I’d like to preface this by stating that this is in no means financial advice, nor is it meant to criticize the decentralized application in discussion. The following article is a collection of objective observations, in regards to the Accumulator Neurons SNS Voting Criteria, which can be found in the resources below. It should be noted that unlike previous Due Diligence Reports, this Analysis has not be objectively reviewed by the $GHOST Foundation, due to a loss of contact.
Accumulator Neuron SNS Voting Criteria
SNS Proposal Discussion
Protocol Documentation Relevant to Analysis
No documentation outside of SNS Proposals Available
$GHOST is a meme token, with the self proclaimed goal to establish a fully decentralized and self-governing organization where every $GHOST holder becomes a respected stakeholder, contributing to the growth and prosperity of the project.
Main Net dApp
Is the dApp live and operational? Has the development team demonstrated technical competence specifically regarding the Internet Computer Protocol?
$GHOST is a meme token, and does not have a typical dApp, but rather a website with an information page, which can be found here;
With this being said, the combination of a token & a website hosted on the IC does showcase a degree of technical competence in relation to the Internet Computer. However, it should be noted, these are relatively simply concepts, with “step by step” documentation - meaning just about anyone could reproduce this environment.
Is the dApp fully on-chain, meaning both the front end and back end of the protocol are hosted in Canister smart contracts?
Yes, $GHOST consists of 3 canisters, all of which can be found below;
IC GHOST official website canister: yadjb-mqaaa-aaaan-qaqlq-cai
IC GHOST NFT Collection canister: xzcnc-myaaa-aaaak-abk7a-cai
IC GHOST Token (EXT) canister: fjbi2-fyaaa-aaaan-qanjq-cai
Does the dApp rely on third-party dependencies, such as off-chain providers, fee-gated APIs, or other mechanisms that rely on intermediaries? If so, is there a plan to transfer these dependencies to Canisters and the SNS? Additionally, is there a plan to fund these mechanisms independently, without solely relying on the SNS Treasury?
No, $GHOST is completely within canister smart contracts, and does not rely on third party APIs.
However, something that may be deemed a dependency are the DEXs that $GHOST is tradeable on, as these are the only ways to buy or sell $GHOST.
With that being said, currently, DEXs are not charging listing / exchange fees to the contract issuer themselves, but rather passively to end users - therefor this can be considered a non-issue in the short term.
Can the dApp, in its current form, be considered a complete product that fulfills its intended purpose? If the development team were to suddenly stop building, would the dApp still be able to function and achieve its objectives?
Considering $GHOST is not a dApp, but rather a meme token, yes, it fulfills its purpose in its current form.
Is the protocol open source?
Yes, the $GHOST source code is available within their respective canisters.
Has the team provided a clear white paper that details the protocol comprehensively? Additionally, is there technical documentation available that explains the underlying mechanisms, functionalities, and concepts of the protocol?
Based off publicly provided information, there is currently not a white paper, or any other technical documentation available for $GHOST. It is claimed that the direction & development is community driven.
With this being said, the $GHOST information website provides a minimalist roadmap, citing the following objectives;
- Build strong Partnerships within ICP
- Add more Liquidity
- 20k $GHOST Holders
- Design Artistic Creation of GHOST
- Bring GHOST into metaverse
- Implement $GHOST Burning Deflation Plan
- $GHOST to 1$ or moon
Is there an insightful overview of the tokenomics provided? Is token allocation responsible & proportionate?
While the $GHOST Foundation has partially provided the necessary information to thoroughly gauge tokenomics & token allocation (available to review within SNS Proposal Forum Post), something that should be noted is the requirement of trust in the conversion from EXT-ICRC $GHOST, post SNS.
For example, the token supply of EXT $GHOST & ICRC $GHOST are identical - 10B tokens.
However, of the ICRC tokens, 20% is being re-sold within the SNS Sale, while ~4% is reserved for the team.
With this being said, there is currently a promised 1:1 conversion rate with disproportionate exchange liquidity; 9.8B EXT Tokens : 7.6B ICRC tokens.
The trust based factor arises due to the fact that the $GHOST Foundation has promised to burn the 25% of the supply they hold, under the circumstances of a successful SNS.
