i am happy to see how they going to allocate 4.500 man days on this project. But i doube that they will deliver a more detailed.
For a request of project i expect the applying company to deliver more detail. Especially if it comes to deliverables and payments.
I just listened to the call and sorry, that all was not convincing. No concrete commitments, no words about the Team power allocated to this project…
What i toke away is:
we get a half product which we don’t have owner ship of
we don’t have a clue what we do next - but we take the money
we wanne have a close relationship with neutron, but have no clue how this should look like
we going to sell Neutron - but not much only some… we take care…
To be honest, in the real world you even would not get an invitation to RFI round…
If i as a contractor would deliver such a pitch to my clients, they would show me
immediately the door…
Sorry for being such a direct person and don’t take it personal, but i still think, that a pitch for 4.5m$ deserves a bit more than this…
I just tried to check about Timewave Labs. They are a startup, that might not be a issue. But i would have expected that they have a website, where you can read about the team, experience, CVs, other team members etc. also the Twitter site does not give any more information.
It seems to me that they are not ready to run such a project. I doub that they have currently a setup in place and that they also not have a team (see above 20 pax needed) available…
All together, i would not allocate 4.5m $ to them.
A monthly salary, and if they onboard more Team member and allocate them to the project they shall be paid also. Proof with timetables for the work they did is a must have and bonuses for milestones can be agreed.
A Junior developer shall not cost more than 650$ man day rate
A Senior developer not more than 1.200$ man day rate.
I expect one senior fulltime and a second half time might be okay.
Hi there, Sam from the Timewave team here. Appreciate the enthusiasm everyone has over the first proposal to go on the Neutron forum. I won’t be able to get to everything right now but I’d like to quickly address a few points:
While the proposal is scoped to the Rebalancer components, this partnership proposal would anchor Timewave on the Neutron chain and we have plans to build an ecosystem of other components. We are already planning to deploy a covenant for Stride on Neutron that will hold an ATOM/stATOM LP position in Astroport on behalf of the Cosmos Hub, and we have a queue of other teams who want to work with us to establish similar protocol-owned liquidity positions. As discussed on the most recent Twitter space, we are also interested in building a system for Cosmos-wide public goods payment streaming, utilizing the Rebalancer.
@Travis asked about how much liquidity or revenue this system will bring in. It’s a little tough to say, but our ambition is to be the primary mechanism that chains and DAOs across Cosmos manage their assets, so market sizing really depends on the growth of Cosmos and the degree to which we can be successful engaging the wider ecosystem. We believe we are in a very strong position to achieve the later. Revenues will depend on the magnitude of capital flows, auction efficiency and the degree of competition, however I believe the focus should really be on the degree to which we can bring liquidity into the ecosystem as that has the most utility at this stage of Neutron’s development.
@John_Galt asked what the value of this system is vs an LP position. The Rebalancer can handle arbitrarily many tokens, so if you were to compare to an AMM it would be something more akin to a Balancer smart pool. There are some similarities, however multi-asset AMMs have a lot of MEV leakage due to adverse selection. Market makers will arb multi-asset pools from whatever token has the best price at the time, meaning that every additional degree of freedom will result in worse pricing. Our system uses a dutch auction to create competitive pricing and should actually induce arb volume against Astroport at the end of the day.
@bryancolligan had a bunch of questions. First off, we are not performing the treasury management ourselves, but creating the underlying infrastructure to efficiently perform these operations. The communities themselves will perform their own management, or may nominate a third party to do so if they wish. You asked about MEV protection. I’m actually building the MEV auction system for Neutron already at Skip. The Skip auction disallows frontrunning, so this should not be an issue. The other tooling we are partially financing ourselves and getting small grants from protocols to create any custom components (as is the case with Stride). So the full solution should not be financed by Neutron. I addressed some of your remaining questions in a previous response, unfortunately these are all market sizing questions that would be quite difficult to pin specific numbers to. The largest factor in all of this is how large Cosmos will grow, and we plan to do everything in our power to contribute to that growth.
I’m 100% certain that the best people to build this are the people currently proposing it, if the proposal fails, we will try and help them to make their own chain, consumer or otherwise.
