Build a Custom Marketplace

Or CU is is using industry standard for Polygon and the project you mentioned is being extremely risky? For a good overview look at the confirmation times Circle uses:

or IDEX

One small project choosing to play it fast and loose doesn’t mean other projects should. One of Polygon’s major deficiencies is the slow finality and long confirmation and that’s what currently being worked on. If you have evidence to the contrary would love to see it.

Yea seems like they are going JC because you got the momentum started early on against FC.

1 Like

totally agree
Doing so contributes to the future development of our community

Could we rank all unicorns in our own personal collections? It would be useful if I could filter all flower unicorns by movement speed first then magic (for example) this would be a very useful tool for players with large herds who wish to filter out weaker corns to sell.

1 Like

I support this, would be better to have our own marketplace

Why did they launch the market vote in such a short time? (If further proposals are not also launched within 6-7 days, from the date the proposal was published. That would be a clear answer for the community)
A number of questions are unanswered.
Please give a clear answer. Because of the affiliation between Laguna and this company, is this project so promoted by Laguna employees?
Also, when will the economics of the game be addressed? At the moment, players can not earn in this game, because in this game there is no such thing as “economy”. At the same time, Comrade Schmidt (which ceased to communicate with ordinary mortals, only during AMA sessions, and then selectively), said that there will be such an economy, which is several times better than existing, in other games!
Also, here I see a lot of praise OpenSea, but for some reason no one wrote that the problem with the blocked / unblocked land - it’s a problem of Laguna, not OpenSea, it is a developer to track and make changes to the settings / code on their site, which Laguna, of course, scored. We still have not received a clear explanation on this issue.

Based on the above, I do not see any reason to force the issue with the market.
We must wait for more proposals, and ourselves to attract developers to do the job.
Collect all the estimates / proposals on this issue.
And only after that do the voting, which estimate / proposal is more suitable for the community.

1 Like

I am against because of the inadequate price of the service ($300k/year). At the moment, we do not have such a load to pay for hosting more than $4k, and it is not known when it will appear. We have only 700 accounts playing. Might be worth considering a more progressive pay.
And Elastic seems like a forced solution.
I hope the bear market will reduce the inflated expectations of developers and make reasonable prices for development.

2 Likes

All your questions except the first has been answered before. Not sure why you present them as new questions.

Because of the affiliation between Laguna and this company, is this project so promoted by Laguna employees?

They have worked together before and in some sense in “endorsed” by the team. Random unvetted teams for obvious reasons aren’t going to be given a bunch of money to work on new features.

Also, when will the economics of the game be addressed? At the moment, players can not earn in this game, because in this game there is no such thing as “economy”. At the same time, Comrade Schmidt (which ceased to communicate with ordinary mortals, only during AMA sessions, and then selectively), said that there will be such an economy, which is several times better than existing, in other games!

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion on this thread.

Also, here I see a lot of praise OpenSea, but for some reason no one wrote that the problem with the blocked / unblocked land - it’s a problem of Laguna, not OpenSea, it is a developer to track and make changes to the settings / code on their site, which Laguna, of course, scored. We still have not received a clear explanation on this issue.

Don’t think you’ve done the research or you don’t understand the problem. OS is designed to list all NFTs from a collection. It’s not designed to be a game marketplace that has fast changing attributes. OS updates metadata periodically. You can’t force them to update metadata real time because the majority of their trading volume comes from static NFTs. They so far have shown little to no interest in supporting game NFTs. The locked issue can never be solved on OS unless they add new features.

1 Like
  1. I asked my questions on 07/27/2022. My post was ignored.
  2. The original post was not edited to add the necessary information there

You don’t have to tell me the same thing over and over again… All this nonsense I’ve read many times before, that OpenSea is to blame.

  1. After the problem occurred on OpenSea. The team’s position was that it was OpenSea’s fault, not Laguna’s

  2. After some time, the people in charge looked up the information on the website of OpenSea, and it turned out that it was Laguna’s problem.

  3. Since this information came out, there have been REAL fixes on the OpenSea website with the locked/unlocked assets (which also don’t work fully)

  4. How many months has it been since the problem with the jammed assets occurred? How long has it been since you attempted to make a fix on OpenSea? How long did Laguna deny there was a problem? I’d like to hear from you to answer these questions.
    Why is it only now that this team is showing up? What steps is Laguna taking to get more teams to implement TK on the market? (Is there even a ToR, I’m not talking about some text somewhere, but a full-fledged ToR)

  5. The question about the portfolio of this team is absent.

  6. Questions about work experience - ignored

At this point I see that the forum there is a talking head, which advocates for work in potential investors, no more. Her job is to get clients interested in choosing their company.
It reminds me of Aron, who talks about everything and nothing.