Meaning a 1:1 Conversion rate is only possible under the circumstance the team upholds their “promise” to burn ~25% of the supply.
The proposed token distribution of $GHOST can be found below;
Proposed Token Distribution
Total token supply: 10 billion GHOST tokens
75.92%: Reserved for the SNS treasury & under control of the IC GHOST DAO. A portion of it is allocated for a 1:1 exchange between GHOST (EXT) and GHOST (ICRC1).
20%: To be distributed by the NNS run decentralization sale, Every penny from here will be used for the liquidity of GHOST/ICP, which will be added through proposals.
4.08%: Allocated to the IC GHOST team which vests 1 year
With this being said, yes, I believe this is one of the more fair token allocations - 4% is one of the lowest team token allocations to date.
Has the team clearly articulate why the SNS is the ideal decentralization solution for their application at this time?
In my opinion, no, the team has not clearly articulated why the SNS is the best path towards decentralization for a meme token, in comparison to other DAO frameworks. The team has cited their reasoning for pursuing the SNS as:
“Through this strategic move, we are relinquishing control and entrusting the leadership and governance of the IC GHOST project to you, our valued community members. Our decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) empowers each individual within the community to play an active role in shaping the direction and success of IC GHOST.”
Is the team publicly known within the ecosystem? Do they have a visible presence in the crypto community or relevant industry events?
While the $GHOST project was originally launched by the user “ICP Link”, upon review of the information provided by the dApp, there is currently no public-facing team. This means it is not possible to gauge the individual competency of the team behind $GHOST, however, it can be said that the $GHOST twitter is very active & involved with the ICP Community.
Is the team’s dynamic transparent? Do team members openly communicate and collaborate with the community?
No, based off publicly available information, the teams inner workings are not transparent to the public. However, it is reasonable to say that the team frequently collaborates & engages with the community, as depicted within the official $GHOST account.
What is the team’s track record and experience in the relevant field? Has the team made notable contributions to the ecosystem or relevant projects?
Given the teams lack of transparency, it is not possible to gauge the experience or track record of those involved with the $GHOST project.
However, I believe it is fair to say that the team behind $GHOST has made notable contributions to the ecosystem, being the first meme token, $GHOST itself.
Proof of Valuation
Has the team shown comparable raises within the industry sector?
The $GHOST Foundation has not shown comparable raises, presumably, given the nature of the token. The amount to be raised was determined by the community, due to $GHOST being a community based meme token.
Does the valuation accurately address the current and potential market shares?
The valuation has no correlation to market share, as it was determined via community poll.
Has the team provided transparency regarding the valuation? Is the valuation method disclosed, and is the math behind it available for review?
Yes, I believe it is reasonable to say that the team has provided transparency in valuation.
While the team has not provided a valuation method, math to back it, or other standard inclinations regarding valuation, I hold this stance due to the fact that they’ve allowed the community complete control over the quantity raised & valuation of the DAO.
Is a security audit necessary for the application?
Given $GHOST is a token, yes, I do believe it is reasonable that there is a degree of code review to the Canister(s).
Has the code received at least some degree of review? Is there transparency and disclosure regarding the security measures taken?
Based off publicly provided information, no, the contracts have not undergone code review, nor is it referenced.
Neuron Fund Allocation
Is the Neuron Fund utilized? If so, what percentage of the sale is the Neuron Fund? If so, what is the size of the contribution in respect to the size of the Neuron Fund?
No, the neuron fund is not utilized within this sale.
In conclusion, the $GHOST project presents a unique concept as a meme token on the Internet Computer Protocol. However, there are concerns regarding the protocol that have led to my decision to reject to postpone, being;
- Lack of complete documentation and technical details hinder a comprehensive understanding of the project’s objectives and mechanisms.
- The lack of transparency regarding the team’s identity and track record raises potential credibility concerns.
- The absence of a security audit for the canisters poses potential risks to token holders.
- Trust-based assumptions, such as the 1:1 conversion rate and promised token burning, introduce uncertainty.
- The project’s potential for SNS raises concerns about security and costs associated with obtaining 51% of voting power.
Overall, further transparency, security audits, and clarity on the project’s direction are essential to instill longstanding confidence and ensure the project’s success within the Internet Computer ecosystem.
Written by accumulating.icp July 23rd