Hi !
Before anything, I’d like to remind ther’s no space for an argument, but only for open discussions. And I really don’t like when things become personal.
My intentions are solely to discuss point of views, without any intent to change anyone else’s opinion beside expressing our point of view, as a validator first, and as a personal $FX hodler…
@scene, I understand your point of view, but let me elaborate a bit.
May I (even if you left the convo) address some aspects:
-
You say “Function X and Pundi X acts as 2 separate entities”
This is 100% true (Pundi X Labs is listed here in Singapore and Function X Foundation here in Cyprus).
But this point is only rhetorics and administrative. 100% of FunctionX was funded thru PundiX tokens. From a pure legal standpoint, it would be considered as an ICO (just like offering to buy a new token using ETH or BTC). And FunctionX foundation was only founded in january 2022 (despite FunctionX being launched in 2019 as far as I remember). -
You say “But to expect the Founders to use their own allocated shares for expenses is wrong.”
I agree : in my point of view, we shall not expect founders to use their personal funding (unless they’re willing to do so, and thus captivate a bigger part of the voting rights).
But we should expect the foundation to use its allocated shares for that : as a reminder, I used to identify that team members controlled 199.9M $FX back in Jan 22 : ref. here. The transfers between the multiple addresses make it very hard to understand what is personal (I don’t care about this…) and what is the foundation’s. I wouldn’t care either if there were personal transfers of 1M $FX to team members each year as long as it is identified and made known (upfront if possible). DAO should be exercized wrt. to the CSP (community pool) only… But transparency is expected about foundation’s collective addresses.
Those addresses are not known accurately. I would deeply appreciate to see that in the future, for transparency’s sake. I claimed this information almost a year ago, without a detailed response yet.
It might not be considered as prioritary, but I personally think it is, even more than technical dev in those dark moments we’re living. -
You say “The allocation of shares is for taking the risk of establishing a company—the entrepreneur’s path.”
Again, I understand, but nothing like that was ever described in FunctionX white paper. But I have absolutely no issue with the idea of the founders and team members being remunerated : absolutely NONE. This is perfectly understandable and normal. But it needs to be disclosed.
In this post above, @zaccheah communicated about operations over EGF. This is almost what I mean. I would even expect each transaction to have a small title (hiring, bonus, wages, gift, etc.), and to open this table to all foundation’s addresses (product dev, marketing, etc.). -
You say “The genesis allocation was allocated to them for creating the blockchain and majority of it was distributed to the public. It isn’t meant to be used for operations.”
Look at point 1 and referenced link, more than 35% was distributed to the foundation (actually, all unclaimed NPXS-to-FX conversion tokens were also distributed to the foundation…). I wouldn’t write that majority was distributed to the public since half of the tokens came back to the foundation… -
You say : “The FX tokens were distributed in a manner where a user has to do an activity called ‘MINING’ on XWallet to receive FX.”
There was also direct conversion (beside hodling NPXS to earn FX). This is why I think we’ve had an ICO scheme. -
FXG
To me, it’s simply a (good) project running over FX, like MarginX. A good thing by itself, but living its own life (and that we can’t prevent anyway since any contract can be ran on FX EVM). But that can’t be bad for FX, and I actually expect more projects like that one to be incentivized, because we need to grow the community with many use cases.
And to conclude, I don’t have any issue with the team using the EGF funding to fund this bonus : as we could see in @zaccheah 's post, many funding were even done without asking for anyone’s permission. That’s what EGF delegation to founders is designed for.
However, using the CSP for that require DAO voting.
And IMHO, CSP (community pool) should be reserved for external projects (such as MarginX, Fox Gaming, etc.), all those bringing value into the FX ecosystem.
Ethereum and Elrond/MultiversX are working that way… Cosmos is even more restricted.
We can think about “maintenance fee” in the future, when we’ll see a fully consolidated, documented and open-source blockchain and product-line.
So 3 questions:
- Could someone (@DavidK , @zaccheah ) address the issue of the origin of the funding for this proposal (EGF ? CSP ?) ?
- Can we expect more transparency in the project’s ongoing funding in the near future ?
- Can we expect an updated roadmap (and white paper even) ? We’ve gone so far from the initial intent (FX WP) that it will be difficult to reconcile things if we don’t see a re-baseline.
Regards,
@FrenchXCore