Collab.Land subDAO: marketing, token operations, and revenue generation

📜 Proposals + Orientations 💱 $COLLAB token
22

Nope :slight_smile: we did not take a % of this grant

2 Likes
23

Some success stories:

Ran growth for NEAR protocol
Ran GTM for Sommelier Finance
Ran BD and Growth for Aurora EVM - brought over 40 protocols
Ran BD and Growth for Kava - brought over 70 DeFi protocols

Some of the bridges and dexes we’ve worked with:

Synapse, Gravity bridge, Layer0
Velodrome, Equilibre, Chronos, Ramses, Solidly, Uniswap, SushiSwap

2 Likes
24

This could also help :slight_smile:

3 Likes
25

@Joe please add some version of this into your post above:

signer spreadsheet

  • signers: 2 from Collab.Land team, 2 from AlphaGrowth, and 1 Collab.Land Co-op community member
Signers

Optimism

  • OP SAFE address + signers
Signers

Arbitrum

  • Arbitrum SAFE address + signers
Signers
2 Likes
26

Proposal is open for voting:
https://app.joinorigami.com/orgs/258692110553841664/proposals/388495590039007232

2 Likes
27

@AlPlanet @Joe @Noxe

1 Like
28

I’ll vote no to prop as it but I’m very happy with the experience and professionalism of AlphaGrowth and I’d like to refine this prop (if not approved) to align our futures closer.
I’m aware of the current opportunity for grants and expansion so I’m hopeful and thankful for the work of AlphaGrowth to help us either way.

I find the $90,000 minimum fee for 6 month contract high.
I find the fees 20% of grants etc high.

The issue I have is that deploying liquidity doesn’t create demand.
Paying such a high rate to do it is spending 9 million++ COLLAB in the short term that takes the long term to recoup in fees. I don’t see this as a sustainable revenue stream for Collabland co-op with these ActiveGrowth fees. Paying 1%+ of COLLAB supply to deploy 7% of the supply.
Grants are issued to support development costs of a project, 20% to acquire one is limiting development potential.

1 Like
29

Providing liquidity is just one very small part of this engagement; where the needle starts to move is with the partnerships and increase of COLLAB token optionality and utility :slight_smile:

2 Likes
30

thanks for the feedback, what numbers would be better instead?

1 Like
31

I understand the scope of this prop and funds as:
Partnering with protocols to allow deploying the token via bridges, then park liquidity to earn fees.
Grants are available to help sometimes so that falls into scope too.

AlphaGrowth describe token optionality as number of trading pairs and liquidity in those pairs. I’m good with those intentions.

I’m fine with limiting this prop to those parameters and paying $10k per month flat fee for these to be deployed over 6 months.
5% of grant value, bonus, if total grants value is over $200k in a single month.

I’d like to witness the skills and scale of AlphaGrowth team success with this token first. Then widen the scope to utility and revenue props, separately. Utility for this token is a whole other conversation. Swapping isn’t a utility.

If we’re impressed with the partnerships and supporting infrastructure made by AlphaGrowth we could award a bonus in retrospect.
Imo the kpi will be largely influenced by outside forces.

32

I get the intention and I’m hopeful for long term partnership too. Ye are great.
I just see the scope of this prop to be the first step.
Once a subdao is established and it has a few partnerships as described here under it’s belt then expansion of the subdao into more opportunities related to this could be explored.

I don’t think there needs to be additional pressure and responsibility on ActiveGrowth to deliver an undefined utility. If grant applications are dependant on Collabland delivering something other than bridge and money market support, then that’s a different prop too imo.

33

Intent is to use utility of Telefrens product and swap links in telegram (users) to leverage partnerships with DEXs/protocol foundations and gain liquidity. Basically doing BD to trade user trade flow for access to larger markets and enhanced liquidity.

that’s a REALLY high bar to hit. Not sure what exact number should be but that seems high to me.

1 Like
34

Not massively high bar given their standard ask is $30k per month. I think the incentive should be to perform beyond expectation, with flat fees paying for expected outcomes.

I’m concerned that AlphaGrowth fees would negate any potential gain from parking liquidity. Similar for grants covering development costs.
My concerns are less relevant while the market is trending up.

35

We are distributing as locked tokens via Hedgey Finance and as Hedgey adds new products that allow for LP of locked tokens will revoke and reissue with that new product. @Chibi

1 Like