On Financial Strategy Changes

Draft Proposals
1

Abstract

This proposal aims to optimize the DAO’s financial management by scaling down operations, discontinuing outdated reward programs, and utilizing $CU to address financial obligations. These measures are intended to ensure the continued functioning of the DAO’s core operations.

Motivation

As the Laguna Games team steps down as the primary developer within the ecosystem, it has become imperative for the DAO to streamline its operations to ensure its long-term sustainability. This proposal offers the DAO a viable path forward, which the DA may accept or reject at its discretion.

Details

I. Termination of Outdated Programs

I propose the formal termination of the following programs:

  1. Security Bug Bounty

With the core game offline and no live operations team, it will no longer be feasible to address incoming security reports. Therefore, we propose discontinuing the Security Bug Bounty Program.

  1. Vote Participation Reward Badge

Due to the absence of live operations and blockchain support, the production of new badges is no longer viable. Existing badges however, will retain their respective boosts.

  1. Buyback and Burn

Given the DAO’s limited revenue streams and the lack of a live operations team to execute this task, it is advisable to suspend this proposal until additional revenue sources are established.

  1. In-game Token Burn

The cessation of the core game may have implied the conclusion of this process, but this proposal formalizes that termination.

II. Changes in Settlement Methods

In light of the limited treasury, I recommend implementing a long-term safeguard:

  1. $CU Settlement
    Should the DAO lack ETH or stablecoins, all financial obligations will be settled using $CU by default.

  2. $CU to Cash Conversion
    If the DAO must settle payments on a cash basis (e.g., subscription payments) in the absence of ETH or stablecoins, $CU will be converted to cash for such purposes.

III. Scaling Down to Critical Operations

Post-turnover, I believe the focus should be on maintaining critical operations, including:

  • Staking Platform Maintenance
  • Staking Reward Pool Maintenance
  • Marketplace Maintenance
  • Official Website Maintenance
  • Queueing of Safe Operations (following a DAO request)

I believes it is in the DAO’s best interest for us to discontinue the following activities:

  • Blockchain Engineering
  • Live Operations (including closure of Zendesk)
  • Customer Support (including closure of Zendesk)
  • Community Management (including closure of team-owned Discord and Telegram and transition to a DAO-managed Discord)
  • Governance (including closure of the team-owned forum and transition to a DAO-managed Discord)
  • Social Media (transitioning Twitter to a legacy page and closure of other social media)
  • Marketing
  • Business Development
  • Product Development
  • Art Production
  • Accounting (including cessation of treasury report releases)

Based on current financial obligations in ETH, cash, or stablecoins, the DAO’s estimated monthly financial responsibility is $28,604.

Service Providers Coverage Cost in (USD) Frequency
Venticello uniWU.me maintenance $ 5,000.00 Monthly until November
Vault Team Staking Contract Maintenance $ 15,000.00 Monthly
Laguna Team Multi-sig Operations, Staking Reward Pool, Marketplace, Website and Staking Website Maintenance $ 7,000.00 Monthly
$ 27,000.00

While these costs are projections, the outlined work coverage is fixed. Moving forward, the DAO may engage any of these service providers to renegotiate fees directly.

Additionally, I present the following subscriptions for consideration. I believe these should not be renewed unless the DAO opts to maintain CU’s brand presence.

Subscriptions Purpose Cost Frequency
Twitter Twitter Blue Check $ 11.00 Monthly
Gitbook Whitepaper, Starter Guide, Charter $ 300.00 Monthly
Discourse Governance Forum $ 100.00 Monthly
$ 411.00

Note: To ensure accuracy of information, all intellectual property and licensing-related efforts will be presented by the contributor separately.

Conclusion

I believe these changes are crucial for optimizing the DAO’s ability to meet its financial responsibilities going forward. As this is a proposal, the DAO is encouraged to vote on revisions, removals, or additions to any section of this document.

2

So what I’m reading from the “next steps” proposals:
Let’s keep paying Vault 15k/month to keep the LP up so Laguna/DAO/employees can dump their tokens and drain all the Eth left. very convenient that CU gets delisted everywhere else in the same time.
RELEASE PEOPLE’S FUNDS from LP and shutdown the project if/when current funds end. but don’t steal players funds to keep this circus going.
At this point, this is beyond bad management or incompetence, it’s simply stealing.
We all know this project is dead and buried, but in the last hour have the decency to do the right thing

2 Likes
3

This I am not ok with, because this is just another way of trying to delete the discord server and run away without any trace when you move onto your next game. So this one will make me 100% decline the proposal.

Also, 100% agree with what Nev is saying. I would rather distribute the remaining funds to plays in a hold leaderboard in 1 go, than pay more overpriced stealing maintenance fees. Nice try, but no, will also decline this.

Have the decency to stop stealing the funds from people and trying to make it seem like you are doing a favor for the people, when will you understand enough is enough? What on earth is wrong with you guys.

1 Like
4

Guys, unpack the LP and give the money to the remaining players!
Do you want to be fairly damned by us?!

5

reallocate p2e/staking rewards to buyback xai and provide rewards (especially xai and lockdrops) for stakers, who does really care about another bunch of fake dao proposals trying to get rid of discord / useless council leaders (lol who do you think would be up for that?) / etc.
as i said on hard reset proposal couple months ago - dao is a complete farce rn

6

Too many things in one proposal. I would advise to make multiple proposals for different sections.

7

The point of this is a mix and match. Remove things we don’t care about and then proceed with the things we care about.

8

Hey, Prof. Thanks. I can definitely remove it from being mentioned but I feel like clarification is needed. The “(including closure of team-owned Discord and Telegram and transition to a DAO-managed Discord)” is more of a clarification of what it means for us to pull out Community Management. As the Discord is owned and managed by Laguna Games, it’s really for decommissioning post LG exit.

9

We’re currently checking with Vault on this. They were on a series of holidays so they haven’t been able to give us any update on this regard.

10

Actually, it’s up to the DAO to continue paying Vault or not. Moving forward, I advise the DAO to actually reach out to Vault directly to renegotiate the fees.

11

It’s clear that there is no continuing game or community here. The only proposal that makes sense is to eliminate all costs and return all funds possible.

12

This is something better done at a later stage when you actually now how the DAO will be managing it, not right now when we have no clue what is even going on and how it will proceed.

Definitely, remove this part of the proposal in my opinion.

13

Why can’t you do this now? Why does it have to be the DAO in the future.

14

I’m afraid that is not possible. As the Discord is LG-owned and is not property of the DAO. Even if it gets removed in writing, it will still happen post the exit. :frowning:

15

I believe the negotiation should be done by the people that believe in the advocacy.

16

I believe fine to remove all costs as long as it’s approved in a proposal that the DAO agrees that all operations will stop. As in the staking platform and marketplace will be removed completely along with it.

Please write a proposal containing how you think it’s best for the DAO to proceed if you think that the path I propose is not ideal. However, it’s important to note that upon the dissolution of the DAO, all assets need to be distributed to a non-profit organization and not to its members as per the CU UNA charter.

18

Hello, everyone. I shall be closing this I have separated the different items into different proposals to be reviewed separately instead.