[Draft][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Paparuda

ARCHIVED & OLD Missions Governance Fund: Phase 1
21

I have more thoughts and questions, but I didn’t want to extend myself without hearing some feedback

I understand they try to unify art, science, and water and create some tokenized economy around it. As far as I could research there are some public artists and researchers on the team and as advisors (someone else should look into it and verify). I think value can be created by people buying NFT from known artists and knowing there are some real social impact contributions. This sounds like a charity selling art to fund public goods. But, here’s where crypto must do its magic and be more open so it can be a game-changer. How? We need to figure it out. My feeling is by being open to other artists and scientists to participate, and by allowing a community like OP could be the curators who control that all the agents are acting fairly. Not easy at all, that’s why we are here I think.

I have my doubts about that too and I wanted to ask about it

1 Like
22

@alexczet ask on Discord about my RAIN token Suggestion:
I am not a fan of the idea that every token must have liquidity in a pool (I’m sure some people disagree), but especially I wouldn’t do that from the beginning (that creates vulnerabilities). So my suggestion was that the RAIN token doesn’t have to have a liquidity pool to start. Imagine this: RAIN is an ERC-20 token, that is minted when anyone makes rain by “emptying a Cloud” when doing that the calculated value on the OP token goes into the treasure. If someone wants to sell a RAIN token, they won’t do it on the market, but burn it first and receive the OP value and then go and sell the OP if they want to liquid its investment.
People are free to create liquidity for RAIN if they want to, and market value would be dependent on the OP value you can get by burning plus the value of belonging to the Paparuda DAO, this would be lost if you burn it.

1 Like
23

Thanks a lot @TheDoctor and @OPUser for your feedback. This is extremely valuable.
Despite having worked in the field for about two years, we are not as well versed in tokenomics as I’m sure people in this public space are, so excuse some elements of ignorance, but I will try to answer as precisely as possible.

1/Regarding the weakness of the tokenomics, for us the idea is less to create a token that can become purely a store of value, but to create, as much as possible, a sort of circular economy around the PaparuDAO. Having the RAIN token as an asset that can, with success, expand our ability to fund projects, but also creates a value incentive around the NFTs that has multiple outcomes (access to DAO - resale - conversion to RAIN)
2/Regarding the Funds location, I tried to explain in a different post how we hope to benefit the OP ecosystem. If the project is 100% built on OP (NFTs are minted on OP, Token is minted on OP, sales are done in OP etc) we are hopefully creating value beyond the short term financial value for the blockchain, but I will skip this as you provide your own suggestions, which are extremely useful.

Suggestion 1 : My lack of depth in DeFi knowledge is maybe the problem here, but without liquidity, how does on sell the token? If you bought an NFT, decided to make it RAIN and then want to swap your RAIN for ETH or USDC, how would you do it without liquidity pools?
However, if what you are suggesting is that we can mint on OP and thus OP acts as the liquidity, then that’s problem solved IMHO.
(PS : I just saw your answer below about the burning mechanism as I was typing this)
And yes, Clouds would be minted on OP, sold in OP.
Finally, yes, open sourcing everything is key. We do mention at the end of the WP that if this works, this model could be applied to many other intangible or tangible public goods. That is our ultimate end goal.

To @OPUser , regarding value, again, if monetary value is what is expected, then the value could be purely in having the entire project function within the OP ecosystem, but we are NOT planning on making “profits” for example. All the money generated has to go to fund the team, fund proposals and maintain the overall project. We are open to suggestions here of course.

To @TheDoctor , yes, our current core team is made of
Maxime Berthou, Nicolas Wierinck and myself. Advisory board is currently made of Fabienne Quilleré-Majzoub , Christelle Barthe, Mathieu Simonet and we are hoping to add a water management expert, Dirk Halet

And to @OPUser and @TheDoctor the problem with platforms like the ones you mention is that they don’t really help us with a fundamental aspect of this project.
What we are trying to do is to use the fundamental levers, incentive structures and verticals of Web3 (NFTs, DAOs, Tokens) to build a parallel economy that exists for the simple purpose of advancing a cause. The only way we can do this is with the support of an ecosystem of experts, thinkers, supporters, and advisors. For example, we haven’t started writing our governance ideas for the DAO yet, and that will be something that hopefully sets an example as to how other DAOs interested in doing similar things can operate. If the OP ecosystem supports us, and brings us knowledge, expertise and advice, this process will be of use to more than just us. We don’t want to just take some grant money and then go hide in a corner to build, we hope to build together.