And this is basically just to recognition of the unique skills that the individuals making this proposal can provide.
Currently, astroport does not have stellar liquidity.
Is your team open to supporting osmosis with the allocator?
That is to say, so we have an alligator, I suppose maybe it’s a contract maybe it’s some go code I’m not 100% sure yet maybe you’re not either, but for me I would really like to see the allocator support at minimum osmosis and duality. In addition to astroport.
See: the mythical man month.
It just doesn’t work how you’re describing, particularly in this industry. From the way you speak, it sounds like maybe you have some knowledge of software contracting but I don’t think that the way that you’re approaching it applies here.
They’re absolutely going to face a non-linear development process and the concept is strongly attached to the people making the proposal.
Finally please excuse my deleted posts, I decided to consolidate all of my replies here.
Not very convincing to start your counterargument by asking “what is the convenant module ?” when it’s literally in the Atom 2.0 paper as the other core part of the Interchain Allocator other than the rebalancer. I know there are a bunch of terms floating around so its easy to forget, but cmon
Rebalancer + Convenants = Allocator
I’m 100% certain that the best people to build this are the people currently proposing it, if the proposal fails, we will try and help them to make their own chain, consumer or otherwise.
What is Notional’s historical and current involvement with the Timeweave team? Would love to see that put in the open when statements like the above are made
we will try and help them to make their own chain, consumer or otherwise.
There is already another chain doing this, and they have the rebalancer already out:
Quasar works, is live and in prod. Why dont we just us that then?
Well, i still struggle to understand how the team will allocate the developers to justify a budget for the product development which would cause 4.500 man days and further i struggle to understand how the the Neutron chain will receive a return on investment.
I understand that this the product would case a liquidity inflow to the chain, however, if that liquidity will not cause a return of 10.000.000 Neutron in a certain timeframe (e.g. 5Years, which is a very long tome in crypto) i don’t see any benefit for the project at all.
I further noticed, that the liquidity could be traded from DAOs with low slippage and it will avoid any front running as well.
All in all cases which will cause more TXs and if we have more liquidity the chain might be attract more users.
To break it down, the return on invest comes from additional TX.
Lets do the math: Currently we have a TX fee of approx. 0.02 NTRN per TX.
With 10.000.000 spend, the product need to deliver 500.000.000 TX to return the spend NTRN. That would be over 275.000 TX per day over 5 Years to reach this.
At the end, this product need to bring 275.000 TX per day additional to the normal usage per day over a periode of 5 Year. Ethereum is doing currently 1.000.000 TX per day.
I doube that this is possible.
As said before: we need a business case, we need a milestone based project plan and we need a break down of the team allocation.
What we not need: someone asking for a significant amount of money without even stating why is it that amount.
Hey Luis, we appreciated your constructive criticism on the Twitter space and this tangible counter-proposal for how best to move forward. When it comes to the lockup, we’re collecting feedback to figure out a structure that aligns incentives, is tax efficient, and minimizes sell pressure. The people we’re speaking with include Neutron community members, a tax attorney, and an accountant, among others. We’ll share an updated structure that incorporates all this feedback as soon as possible.
Hey everyone, we just updated this draft proposal to reflect the feedback we’ve received from the Neutron community both online and offline over the past month. You’ll be able to see the major changes we made in the change log and you can find extra context to those changes in the prelude. The tl;dr is that the primary changes we made were to clarify that this proposal is for long-term incentive alignment between both Neutron and Timewave, not just a short-term service agreement to build the Rebalancer.
We’re aiming to put this proposal up for vote early next week so feel free to reach out if you have constructive ideas for how we can improve our long-term incentive alignment. We are excited about the value that we are uniquely able to create together and hope to solidify our partnership soon.
I have a couple of comments I want to add to the discussion here:
Regarding the Timewave team and their expertise in tackling this project vs a RFP. Not only do I believe this is the right team for this endeavor, I struggle to see who else is better positioned, even if they did want to spend their time on this project and I personally have not seen anyone trying to tackle this issue. They literally authored the Atom2.0 paper and Sam is literally working full time on the nuances of MEV within the cosmos ecosystem full time. I struggle to understand why individuals want to get a better understanding of the team by demanding CVs when their acumen can be better understood by just reading the Atom2 WP and asking thoughtful implementation questions.
