a stake in the Aragon network and then it would make sense to pay more attention to Aragon governance.
Yeah and this is the point of this proposal to create collaboration and mutual alignment.
Using ANT and DAI as collateral would not require the project to maintain this treasury allocation, it would be a self balancing mechanism much like set protocol. So while there would be a one time strategic decision to hold some percentage of the reserves in ANT, it would not be an ongoing decision.
From a fundraising perspective there is definitely a strategic decision in allocating a larger percentage of the reserves in ANT versus DAI. With pure DAI you minimized volatility risks associated with ANT(or another volatile asset), but you also give up the upside and alignment. You also are holding the projects reserves in a non-productive asset, whereas with ANT you would be able to use that to participate in the AGP process and influence resource allocation from Aragon’s treasury.
I’m not suggesting that there is not a trade-off space there, just that I think that strategically it makes sense for Kleros/PNK holders to consider and explore that option.
If the primary concern here is simply timing, I’m not sure how different the timeline would actually be relative to this AGP proposal passing and some sort of deal being negotiated…
Users can fund in DAI and never use ANT, the collateral reserve pools are self balancing due to arbitrage. We expect that to be the case in general, most people will typically interact with the DAI curve for both contributing and for managing the tap allocation, and arbitrage bots will interact with the other curve to maintain the proper balance.
I was comparing to funding by further sale because you compared it to further sale.
But yeah, there could be some classic sale first followed a bonded curve funding later one.
When do you plan to release a live version of it?
Yeah, but that means that some part of the funding is lost due to arbitrage. That may not be a high cost, so it can be worth it if there is bilateral collaboration.
Are you currently conducting a further sale? Or are you making this AGP proposal first, and then evaluating options based on the outcome? My assumption is that it is more the later, so I based the timeline comparison on that.
We are currently doing user testing and iteration on Rinkeby, as well as preparing documentation. The mainnet launch will depend somewhat on the user feedback that we get during this stage, but the contract code has been audited already and we are primarily working on improving front-end interactions and flows.
The value created by arbitrageurs is dependent on trading activity, it shouldn’t impact the project significantly. It is more a transfer from users who prefer the convenience of one trading pair over another, similar to what happens when a token trades on multiple exchanges with multiple trading pairs.
The former is correct, to be secure, multiple potential source of funding should be pursed at the same time (as we say “don’t put all your eggs in one basket”). If it were to become almost sure that we’ll have funding through this proposal, we could delay other efforts, but we are not at this point yet. Also note that the proposal may just lead to funding as low as just building proposal agreements.
Yeah for sure, if we purse this way, I’ll contact @cemfdagdelen or @DanielS to do that. We would also do an internal audit + bounties for the code.
It would definitely reduce funding as the amount indirectly lost by a user due to arbitrage is an amount which does not result in funding. Yeah, I agree it may not be significant.
The first approach was to use Aragon. And it lead to Aragon One planning to fork/copy Kleros to put a ANT derivative.
I’m very well for collaboration, but it should go both ways and cannot simply be “Get some ANT so you can influence the results”. As this has a cost due to depreciation of ANT.
Why ANT could depreciate if nothing is done
Without usecases, ANT is also likely to drop further. For now, my understanding of ANT utility is:
Serves as a way to influence fund allocation. Since funds are spent over time, this utility should go toward 0.
Serves to generate tokens with their own utility on cryptosystems Aragon forks/copies.
On 1., even without the funds running out at some point, the utility seems quite low as either:
The ANT holders vote for what is best for the Aragon network.
Some ANT holders manages to swing votes to what is best for them (compared to the network) with their ANT.
So 1. can only provide temporary value assuming a malfunction of the system.
Beside the ethics of 2. which has already been discussed (someone may open a new thread on it), it seems unlikely for forks/copies to gather significant value compared to the original systems.
So in the current way things are going, I expect ANT to continue falling further and it does not seem wise to unilaterally keep ANT reserves.
Why I think ANT could appreciate with another direction
Aragon managed to create good communication and tooling for projects relying on DAOs. This could lead to network effects and save cost/time to projects in the DAO/DAO servicing space.
This infrastructure cannot directly lead to extra ANT value, but it can provide values to those other projects starting with tools and a network.
The way to give ANT value would then be to spark/incubate/partially acquire projects in the DAO/DAO servicing space. They could be independent teams or made from flock teams.
Projects could give all or part of their tokens to ANT holders (the bonded curve way for example). Projects without tokens but with some sort of revenue could be controlled by the ANT DAO.
No sunk costs
It may actually make sense to first focus on infrastructure and then try to exploit it. The focus may not be on exploitation as of now but I think it should at least be planed so people know how ANT is supposed to be valuable.
Why not use something like EOS does with its token. In order to use the network u have to stake ANT. If you don’t want to use the Aragon service anymore you can sell your ANT. By staking ANT you get free resources the more u stake the more resources you get. I think this makes sense. But in order to work properly Aragon need its own Blockchain like EOS has.
I think it makes sense to create a specific purpose blockchain. ethereum is good for everything and nothing. the future i thing is that its all about security and what dapp needs which kind of security. some application in the dapp needs higher security some lower. in order to make the app more efficient those parameters has to be calculated for each dapp and dapps within the dapp. i think to create a own blockchain can open up more token economic models which can benefit the product and the ANT holders. Also with your own blockchain you can connect more efficiently to other blockchains to enable those security choices for your dapp and under dapps. i see aragon as an enbaler for DAOs to live on any blockchain. aragon is the place to build your DAO / DAPP with the most choices. The Aragon Chain lets you all do this because its connected to all those chains. it makes it super easy. sure you can fork everything its open source but you can’t fork the community. this is a movement and its all about the people.
Forking would be significantly easier compared to doing some interchain communication.
DAOs do not necessarily depends of network effects with other DAOs. So community would not be something worth getting all those technical difficulty and have to use a specific coin while you could use a more convenient one.
Yes interchain communication is difficult but projects like cosmos are doing this. I think it makes lots of sense to be as interconnected as possible with a high tps as possible. so once in such a interchain network its easier to choose the security each dapp wants. also because its so easy to fork aragon has to make sure people stay. so high priority should be communication in order to know what the people want and discuss ideas openly and as easy as possible. I see the staking as a Membership fee you pay and then get a level1 Membership , 2, 3 etc. depends what services you need. people who just want to use the service(s) once they have to pay ANT. Aragon connects DAPPs so DAPPs can support each other use services from each other etc. A DAPP can for example connect with another DAPP service and each time the DAPP use the service they purchase a token (very small amount) from the DAPP they use so all DAPPs get interconnected and DAPPs don’t have to build the same stuff over and over again. This will be a curating market for DAPPs so the best DAPP wins.
Is there still tensions between Kleros and Aragon regarding the Court or is it now solved? I just thought about again because i saw Kleros Token rising and was wondering. I think similar to oracles it’s more secure for project two be able to relay on more the 1 oracle solution this makes the oracle space more secure. I also think if a project forks another project then this gives credit to the forked project and only underline the strength of this project, especially if a good reputed project forks it. On top if it both projects can benefit from the mistakes and solutions they both do. Instead of trying to link those projects / communities together I think its important to have independent solutions. I think project will secure their contracts / agreements with multiple courts in the future. What are the main differences / USP between Aragon Court and Kleros ?