I hope this helps shed some light, I’m standing by to provide any further clarity

1 Like
24

We are in a complex and unexplored world and we all need to be humble and open mining. Tokenomics is a new thing and we need to learn from all mistakes and problems we are aware of and keep exploring ideas and experimenting.

I get the idea, but we have learned from previous projects that you can imagine an economy expend money in developing a complex structure, marketing etc. Then reality is: market is down so you sell cheap to pay invoices , besides that you need to spend more money to defend your token price against selling pressure and finally people don’t act as you expected.

I would take a different approach. You can mint NFT Clouds, but you don’t need a new platform to start, you can do it on the Quix app. to use open sourced code, some DAO platform, and so on…
If you save money there you can spend it on the important stuff: promoting research, art, funding water related projects. For instance the DAO finds a place were they’re having water supply problems and techs study and determinate that you can buy a new water pump and install it. You show that this model can work, solve the problems you find and readapt… You can use you’re experience to advice on other projects, etc. There’s no better marketing than that.

As I said: we need to change the paradigm. We need to understand that in this model collaborate is better than compite. But we need to stop doing the same we do in old world.

That’s what I mean, you don’t need to create all that from scrach: there are some DAOs working on it that can teach us so much about it. So focus in your strengths and listen to the community about the other stuff.

1 Like
25

Thanks @TheDoctor

I don’t think working on an existing NFT platform would work for us. One thing that has maybe gotten lost in this conversation is that this is an art project. Finding ourselves on a platform with PFPs and Collectibles would not really help us create a clear message. Having a custom website where all the elements around the cloud NFT can be clearly communicated, and other elements can be added over time is critical for us to be able to distinguish ourselves, and have a clear art direction and voice.
Definitely see your point on everything else.

Thanks again

2 Likes
26

Sure, makes sense… in that matter, you are the expert. It was just a brainstorming of ideas. I’ll work on the OP economics integration, cause I really want to see more projects like yours here. Let’s hope you can get some more feedback and work in reformulate your proposal in a way OP collective feels that alignment with OP values.

Best wishes

27

One things that has been interesting about this process is the amount of feedback we have received, and I’m grateful for all those who took the time to read through the WP and give us comments.

There is one thing I’m a bit unclear on : we have received the question multiple times about “How does this create value for the OP ecosystem?”

Maybe one thing to clarify is if these grants are for “public goods” or for “The OP ecosystem growth”. There might be a bit of a contradiction to ask projects such as ours to receive funds in exchange for a commitment to help the OP ecoystem vs help a larger subset of humanity.

Maybe it is a vocabulary thing, but in my mind that kind of commitment is more of an investment rather than a grant? In other words, a grant sounds more like “we think you are doing something valuable and please keep on doing it” and an investment sounds like “we like what you are doing, but we need ROI, so please make sure you integrate that in your mission”

This is not a criticism of the grant concept, more of a question around how proposals should be thought of and developed, and I personally walked in here very unschooled, so I’m just sharing what I absorbed from this process as a bit of feedback, hopefully not something to be perceived as a negative.

Thanks

2 Likes
28

Here is the explanation from the docs:

The purpose of the Governance Fund is to incentivize sustainable growth of projects and communities in the Optimism ecosystem. This does not mean that all grants must be incentive programs. The Token House is welcome to consider any and all proposals which would drive growth or address a gap in the Optimism ecosystem, including public goods projects.
Governance funds should come with an expectation of growth-related deliverables. It is not the intended purpose of the governance fund to retroactively fund public goods without an expectation of future work. There is a distinct OP allocation dedicated to this, which will be distributed via the Citizens’ House at a later date.

More how how we think about public goods here: Retroactive Public Goods Funding. Note: The Optimism team has long been… | by Optimism | Optimism PBC Blog | Medium

5 Likes
29

Hello mate, may I advise you wait till when Optimism Citizens’ House is constituted, then you can apply for funding; as I believe your project falls under Public Goods

The governance fund is set up for a different purpose thus the reason folks were asking you for the benefit to the ecosystem.

Take your time to read through this What is the Optimism Collective? | Optimism Docs

2 Likes
30

I don’t know the artist or the scholars on this project, but I think it’s a waste of talent. We need no-coiners in here, not just tech or finance people.
In this particular project, some prestigious artists could’ve created value by selling their NFT to pay scholars and techs solving real-life problems.
I get the difficulty of participating in governance and how busy everyone is. I’ll make a proposal and wait for your feedback

1 Like