Revised Proposal of the Syndicate Hub (Updated)

1

Proposal-

Project Syndicate: The Flywheel of the Comdex Ecosystem

Introduction-

Project Syndicate is a DAO/Protocol hybrid which incorporates hidden hand and Pirex alternatives to bootstrap users to the Comdex ecosystem via bribes and gauges. (link: https://redacted.finance/)

The IBC has lacked infrastructure for the entirety of the bull run, other than inflationary rewards the IBC has struggled to outperform and have stickiness and lindyness. Project Syndicate aims to solve that problem and help bring the ecosystem as a whole together so we can all work toward a decentralized future.

Here’s the basic idea on how it will work and rollout,

Project Syndicate will have 3 phases,

Phase 1: Expected Launch (Q2 2023) will be building the bribe market on top of the Harbor/Cswap protocol like hidden hand with voting gauges for locked Ve-Harbor and bribing cSwap pools for emissions.

Phase 2 Expected Launch (Q3 2023), will incorporate locked liquid Ve-harbor positions like Pirex’s version of pCVX giving users liquidity on their locked positions.

Phase 3: Expected Launch (Q4 2023 or Q1 2024), will be the launch of Syndicate synthetic assets (sAssets example sHarbor) and the Dao fee sharing model of all Syndicate positions giving shareholders voting rights on potential new fee/revenue generating ideas/projects, and decisions on electing council officials like Synthetix.

What’s Needed from Comdex: We have 3 team members currently and need engineers (front end, backend and designer), we have community manager, and director of operations already covered. As well as access to the engineers within other departments such as Harbor, Cswap, and new Comdex ecosystem projects to be on the same page. Also, in the future we ask for allocation of new builders to help

Deliverables & Timeline- By when Devnet, Mainnet and any other things relevant can be started and deployed. We can provide 1 frontend engineer, 1 backend engineer and 1 designer

The Benefits if Proposal is Approved:

Directly to the ecosystem:

We will bring liquidity, users, and active participation in the Comdex ecosystem, which has been lacking in the past (false accusations of wash trading may have caused this along with market conditions). Our goal is to bring faith back into users and participants and make the experience beneficial to all parties involved. The only losers in this scenario are those who don’t cooperate and have a synergistic vision.

Advantages: Incentivizes users to lock tokens (reduced sell pressure) and charge a small basis point fee of rewards/bribes for the service that is shared to the platform (goes to the protocol & Comdex apps).

Disadvantages: Allows for the dominance of protocols/projects to dominate voting weights, which can be seen as “vote centralization.”

Benefits to users of the systems:

Users will be able to collect weekly rewards for bribes and be incentivized for using the protocol in early stages (testnet).
Users in the future will govern the treasury decisions to finance future ventures and revenues for Syndicate DAO.
Users will be able to swap out of illiquid locked positions in the future which have not been accessible in the past, giving them instant liquidity.
Flywheel effect of all the Comdex apps working together to give users the most complete experience of a working financial ecosystem.

Benefits to Syndicate:

Revenues from the bribes goes to the platform taking a fee (yet to be determined) from the bribes and directly minted into the DAO treasury for later use cases (will be defined in the white paper).
Syndicate DAO will also be a major player in the Comdex and IBC ecosystem not only as a vote broker but also as DAO to be able to shape the future of Comdex applications.
Additionally, the benefit of closely working and advising new projects to incorporate syndicate post or pre-launch so the platform can be built on top of the new system (if applicable)

Marketing Goals/Efforts:

We will build a following with a long enough runway before anticipated launch in order to build steam behind the project while simultaneously educating the community on why, how, and when they will need our protocol. Providing a usable product to the IBC, where we continue to lack.

We will make use of AMAs, collaborations with IBC influencers/spaces, Discord community with giveaways revolving around engagement farming (strong technique used to market to larger masses of targeted audiences), and develop a strong branding once we nail down naming and logo design. Most communication relating to marketing will take place on Twitter as it is the most used and most useful platform for IBC protocols and community.