From my perspective, Neutron is absolutely the correct venue for this implementation. As the entry point for many developers who are to come, and many projects looking for tooling, it would only make sense that rebalancer and covenant functions sit on this stack.
Regarding the economics, I believe a fundamental part of the conversation here is missing. As I understand it the Neutron token accrues value via Tx fees, MEV/ Skip Sync. The Rebalancer and covenant functions would be fundamentally brining more value to the Neutron token by introducing the additional token demand, as well as the 20% revenue share for 3 years, the value of which we can expect to be substantial as realistically this is a feature set that builders and users want. Furthermore, @Prometheus I want to push back on your point here specifically of the team running off or dumping the token, why logically, would a team of this caliber do that, kill their reputation (one that is not recent, as this team has been in the space for years), and ruin their chances of being able to meaningfully participate again?
The last point I want to make with regards to the token allocation is that I do not believe that you are taking into consideration all of the avenues by which the team is probably thinking about this allocation. You say $4mm is not fair market value, and I would agree if the scope of their proposal was simply to deliver some work and then they’re done. That is not what their scope realistically is. Beyond the long term value of the rebalancer, and the aligning of incentives provided by the covenants, the proposal is providing value by solving for fundamental tragedy of the commons. I imagine a good portion of the 1% would go into a longer term treasury type pool to support the continuous development and iteration of their goal. To suggest that the team would swap into stables and leave I think is made in bad faith.
Let me expand on this point. One area that there is a clear tragedy of the commons problem currently is the centralization of the validator set given additional overhead for validators. No-one wants the validator set to gradually centralize, but that is clearly what will happen without intervention. Who should and is willing to pay for that? Are you? Is the Atom hub? It is clear that no individual participant or protocol has incentive to ensure validator consolidation does not happen. This proposal enables something like the Cosmos Hub to monetize their supply of Atom, at a rate (something like the risk free rate) that is beneficial for both the hub, and the consumers of this liquidity via covenants. Can you measure the economic value of that now, and the future value of projects that may move into the ecosystem because of that feature? Or can you measure the value of solving for some clear tragedy of the commons? Realistically I believe the value of this proposal will, in the long term, be worth far more than even your $10mm extrapolation.
I agree that we need more granular information before being able to vote, but I would appreciate being able to discuss the value proposition and some of the current theoretical value captures of the proposal, as opposed to arguing about what fair market value for a proposal with such a large scope at this ideation stage is.
I am for this proposal in aligning Timewave as a long-term partner of Neutron, especially with the revision based on community feedback.
Neutron is set up to be the execution layer for the Cosmos Hub, and hopefully, the CosmWasm homebase of the entire ecosystem.
I believe protocol-owned liquidity (POL), if done right, is the next frontier of sustainable and value-accretive tokenomic design. The Cosmos Hub will likely implement a POL model to economically align itself with the AEZ consumer chains and the wider Interchain to establish ATOM as the base money/reserve asset of the ecosystem.
The Interchain Allocator will help Neutron set itself apart from other CosmWasm chains, will help it attract ATOM liquidity, and ultimately enable economic growth through more liquid markets and more MEV opportunities.
@PersianPariah took the words out of my mouth when he said “Not only do I believe this is the right team for this endeavor, I struggle to see who else is better positioned…” The fact is this team is highly capable, has the network required to get things done, and has a great reputation in the eco. Having this team Neutron (and Hub) aligned is only a net benefit in my opinion.
I’ve read through the proposal and the comments under it and would like to signal my strong support for the proposal in its current form.
The core of my support is: the passing of this proposal would result in meaningful incentive-alignment with a strong and forward-looking team that deeply understands the dynamics of the interchain and is building a product that fills a need today, in a market-segment that will only grow alongside the adoption of IBC.
Our ecosystem is built on sovereignty x cooperation. This is enshrined in the architecture of the Interchain Stack (ability for end to end customization at all layers of the stack and IBC to interoperate with other chains).
Interoperability (shared language) is the first meaningful step for building fruitful relationships.
