|
|
Post by Shalaquiana on Mar 12, 2021 2:57:34 GMT
BIOPset's upcoming IBCO has had a number of different structures proposed. They are:
First is a bancor curve based IBCO. This would mean that after every token purchase the price goes up (like bonding curves and AMMs that exist on many other platforms). i.e. you buy one token the price goes up.
Second is a tiered offering. This would mean that the price only increases when certain thresholds are met. i.e. when the total amount of tokens sold hits 100 the price goes up.
What do you think is most important to structuring this offering? Is there a third architecture you want to be considered?
I like the tiered ITCO myself but this is a community decision and the chosen solution will be the one supported by BIOPset's users and not just by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by munair on Mar 12, 2021 3:23:35 GMT
At this stage of the drive to raise funds for the BIOPSET V4 liquidity pool, it makes the most sense to go with audited code that was published publicly. There are two reasons:
1. In the case that the fundraise is 100% successful, the contracts will hold 600 ETH (~1 million USD at present ETH prices). It is most important that those funds be held in secure smart contracts.
2. The multisig that the IBCO code would transfer the funds to has not been created (nor have the signers to that multi-sig been decided or published).
If there was audited code of a tiered offering of the kind you are proposing, I would not have a preference between a Bancor-styled bonding curve or the tiered approach.
My biggest concerns are around security and best practices, not the particular style of bonding cure selected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shalaquiana on Mar 12, 2021 4:05:54 GMT
I see, in regards to a secure smart contract I have begun taking efforts to raise the assurance this is so. I have published the code on github and made a post on twitter to see if anyone is interested in reviewing it. At this time a full audit of it is outside of my budget, the funds I have are set aside to pay for the deployment costs.
For the multisig I agree with what your sayin. I think this is something that can be done now. I see the signers as you, me, and a couple others. I will message you on discord directly so we can figure out who else to trust with that control. The first one I can think of is Dereek69.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dereek69 on Mar 12, 2021 15:29:00 GMT
Agree with munair the crucial point should be safety of the raised funds. I would be able to anticipate the money to audit the bonding contract if we want to use the Tiered Curve. We can then reserve a part of the funds raised to pay for a full audit of the platform, and only after that, put the raised funds into the liquidity funds. Personally i do prefer the Tiered curve aswell since its an innovative way to give early adopters a chance to get a lower price
Dereek69
|
|
|
|
Post by Shalaquiana on Mar 13, 2021 6:44:15 GMT
Yes although now that I've opened it up to the community on a snapshot vote it seems important to honor their decision whichever it is. Setting aside funds from the ibco seems to pay for the audit first does seem prudent as good stewards of the investors money.
|
|
|
|
Post by cryptognome on Mar 14, 2021 15:59:42 GMT
I am in favor of Tiered Curve.
A large percentage of funds needs to be set aside for liquidity to provide a legitimate market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivier on Mar 14, 2021 20:32:51 GMT
In favor of tiered curve  |
|