Allocation:

Proposed Long-term Compensation (300k CMDX tokens for grants)
15% vested on Testnet
25% vested on Mainnet with 100k bribes + marketing support
60% vested quarterly (i.e.15% each quarter) for 1 year which starts once the 100k bribe milestone is achieved

  • Some of the allocation will go into incentivized testnet, as well as using the system when mainnet is launched amounts are not yet determined.

As mentioned above, we have talked with many for plans of future token allocation. We believe that we will ask for 300k in grants to be able to pay an outside developer for his time and effort for the front end. After the grants are sent to the syndicate we will pay the developer for his time and energy and look to build a team that is perpetual and no longer rely on community funding.

So far we have decided that 300k is fair for the product that we are building especially for only Comdex applications and we continue to serve only the Comdex applications until we get the flywheel running.

The grants will be used as followed:

15% will unlock at testnet completion we intend to keep these tokens to incentivise usage of the platform

25%. Will be vested over on mainnet with the completion of 100k bribes we intend to sell some of these tokens around 40% to make the outside builder whole and stake the other 60%.

60% vesting quarterly will either be leveraged or staked and will be tentative either reinvested back into the platform via incentives or will be extracted via money market to access the equity of these tokens without selling.

For operational purposes we are strongly committed to the community and the Comdex ecosystem. All in all, we are excited to get the flywheel running.

Side Notes/Thoughts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: THERE WILL NOT BE ANY TOKEN AT LAUNCH UNTIL THE PRODUCT IN V2 IS BUILT. THIS DECISION IS FIRM UNTIL OTHERWISE NOTED.

Reason behind this has been decided due to multiple failed launches of hype instead of fundamentals and a working product (Rebus etc.). The goal is to bring more users to the ecosystem as a whole not for an airdrop or token hype.

Thank you,

Mike & Syndicate Team

Contacts: Twitter: @SyndicateMike , @TheSyndicateHub, @Defijordy

I will try to answer questions and concerns on forums, but twitter is the best way to reach me. I encourage the feedback of the community. Also, please check out my recent tweets in regards to modern form governance and token structure which Syndicate looks to change.

1 Like
2

Linking the previous discussion:

I am still not so sure we should want bribing votes tbh… we need to aim for more decentralisation, not to a scenario where the biggest wallets decide the direction.
And don’t claim that the bribes will put power back into the hands of individuals; having people get paid for voting a certain way will only make them vote to get the max reward for their vote. And that is not necessarily good for the project / ecosystem.

3

Leonoors, I understand your point. Decentralization has a cost, must voting weights will only go towards certain assets if there is not bribes/vote renting. It actually does the opposite where protocols will compete on what receives incentives and what doesn’t, as of right now its basically only who holds to most veHarbor rather than users controlling the voting power/weight. Hope that helps explain it better, bribe is a not a good word for it because its basically vote renting on a weekly basis. Its been called vote incentives, bribes, vote renting, etc. We just chose bribes because we like the terminology because that’s essentially what it is. Basically what happens in governance which people don’t see vote centralization on the hub, osmosis, juno network and others that have had props swayed by huge votes that doesn’t benefit users. Syndicate will always act in the best interest of its users not the validators

Also, as of right now other than external incentives from LPs which most ppl in there don’t understand IL there’s nothing that directly benefits users. There is small fee which helps us operate which will eventually fade and tamper once we get off they ground, other than that it directly benefits users who are not being compensated for their voting power. You are entitled to your own opinion but I think its worth giving us a shot!

4

Hi,

I am having a bit of trouble understanding your proposal (it’s most likely my fault). But I find that your proposal is a bit premature (so that I can understand things).
I think we should wait for the Harbor token to be listed and for its use (without intermediaries) to be concrete before you propose your services as an intermediary.

I created a thread, if you want to give us your less formal view, feel free to explain things to me in a simple way as I am a mathematician = who only understands simple things).
Thank you.
oo

1 Like
5

Hi Or7ando, as a mathematician here is how i would explain it. Votes as of right now have zero value other than directing votes. Our platform gives those votes monetary value for person to protocol transaction of renting those votes. Say one veHarbor = 0.01 Usd in incentives per vote to a specific asset. if you have 1000 Voting power based in veHarbor you’re able to collect 10 dollars based on your VP on a weekly basis. Does that answer your question?

