A new path for Unicorn Party (UnicornParty.com)

[superista_surf]

Hi all, I wanted to expand a bit on the marketing side of the plan as that’s where things are probably most abstract.

Some of this is covered in our deck linked in the proposal but I will go into little bit more detail.

We see the strategy in three main parts; web2, web3 and live operations.

Web3 is mostly around similar themes that Mitch recently discussed with the community in broader CU context so I won’t go into the details of that. Also because only a small fraction of the budget and workload will be here. We will work closely with LG to drive activation here.

Web2 will mostly be about performance marketing. What we mean by this is we will work with large and medium sized marketing platforms like Meta, Google, Tiktok, Apple Search Ads, Applovin that are proven in games user acquisition, but also those networks and affiliate platforms that are specialized in RMG like Fluent, Joywallet, Penny Hoarder etc. We will not work with agencies or any platform that doesn’t provide controls and transparent reporting on budgets, targeting, channels, creatives and so on.

The way this typically works is that we’d start with 1-2 platforms and daily budgets in the $100-200 range per platform. We will look for metrics like retention and conversion for users coming through these channels in key days like day 0, 7, 30 of their installs. If we’re happy with what we’re seeing, we’ll start scaling the budgets and adding more platforms. If we are not happy, we’ll either pause or scale down and iterate on the product and then restart. Measurement and attribution will be done by 3rd party platforms like Appsflyer and LG team will have access to the advertising accounts on these platforms as well as data stream via Appsflyer or other similar means.

Finally, and probably most importantly, live ops will be a key part of our acquisition and retention efforts. These games are highly dependent on a lively event (eg Halloween tournaments) schedule, offers (eg deposit 5 to get 5 for free) and player incentives (loops around various missions, retention rewards) that make it very appealing for players to deposit and provides plenty of opportunity to get a taste of playing with real money. There won’t be any 3rd party platform expenditure here but we will allocate a meaningful portion of our budget towards player incentives which will mostly be used for retention marketing. This will be operated by our in-house team and will again be transparent to LG. We will look at a blended ROI across cohorts and treat these activities like ad campaigns where we optimize, turn on/off based on results we’re seeing.

Hope this clarifies a bit how the marketing budget will be put to use and what the mechanisms of expenditure look like.

Let me know of any further questions.

[kora]

Thank you for your responses, surf labs. I still have quite a few questions.

To clarify, this is an ask for both $50k per month as well as a $200k deposit, in addition to the status change from second party to third party?

All investment from LG will be paid back before the 50/50 profit share goes into effect. Does this include the investment paid while you were a second party developer?

Who owns the IP in the end? You, CU, or LG?

Is the 50/50 profit share similar to the agreement you had with LG as a second party developer? If not, why should we switch the agreement for bumper corns and mob run instead of using the new profit share for only the newly proposed titles?

What are the motivations to switch from second party to third party?

What is the consequence of not approving the third party status? Would that mean that the works contracted while you acted as a second party (bumpercorns and mob run) would abruptly die?

Does the marketing budget need to be approved immediately and in conjunction with the third party status? Would it be possible to break it out into multiple proposals?

How long is the initial marketing budget expected to last? You mention that you will make new marketing budgets periodically further down the line, so I was hoping to see a more defined timing.

Thank you in advance for entertaining my questions.

[darthschmitty13]

Hi IslandGurl!

I’m happy with the working relationship with TeamSurf to date. Otherwise, this proposal would not have been even put forward. Part of the challenge with the original plan of UP being second party games was it put additional stress on the LG core team. Transitioning these to third party games and having Team Surf manage them fully + have an upside carrot tied to their performance gives us a few nice wins including reducing the overhead on the core LG team.

Ultimately, my dream is that we have more developers coming forward that want to make use of our IP without needing to be directly managed by our core team. The more developers in our ecosystem the better.

[darthschmitty13]

All of these are good points to raise Sauliusj.eth.

The hope here is success with Unicorn Party and Rainbow Rumble inspire other developers to join our ecosystem. While I support your desire to build out modules and guidelines this is not the time to try to build that in. We need to show early success and then begin to build out the 3P ecosystem.

The opportunity here is to work with a dev we already have a relationship with and trust built in. From there we can continue stepping toward the future you outlined. You are effectively pointing us at the end state. What we have here is the first step toward that goal.

[superista_surf]

Hi, thank you for the questions.

Correct, we’re asking for a change to the way our relationship is structured and the budgets you mentioned.

The profit share deduction does not include work done up until this point as that IP (BC, MR and everything around it that was built to date) belongs to CU. On that note, going forward - UnicornParty.com and CU brand/IP belongs to you and products/games/tech we bring from here on belong to us. These IP will be licensed to each other for the purposes of this partnership for the duration of it.

We want to include existing two games in the new approach as we believe it will take a lot more than what’s covered in our current agreement in means of development resources, marketing and live ops. Having no upside in the success of some titles within the same platform will misalign priorities of parties.

In relation to this, skill-based casual RMG is all we do and want to do more of. We want commercial upside and are willing to be accountable for the success of it. We have a background in publishing and can deliver value beyond being a dev partner. These are our motivations to ask for a change from 2P to 3P.