In the interchain ecosystem and throughout history, interoperability alone hasn’t been enough to build the type of meaningful relationships that propel an economy forward. A road between two countries can lead to either war or trade.
Being able to form partnerships via incentive alignment is the next meaningful step for communities of token holders (or any type of community) to form strong political-economic relationships
With the above said, I think that timewave is building the incentive-alignment primitives that are most needed at the moment, and I also think that the investment in the intangible value of the team (relationships, understanding of the stack, long-term vision etc.) will prove to be invaluable for the future of Neutron, the AEZ, and the interchain.
An example of a current deep and unmet need that strikes particularly close to home for me is pathways to cross-chain public goods funding, which is a sorely under-served area in the whole ecosystem:
Against Arbitrary Financial Models
I think the attempt to financially model the return on investment is really valuable, but you haven’t presented the whole picture. Thus, in the same way that @faddat pushed back against the man-hours argument, I’ll push back against the tx’s as only means of value accrual argument.
Any over-simplified model is a matter of rhetoric. The discussion must include strong “business cases” and value accrual analysis to Neutron, as you rightly pointed out, but it also must acknowledge the dynamism and nuance of a rapidly shifting industry.
This whole picture looks like a complex interplay between smart-contract primitives, relationships between protocols, social and cultural exchanges, and emergent properties. All of these will impact Neutron and its token as a whole. This is not even to mention MEV for the network, nor the impact of opportunity cost & token price fluctuations on a team of builders.
While timewave alone may not result in 275,000 additional daily txs, a strong neutron network with teams of builders that are thinking of current and future needs and designing products around them very well might.
This account is an alt account of abra tusz (twitter.com/abratusz), a governance strategist at the Interchain Foundation. These opinions are only my own, and don’t represent the ICF in any capacity, but I wanted to share them to shine a light on how I perceive the importance of timewave and similar interchain institutions on a long-time horizon in the ecosystem.
To my self, i can only say that i am not a Dev and i only have a limited understanding of the overall project they offer. My critics are going into an other direction. My critics is that they call out a price without showing how the return of the cost will be made in a reasonable time… they don’t have a project plan, they dont have a team allocation plan they even dont have a website. As said several times before: in the real world you would never get a project worth 4m$ with such a high level proposal… if crypto would like to become more mature and more trustable than we have to start acting professional… otherwise we (the cosmos network) will not have a future. Cosmos have lost a lot of trust in the past two years (Juno, Stargaze…), it’s time to get trust back and my critics is only about this.
Build a convincing business case, showing that this investment is beneficial for the chain! Could you do this? I cant, but i expect from persons asking a 15K$-20K$ per month income from the community should be able to build such a Business case.
Why do we have to give the millions before? Why are they not able to delivery something, it gets proved and then they will be paid fair? And if we pay for it, why do we not have 100% ownership on the product? Dont they, that this is not the way it works, that is not an answer… i see to many Devs posting business class flight pictures in the last year, whilst the community is bleeding out
To be honest, i have a lot of question marks in my mind, but do not gat any concrete feedback.
This is also my last post on the madder, if cosmos Devs and Validators still think they have to give each other always millions (because the voting power is with tis closed small circle) than cosmos is dead and than Cosmos will never be decentrellized and Cosmos will not be better than the Banking System usually punished by the crypto folks.
Hey everyone, I just wanted to introduce myself real quick and give my opinion on this proposal. I am Youssef from the ATOM Accelerator DAO and had the opportunity to intimately work with each of Timeweave contributors, namely Sam, Max and Udit.
Sam is the main architect behind the ATOM 2.0 WP. This paper formulated a vision that other ecosystems are now taking inspiration from, notably the Interchain Allocator. He’s one of the brightest minds in Cosmos and has a deep understanding of the Cosmos stack. The same goes with Max and Udit.
DAOs are still in their early days and the available tooling is limited. This is especially true in Cosmos. We need DAO to DAO relationships to expand and reach their next stage of evolution if we want to build a more robust, sustainable crypto economy. In that regard, the Allocator can play a crucial role as it allows DAOs to be more creative and intentional with their own treasuries.
Because this team is the one who originated the Allocator design a year ago and because it has the right skillset and background, it is likely the best positioned to build a successful product. No question that the product market fit is there.