6

It sure does sounds interesting how it can work, but I’m seriously “scared” about how big projects can just buy their votes this way. We have seen already what (empty) promises on airdrops, giveaways and all kind of other nonsense has done to the validator rankings. Where people blindly chase APRs, neglecting if it is in the best interest of the project or not.

And I am a bit afraid that you are truly intending to do what is best for the users, that I sincerely believe. But it will allow a possibility where rich projects simply buy their votes, instead of doing proper work on creating something worth the effort. And “poor” projects are left searching for the scraps.

Is there a method where we can do a boxed test? Where within boundaries we just see what happens?

3 Likes
7

It will be a good test, as of right now there is no liquidity blackhole for governance and vote rents are going to drive liquidity it will be more decentralized in the future. If we try to decentralize it from the beginning it will fail, the poor projects that dont pay for votes will fail. Thats part of the business, good tech takes time to build, such as osmosis. It has worked on L1 ETH, we have no benefits directly for users on the IBC the governance cabal has taken it over. Our goal is to put the power back in the hand of the people and those who have invested interest other than short term monetary. I understand your concern, which why I listed it, but I believe over time you have to give us a shot. We truly are long term players, 10-15 year vison on what this space can truly be.

8

I understand how this can upset people, but there’s fantasy and reality. We need to separate the two, its hard to push and shove builders on what the community wants (which is sometimes is construed) but we have to try and innovate or we as an ecosystem will wither away as new ones emerge. I’m not saying you are, you raise good questions and are very active in the community which I appreciate. Just give us a shot!

9

“Hi,
I think your proposition is okay. What you’re saying about bringing value to a vote makes sense. Just looking at the percentage of votes for the moment on the Harbor protocol, the quorum is set at 10% and we currently have only 3% voting. In my opinion, a quorum of 10% is really dangerous (Harbor is not a toy, it’s gouvern CMST : it’s a stable coin and it’s dangerous to have only 10% of voters for the quorum !!!). Can you help us ? I mean, how can we increase participation in voting and (quickly reset the quorum to 60%… this is the critical point for me … I DO NOT WANT A QUORUM of 10% for managing a stable coin!!! We must protect ourselves.”

2 Likes
10

The stable is opensource, CDPs are controlled by inflows and outflows. It wont effect the mechanisms on the CDP only regards to emissions for harbor and cSwap

11

I think what can evolve eventually will be a trusted governance dao or council that will work with devs and the community to find middle ground

12

the poor projects that dont pay for votes will fail

This part scares me a bit. So you are saying that high quality projects which don’t have an excessive funding will fail? And crappy projects which might have tons of funding will succeed because they are able to bribe votes?

That is exactly the reason why I am against being able to pay for your votes. Crypto was meant to change the world, not make another copy of it where money rules.

At this point in time I am seriously still not convinced… maybe it would be good to create a test with one or two proposals for Harbor like @0r7ando mentions. Convince me that it makes sense.

1 Like
13

Its successful on Ethereum, the goal is not to appease everyone. I do appreciate the feedback, but what you ask is already possible via Veharbor anyways without using an external voting mechanism. The goal is to bring value to Veharbor holders and the Comdex ecosystem every system has a potential for a monopoly. If you disagree, please I encourage you to vote as you want, and don’t lose your core values that you believe in. But until I see what your relaying work, I will continue building upon the principals that have already been invented

1 Like
14

It might be that it is already possible, but why not prove that it works with some proposals on Harbor?
That way it becomes clear for everyone if the concept brings what it is intended to bring.

We currently have an issue with governance participation on Harbor. So, it is a perfect testing ground if paying for votes works. That way we have 2 benefits at once. You can prove the concept works, we have a higher participation in Harbor governance.

1 Like
15

This will directly benefit Harbor governance thats the point of the project which i was trying to explain

16

I know. But my question is if it is possible to create a Proof-of-Concept without building the actual tool already.

By having a proof it makes it easier to get the funding :slight_smile:

1 Like
17

Agreed, I will try. Let me talk amongst the team

1 Like