Not really sure why a Proposal is coming AFTER everything is already set and decided , been announced, been written down everywhere and you wanna make it look like we voted for this, that it followed dao process and that you didn’t decide it alone.
But at least, that made me read Aron’s words just above and realize how DAO is a giant illusion and how arrogant people can be sometimes.
Most of us wanna save the project but you do not have to act like this. Cheers.
Hi Prof,
Thanks for the message and for laying out your thoughts clearly. I get where you’re coming from, and I want to make sure we’re all on the same page as we move forward.
I hear you on the financial transparency front. The marketing budget we’ve talked about is still allocated for that purpose, but I understand the need for more clarity on how funds are being used, especially in these tough times. We’re not looking to withhold information, but rather to present it in a way that’s useful without compromising any sensitive details. I’m working with the team to figure out how we can provide a more detailed overview that makes sense for everyone.
On the development timeline, we’re doing everything we can to speed things up. The 90-day window is a worst-case scenario, and we’ll be providing updates as we make progress. As for incentivized staking or other interim rewards, that’s definitely something we can look into. If XAI sees a pump, I agree that the community should feel like they’re benefiting. I’ll bring this up with the team to see what we can do in the short term.
I get that some of the frustration comes from feeling like this isn’t a “real” DAO. I’ve been upfront about the current structure because I believe in transparency, even when the truth is hard to swallow. That said, your input and the input of others are vital to shaping how we evolve from here. We’re not perfect, but we are listening and trying to find the best way forward for everyone.
Regarding the toy, TV, and other initiatives, I agree that we need to be smart about how much we invest in these projects and for how long. Setting realistic deadlines and being willing to cut our losses if something isn’t panning out is a conversation we need to have. I’ll make sure this is a part of our internal discussions.
I appreciate your support as we tackle this next stage. We all want this project to succeed, and I’m committed to making sure we give it our best shot. Let’s keep the dialogue open and constructive as we navigate these challenges together.
Thanks again for the input.
I understand why you feel that way, and I want to clarify a few things. The proposal coming after the initial decisions is about ensuring transparency and formally involving the community in what’s already been set in motion. LG, as a major CU stakeholder, has a lot at stake here—not just in terms of money, but in the success of the entire project. We’re putting our tokens where our mouth is because we believe in the long-term vision and sustainability of this ecosystem.
The DAO isn’t an illusion, but it coexists with the reality that sometimes swift decisions are necessary to keep things on track. That’s where LG’s role as both a creator and significant stakeholder comes into play. We’re not trying to undermine the DAO or the community’s voice; we’re trying to strike a balance between urgent action and collective decision-making.
If this has come across as arrogance, that wasn’t the intention. It’s about doing what’s needed to give this project the best chance of success, with everyone—LG included—fully invested in the outcome.
When I say things like “you’ll have to outvote me,” I’m reinforcing that we’ve locked up our tokens, betting on the future. The alternative would be to sell and move on, which we’re not doing. It seems this reality hasn’t fully set in, and rather than understanding that I’m here charting a course forward, some would rather call me “arrogant”. I get this is just the reality of the space. Just pointing out there’s another side to the story you are trying to push.
Thanks for the candid feedback. I appreciate the trust you’ve placed in my vision and leadership—it’s what keeps me pushing forward, especially during times like these.
I hear you on the burn rate and the focus on RR and Shadowcorns. The 2.5% allocation for toys and TV is indeed a gamble, and I understand the skepticism. You’re right that the CU IP needs to be in a strong position for those ventures to succeed. That’s why, even as we pursue those opportunities, our primary focus remains on stabilizing and strengthening the core aspects of the ecosystem. We’re not blind to the challenges, and we’re definitely in a crisis period, but I believe in keeping options open while we work to turn things around.
I know it can feel like your power to influence decisions is limited, but every piece of feedback helps shape the path forward. We’re all in survival mode right now, and I’m with you on the need to be pragmatic. That said, I also believe that part of surviving is continuing to push for those long-term goals that could bring significant value to the project—if we can navigate through this rough patch.
Cutting jobs and scaling back are tough decisions, and I don’t take them lightly. We’re constantly evaluating how to best allocate our resources to maximize the chances of CU’s success.
Thanks for sticking with us. We’ll keep pushing forward.
Not sure if LG has something at stake here, since LG received all tokens for free unlike community who purchased them on open market, and LG fully swallowed the treasury and ongoing xai grant, unlike players which received crumbs
Thanks for clarifying all these points Aron, I’m good to go on my end.
Thanks for the clarification and I am not against any of this, as we all agree it is needed, the thing that bothered me is just the way of it being done and your words on top of it were like the cherry on the cake.
We could have skipped all of this as it wasn’t needed and we were going for it no matter what. I understand the “to follow protocol” and stuff like this but in the scenario of people voting no, what would happen ? We all know that all of this would still go straight forward and this is what I meant by DAO illusion.
