Hi Aragon!
Our team over at Commonwealth Labs has drafted a proposal that would allow Aragon to participate in the launch of our new WASM-runtime, on-chain governed network Edgeware. Besides strong value and mission alignment, we’d love to share more about why this makes sense for Aragon to consider - if you’re interested, check our draft -we’ll get the AMA scheduled soon too!
Thom
Hello, thank you for your proposal. When do you expect the audit of the Lockdrop contract to be complete? I cannot support sending so much of our ETH to a contract that hasn’t even been audited yet.
Hi Anteater! Thanks for jumping into the discussion. I’m gonna throw the answers into FAQ format here for easy reading and to incorporate Qs from Aragon.chat
When will the audit of the lockdrop contract be completed?
Good news is that the audit from Quantstamp is complete, and we just need to fix up one small thing in the contract language to shore up best-practices and get our updated document showing no issues. We’ll upload that and post it here (and basically shout it from every mountaintop 
) We’re hoping to have this public by Thursday evening.
When will the snapshot of the token addresses be taken?
From @abkc on the #governance channel of aragon.chat
The snapshot happens at the end of the contribution period, which lasts two weeks and which begins June 1, so Saturday June 15th is our expected snapshot date.
From the proposal:
Timelock 40,000 ETH for 3-months in the Edgeware Lockdrop.
Potentially signal the remainder of the Aragon treasury.
I think given the role of the association in treasury management, as well as the relatively little time to iterate on the numbers before the submission deadline, I would recommend rephrasing this to be an “approval to lock up to 40k ETH for up to 3 months” but leave the exact amount up to the discretion of the AA.
By framing it this way, as an ANT holder I can approve of the proposal because I support the idea without having to evaluate whether a specific amount is prudent given the associated smart contract and time/volatility risk associated with the proposal.
Very useful suggestion - I’ve updated the language to reflect that.
“A proposal to approve the timelocking of funds from the Aragon multisig to an Aragon Association-controlled lockdrop contract for the purpose of participating in the Edgeware network launch, with method and amounts to be determined by the Aragon Association.”
Great news - the lockdrop audit is complete with zero issues in the current contract.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eg54_YToVuWGNa2R9KD_0eLg19y2h47d/view?usp=sharing
I wanted to take a bit more space to respond to Jake’s concerns - which are several.
For incredibly low risk, Aragon gets a few things:
Depending on your valuation model of governance-rights conferring tokens, I would argue that increasing the power that Aragon has over multiple platforms that it might deploy to, increases the value of ANT.
My next thought on this concern is that this framing seems fairly zero-sum game, and I believe that the lockdrop participation is rather a mutualist action. Both can increase in value, so I hope that the coincidence of EDG tokens increasing in value wouldn’t prevent Aragon from participating if it would benefit. That said, it isn’t clear that Aragon being allocated EDG in our lockdrop process improves EDG’s value, in this sense, I feel that most of the benefits of participating flow to Aragon.
Lastly, lockdrop participation can involve signaling, where EDG tokens are allocated without ‘locking,’ and the language of our proposal reflects the ability for the Aragon Association to explore a mix of locking (Up to 40k ETH) and signaling - with practically zero-cost for the latter behavior to Aragon. I would encourage a Yes vote on AGP-35 because it enables that zero-cost, zero-lock participation, but also locking should the Association determine to do so. Most importantly, AGP-35 allows the Association to continue to research and discuss the action further.
I don’t fully follow this point - it seems to offer a false dichotomy between “Must support all or none,” and I imagine that should other projects write proposals for Aragon involvement, they will have different merits and for instance, token distribution processes, that will warrant case-by-case discrimination.
We are asking to be judged on the merits we offer - which include Substrate development efforts and modules (which Aragon is already aligned to,) and a cheaper, faster, (and through Polkadot,) interoperable and scalable smart contract platform that Aragon could theoretically deploy to one day. Also, the WASM runtime is great - devs can write in any language that compiles. That inclusivity of platform is a big win in our eyes.
Overall, we feel that: access to a soon-to-launch smart contract platform with these immense benefits, governance rights over that network, and preexisting technological and value alignments are well-worth continuing the conversation since the cost of participation is arguably lower than any other proposal extant on the AGP Finance track.
We’re close to the 50% mark for this AGP - would love to answer any questions or concerns about this proposal if you’re on the fence.
The biggest clarification I’d like to make is that this proposal also allows for signaling - which means no lock-up whatsoever, but the treasury is still awarded EDG. This route would allow zero risk whatsoever, financial or opportunity-cost to the treasury.
I’d love to hear from No votes on what their concerns are, and to keep the discussion going. : )