My suggestion is simple:

  1. Conduct a tender
  2. Collect bids
  3. Get the demo version of the product and a comment proposal from the teams
  4. Put it up for a vote by the DAO
    Not what I’m seeing right now. I know this man, I trust him.

This is the official governance process.

A draft proposal that has stayed open for atleast 5 days is for review on the next scheduled council review. Council reviews are held every 15th and the 30th.

This draft proposal has been live for 5 days on the day of the scheduled council review. Based on the votes during the review, the council has decided to pass the proposal for a Snapshot vote.

Thanks MerkleTree but I don’t see the spirit of web3 in your proposal. It looks like you would be the only one benefiting from this marketplace while the community has no real incentive to vote yes (for now).

Of course we need to get our own secure marketplace with a custom UX but we want to get a better deal, and spend the ecosystem fund carefully.

If you would consider to change your proposal for a fix fee of 1% I would probably give you my yes (1M sRBW):

Monthly Gross Volume USDC Percentage Fee Community fee
$0.00 → $5,000,000.00 0.5% 0.5%
$5,000,000.01 → $25,000,000.00 0.25% 0.75%
$25,000,000.01+ 0.125% 0.875%

It could allow to replenish the ecosystem fund, get back what we gave you over time and continue developing the ecosystem in a sustainable way. It could be used for tournament prizes or to buy back and burn some UNIM. It could be use in many way, but I think to continue to grow the community need to take a fee on the marketplace.

Hello. Thanks for the feedback. The proposal is now locked so we can’t consider any changes. I think, @lgNanessa please correct me if I am incorrect, that anyone could propose “Add a community fee” to the marketplace in a subsequent proposal. I think it could be a good positive for the community if implemented.

That’s right. The proposal may not be edited while Snapshot is live. The council review approval it received was for the content of its current iteration and those who already voted were voting for its current iteration.

To answer the other question, if any proposal gets approved, addendums can be made by writing a new proposal to support an approved CUIP. This will still need to go through the governance process outlined here.

We would never try to influence the vote with some more teaser designs :wink:


1 Like

I’d like to inform the community of something that was recently discussed within the council but not in this thread.

As Merkle Root indicated in this proposal, the marketplce will support all CU NFT assets - all present and future NFT assets. This will come at no extra cost and will be part of maintenance work.

2 Likes

During the voting there is a so-called silence time…
No party can campaign during this period of time…
It is strange to see from a team member that writes some additional information…
I have a lot of respect for you Maniс :hugs:, but, let’s refrain from additional information.

1 Like

Hi Winter! Sorry if you’re misunderstanding something. Discussions are expected to continue during the voting period. However, we are not allowed to edit the proposal while it is on Snapshot.

We highly encourage the continued discussion. This will ensure that the author will know what they’re missing for if and when the proposal fails. As LG’s Governance Facilitator, it is my job to facilitate, ensuring that the DAO has all the information it needs to make an informed decision and that things are moving forward. The governance process is found here for your reference.

Sorry then, I have no guarantee there will be a subsequent proposal so it is a no for me.

I hope you will review your proposal, improve it with the feedbacks and resubmit it later.

From my point of view it lacked 3 main things:

  • Communication: A slide deck where you present the team and the proposal in a visual way

  • Transparency: Detailed sheet to explain the cost + clarity about the ownership of the marketplace IP ( Laguna Games | Merkle Root | the DAO ? )

  • Web 3 spirit & sustainability: Give back to the community (ex: fee to replenish the ecosystem-fund & community-treasury over time)

2 Likes

In such a market for such a price, doing this is a luxury!

The snapshot just closed with a no vote.

Thanks everyone for considering our proposal. We have had a great time interacting with everyone and having some fun/interesting conversations.

UwU :unicorn:

6 Likes

Snapshot voting period has ended.
https://bit.ly/3JiM1R3

For: 13,599,918.19
Against: 32,995,391.63

Total Votes: 46,595,309.82
% Participation: 45.38%

Based on the result, we shall not be implementing the proposal at this time.

Thank you very much @sonolumin, for writing the proposal and for consistently interfacing with the community, and thank you to everyone who contributed in the discussion. :unicorn:

2 Likes