Same as I understand that sometimes, decisions need to be made for the greater good without voting but then no need to pretend to follow a format just for the sake of it. Community discussions are already happening on discord, members working together to find ideas/solutions and much more, nothing to do with this proposal dropping.
The only thing that is missing from this proposal is a better transparency about funds spent, I know we already have report but we are missing factor information and we kinda requested it since a moment.
We do not need to dox team, to give out names or anything like that but we as players and probably as DAO, requests the share of salaries break out by department to have a clear understanding of what is going on and where are funds going.
We are a lot questioning how could the upkeep of the game cost 500k/month, so we would like to understand better on this subject.
Share with us more detailed expense break down to show us all and restore truth please.
Atlas,
I appreciate your concerns, but it’s important to correct a few misconceptions:
Let’s keep the discussion based on facts so we can have a productive conversation.
Thanks!
I get that you’re passionate about the project, and I appreciate that you still have faith in CU’s potential. But let’s be real about a few things here.
First, the point about LG’s majority sCU stake isn’t about shutting down the community’s voice—it’s about being transparent about the realities of the situation. We’ve locked up our tokens and are staking them because we believe in the long-term vision of this project. If we didn’t, we could’ve sold and walked away, but we’re still here, pushing forward. That’s not a power play; that’s commitment.
As for the idea that the DAO is a farce, I disagree. The DAO is evolving, and while it’s not perfect, it’s far from being a joke. The community has always had the opportunity to influence the direction of the project. But let’s not forget that decision-making in a DAO is a two-way street. It’s not just about proposing ideas—it’s about engaging with the process, understanding the stakes, and working together to make things happen.
On cutting costs and focusing on the mini-game, we’re already prioritizing what’s necessary to keep this project alive and moving forward. We’re taking a calculated approach, which includes exploring various avenues like the toy and TV stuff. These might seem like distractions now, but they’re potential long-term value drivers for the CU IP. The key is balance—investing in immediate needs while not losing sight of opportunities that could pay off in the future.
As for paying the team in $CU, let’s be realistic. We all want to see CU succeed, but paying the team in a token that’s currently undervalued doesn’t solve the immediate need to keep the lights on and development rolling. Enthusiasm and faith are vital, but so are practicality and sustainability. Adding more sell pressure to the token is not a good idea.
We’re not here to gather “lulz feedback forms.” We’re here to take actionable steps based on real input from the community. If you want to help, then let’s focus on solutions that are grounded in the realities of what it takes to turn this project around.
Your passion is noted, and it’s appreciated. But let’s channel that into constructive collaboration rather than dismissing the progress and hard work that’s already happening.
Appreciate the indepth response for many questions.
I understand the game will take 90 days at worst to be developed.
but how much time would it take to develop the game’s mechanics. becuase I would like to know more about game mechanics and how it relates to the utility of core game assets.
This should not take much time and it is necessary information for me to make an informed decision.
Completely understandable and I agree that we need to get the new game idea out ASAP. Manicunicorn is working on the proposal draft and will be sharing in ideas early next week.
From there we’ll gather feedback and look to lock in the spec!
Just to be clear.
Are the mechanics of the next TwT planned to be the same as they were?
Or is that what we’re talking about?
Still remains, waiting for it please.
No the plan is to have different mechanics for TwT. We think there’s room to improve.
But the game will start right after the ground game is turned off? Or within three months
In the sunset article it said for players to stash out tokens before sunset or they will be lost forever. How many monthly active players do we have. How many players who have not logged in since migration with stashed tokens. Do we have a current estimate for these. I imagine some people are on vacation or check in only now and then. Can a list of wallets with tokens not be made. If these tokens are lost forever. Well not lost as they are not tokens themselves but a IOU of a token. Question is what will be done with the tokens in gamebank/treasury that players lose by not stashing out. Does treasury just claim them as their own. Thanks
Without getting too deep into financial details, can we get rough total numbers and % split on this budget lines?
this is still going to be challenging- with the current team size we have several deparments that consist of a single person. Not sure how to meaningfully give you the info you want without making it super simple to figure out who’s who and how much they are paid.
I suspect no matter what we share, it will never be enough.
A total number that is just all salaries combined is the best thing that comes to mind, and even that I still need to have approved.
Approved by who Aron? You see how this is becoming a recurring theme as I’ve stated several times in discord? There is currently no transparency to what the LG team is pocketing from the Xai grant. In addition, the above proposal DOESN’T even include Xai in the reward structure. I’ll ask again…What is the total monthly income for LG(in usd)?The fact that your boss cannot answer our simple question is concerning.
Am I blind or aren’t we missing a game designer or two? Seems like a crucial role when coming up with a new game