Our current 2P agreement covers ongoing support for existing games. The games would not die, but we would remain largely a technology/development partner. We believe however the games need much more than this to fulfill their potential and the CU IP has a lot more to gain from the expansion. Of course, it’s an investment and I understand you need to make a judgement call on the risk/reward.

Without the marketing budget, the dev budget is money not well spent imo and we should not develop new products. Without a serious attempt at new players acquired via the stores, our chance of seeing scale is almost none. That requires cash. Hence, it’s one proposal for development and marketing.

The initial budget is budgeted for 3 months from UP.com launch in December. I covered in other messages but we should include this in the proposal, thank you for your feedback.

[cuppy]

Coda Labs made Unicorn Party. Who are Surf Labs? Where can I find your company information? Who are the shareholders of the company?

[kora]

My personal opinion is that the risk to reward ratio is disproportionally imbalanced, as there appears to be little downside risk for your company and near infinite upside, whereas we, the DAO, take on a fairly high risk of the initial investment never being returned.

What protections toward the initial investment would you be willing to offer in exchange for the potential?

To put this another way for the DAO to consider, if this were shark tank, your offer is approximately 50% equity for an interest-free, unsecured loan of 200k + 50k/month in perpetuity. There’s no timeline for repayment and let’s say you don’t turn a profit after a year, that’s 800k plus whatever additional marketing budgets requested.

And since this marketing is to start in December as a 3 month plan, we can expect at least 4-6 months of cash outflow.

[timetraveler]

Can I ask what is your marketing background. How many years experience. Past marketing operational expenses and outcomes of campaigns. I am excited to hear LG is wanting to support marketing by bringing this proposal. Just want to know who we are paying. We have gone through a few marketing positions and just need to know why this marketing campaign will be different. Thanks for your time.

Add this here as still waiting for answer for this question.

I tried to find Surfs Labs on the Internet.
I could not find anything. Has this company been established yet. Or is this a company you would create if proposal passes.
I found lots of companies with the name Surfs Labs. But none that could be confused with game or dev company.
Forgive me if information is out there. I simply could not find using any advanced SEO searches.
Thanks again.

[IslandGurl]

When searching for Unicorn Party, I’m seeing different companies as partners for Unicorn Party and Rainbow Rumble.

Did Surf Labs build out Unicorn Party? Or did Coda Labs?

Wondering what your relationship is with the companies.

Also, do you have a website or something with more information on Surf Labs?

[timetraveler]

Interesting thoughts.

Having a hard time making choice with this proposal without more information.

Imagine we are on shark tank and business asking us to invest in them.
We ask questions like
How much was spent creating BC and MR.
Answer. We cannot disclose what was paid to company to build these games
What were the terms of the deal to build BC and MR.
Coda builds it and LG owns it
What is the value of the IP of the 2 built games.
Unknown because we dont know what we paid for it.

So not knowing the terms of the original deal to build the games and what was spent makes it incredibly difficult to decide if proposal is a good deal.

Pros Team does not have to maintain the games. (Less LG Dev work)
Cons DAO just gave away 50% of the profits on a game we spent unknown amount of money funding the development of.

Pros We get listed on app stores and get marketing.
Cons We dont know Surfs Labs or their marketing background.

What happens if app stores say no and they dont get listed on app stores and then marketing does not happen and we gave away rights to 50% of profits.

Currently it feels like we the DAO (community) funded a 2nd party to build a game for us.
We the DAO (community) Dont know how much we spent on game.
Now we are asked to give away 50% of future profits.
Does the DAO get paid back unknown amount funded to build the game before profits are taken. Or just the money in proposal.

With all this said Coda is the only 2nd Party we have seen build anything.
So respect there. I have had some fun playing BC.

On another note we have not seen Mob RUN.
It was ready. We had leaderboard. Then delayed. And now being built again. I am vague on where it is. Waiting for better market. Fixing bumping corns or refining it first.
Might be good to see Mob Run and have more information so DAO can do Due Diligence before voting on a proposal.
I understand its the weekend. So I will be patient and wait for replys before asking anymore questions.
To be clear. Proposal excites me. But I only have about 5% of the information I need to be able to vote on this proposal with current information.
I hope you can respect this as it is a lot of money.
Hoping their are clear answers to everything and we can move this proposal and pass it.

[lgManicUnicorn]

Hello, everyone! Surf Labs ended up creating unicorn party and not Coda Labs!

Edit: The change happened prior to even starting the Unicorn Party project.

[cuppy]

Please provide us with the following information:

1. The company information of SurfLabs
2. How much money has the Crypto Unicorn DAO paid to SurfLabs so far
3. What date did Coda Labs stop working on Unicorn Party and how much money was paid to Coda Labs.
4. What date did SurfLabs start work on Unicorn Party?
5. Why did SurfLabs take over from CodaLabs? I see that Sekip is a founder of both companies
6. Why did Laguna Games not announce CodaLabs ended work, and SurfLabs was taking over?

[cuppy]

Mr Sekip, can you please tell us why the twitter account @coda_labs was suspended and when it was suspended. you are the founder of coda labs, so you should be able to tell us

[superista_surf]

Hi all, I will respond where I can from Surf standpoint. I’ll let LG team comment on their end as they see fit.

I explained in earlier messages my/our teams background as well as our experience in marketing (specifically in my first message). Surf is a new business, and doesn’t have much online presence as we work with our network and focus on a small number of partners, LG/CU being one of them. Surf ended up being the party to finish the work on Unicorn Party and we’re interested in growing the project with all our focus and experience.

Coming to commercial terms, main comment seems to be around risk/reward balance and the revenue share. Risk taken by the DAO is the financial investment, but we also bring both an investment with our operational cost and a significant opportunity risk as we’ll be spending a significant amount of our time on this opportunity instead of others. We’re keen on doing so, and in return ask for a portion of our cost to be covered and to have upside going forward. In the absence of concrete data and certainty around what the games might generate, but the mechanism is not unbalanced in our view.

The revenue share is meaningful if there are revenues to be generated with the games. Our view and the core underlying thesis of this proposal is that without a lot more work, both on product and go-to-market, the games have a very limited chance of generating meaningful revenues. If we agree on this, options are 1) work gets done internally, 2) or externally. Our proposal is a way of doing this with an external partner. We tried to structure it in a way that reflects our belief in the future of the project, whilst aligning both parties on the upside. If we don’t perform, it would be customary that LG have the right to terminate at the end of a preset period. We’d walk away with nothing after having done the work in that period. As stated above, the amounts we’re asking for do not require our monthly expenses related to this project.

I believe UP has great potential and this is the best way forward for it to flourish and grow the CU ecosystem. I understand the concerns around the investment and marketing operations, but hope my messages help the council with the decision making process. I will wait for the results and look forward to being a part of the community.

[cuppy]

Mr Sekip,

Please answer my questions.

What is the company registration number of your business SurfLabs?

When did SurfLabs start work on Unicorn Party?

Did SurfLabs receive payment for their work on Unicorn Party?

[timetraveler]

Thank you, This helps me a bit and answers some of the question I have. If possible can you answer when you started working on BC and RP.

[IslandGurl]

Overall it’s an interesting idea.

However, my understanding is that Laguna Games has been paying for the Unicorn Party and Mob Run development. And, that they were both finished products, but Mob Run was delayed due to player liquidity issues. We even had a LB set up with the intention of using it for both games. Additionally, the original announcement by Coda Labs mentioned bringing these games to IOS and Android. To add to the confusion, it’s still unclear how/when Coda Labs shifted to Surf Labs developing these 2 titles, and the relationship between the 2 companies.

If I understand this correctly, this seems unbalanced re: risk/reward for 2 games we have paid for.

So, could you help clarify…

A) Are the 2 games not fully completed?
B) Does this mean, if we pass this proposal, Unicorn Party and Mob Run would shift ownership to Surf Labs? Or, will this just apply to products/games/tech you bring forth, excluding those 2 titles. And, ownership will stay with Laguna Games.
C) Are you requesting a change in the payment structure to a 50/50 split on revenue for Unicorn Party and Mob Run vs the payments we have already made to you and would make to you for the finished product?

Also…

D) Is this proposal asking for 50K a month, in perpetuity, for continued development of Unicorn Party and Mob Run? And then the 50k will shift to additional titles once those 2 are ready for submission to app stores?
E) Have you started development on any of the other titles in your pitch deck?
F) Are you asking for a starting marketing budget of 200k (in essence, an interest free, unsecured loan) for marketing Unicorn Party and Mob Run for proof of concept? Or, does this include the other titles in your pitch deck as well?
F) Could you provide more clarity Re: intent for future marketing draws (it’s not clearly outlined)

Thank you for the additional info.

[timetraveler]

If proposal passes. Lets say I connect my wallet to one of these games. Am I connecting to a LG server/website or a Surfs labs Website/server. It is important to me I know where i am connecting my wallet. Who audits these websites and smart contracts if it is not LG. In case of a hack what company is liable for the losses.
If I encounter a error or find a bug or have trouble using the website. Where will customer support be. Will LG’s zendesk be used.
Will the games have their own TOS’s.
In case of legal trouble. Are their lawyers retained.
Sorry if my brain leads me to too many questions.
I never thought when I read white paper for CU that we would be building web2 games.
Feels like real money gambling mobile industry is a world I never thought I would be part of.
Mini game arcade after WP games yes. But not moblie casino games. I thought we were building web3. Sorry if I am confused. Feels like this came out of no where. I do like aspects of proposal. Going to have to keep thinking about this one. Thanks for being willing to back and forth. That means a lot and speaks volumes. Thank you.

[Bahis]

I just want to echo what cuppy is asking here. Very relevant questions as there seems to be quite a muddy history here.

[GoliathRulz]

I’m 100% behind this proposal. Sounds like we could have an exciting time coming forward for the arcade setup. Would love to see more engagement and more players on the arcade side. Need to get this outside the current community and to the world. Let’s get those players.

Also, this was a ton of information presented by the development company in charge of this, and what I would expect for a proposal and follow on. I think at this point we have enough information to make an informed decision.