Upcoming Botcoin SNS Swap

Community SNS Launch Proposals
9

Review of Botcoin SNS Launch Proposal

As a Voting Neuron Grantee for SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics on the DFINITY forum, I’m reviewing the Botcoin SNS proposal to assess its alignment with decentralization guidelines, tokenomics fairness, and overall viability as a seed-like investment in the ICP ecosystem. This evaluation draws on DFINITY’s established criteria, including Dominic Williams’ thoughts on SNS proposals, voting guidelines, minting and treasury limits, and the need for mature, decentralized projects with clear sustainability paths.

Summary of the Proposal

The Botcoin proposal seeks to create an SNS DAO for BOTCOIN, a gamified mining token inspired by Pokedbots NFTs, where tokens are mined via staking Pokedbots or upcoming Wildbots NFTs on a platform called EB8. Key elements include:

  • Total supply: 21 million BOTCOIN.
  • SNS swap: 3.885 million tokens (18.5%) aiming to raise 5,000–100,000 ICP, with individual limits of 10–5,000 ICP and a minimum of 10 participants.
  • Allocations: 15% (3.15 million) to development/marketing, 66.5% (13.965 million) to treasury (including 50% mining rewards, 15% airdrops to Pokedbot/Wildbot holders, and 1.5% team).
  • Roadmap: Q3/Q4 2025 for SNS launch, airdrops, Wildbots minting, basic mining, and AI integrations; Q1/Q2 2026 for full EB8 game with wagering (18+ version), PvP, and all-ages variant; long-term vision for metaverse and physical collectibles.
  • Use of funds: Liquidity provision, development, smart contract operations, buybacks, and community expansion.
  • Dependencies: Relies on Caffeine AI for EB8, Toko Marketplace (in alpha) for Wildbots minting, and external projects for metadata/swaps.
  • No Neurons’ Fund participation (correctly set to false, avoiding issues post-Proposal 135970).
    The proposal positions Botcoin as an experimental, fun-driven token merging NFTs with mining, but emphasizes it’s not primarily for fundraising, with a fallback to a basic token if the SNS fails.

Analysis of YAML and Technical Aspects vs. Guidelines

The YAML file outlines standard SNS parameters, but several aspects raise concerns when benchmarked against DFINITY guidelines:

  • Tokenomics and Allocations: Total supply is capped at 21 million, with a low transaction fee (0.001 BOTCOIN) and proposal rejection fee (100 tokens). Voting rewards are fixed at 1% (no inflation decay), with bonuses for dissolve delay (up to 15% at 36 months) and age (up to 10% at 36 months), and a minimum dissolve delay of 6 months. This is reasonable for long-term alignment but lacks aggressive anti-dump measures. Allocations skew heavily toward treasury (66.5%), which includes mining rewards (50%)—potentially fair for gamification but risks central control if not decentralized. Developer allocation (15%) is vested across three neurons (1.05 million each) with dissolve delays of 3–9 months and vesting periods of 6–24 months, but all to the same principal (hyyie-cfkjd-oyiko-xi5j6-zculx-ojtkf-hujp4-lbgwq-upnih-avqlj-fae), indicating high centralization risk. Swap parameters comply with minting limits (no excessive treasury proposals per guidelines), but the low min raise (5,000 ICP) and confirmation text on risks/sanctions are adequate.
  • Alignment with DFINITY Guidelines:
    • Dominic’s Thoughts on SNS Proposals (DFINITY thoughts on SNS/decentralization swap proposals): Emphasizes fair distributions, decentralization, and avoiding over-centralized treasuries. Botcoin’s treasury dominance (66.5%) and single-principal neurons contradict this, as does the lack of broad initial neuron distribution.
    • Voting Guidelines (DFINITY's voting on upcoming SNS launch proposals): Prioritizes security, maturity, and community value. No audits mentioned, and product immaturity (see below) fails here.
    • Minting Limits (Minting limits - detailed design) and Treasury Limits (Limit SNS treasury proposals - detailed design): Complies technically, but treasury size invites abuse without clear governance checks.
    • NF Participation: Correctly disabled (false), avoiding the paused NF issue.
      Using a mental Tokenomics Analyzer: VP concentrates with the founder via neurons, airdrops favor existing Pokedbots holders (potentially insiders), and mining could lead to dumps if rewards vest quickly. No burn mechanisms or revenue-linked incentives to counter inflation.
  • GitHub and Open Source: The repo (BotcoinGold (Botcoin) · GitHub) contains minimal content—sub-repos like EB8, botcoin, and botcoin-sns exist but lack code, READMEs, or activity beyond a logo and vague “Mining $Botcoin” mentions. No smart contracts, token logic, or commits visible, violating open-source expectations for ICP projects.

Team, Product, and Roadmap Alignment

The team is led by Gregory Farrer (doxxed via LinkedIn as a Countersigner in London). Inspiration from Poked Studio’s Jon Ball is noted, but Wildbots are licensed derivatives not yet minted. Product-wise:

  • No working prototype exists; EB8 mining is conceptual, dependent on unreleased Toko Marketplace and external APIs for metadata/swaps. Website (botcoin.gold) is barebones with a non-functional video and no demos. Whitepaper link yields nothing substantial.
  • Roadmap delays full launch to 2026, with AI characters (Botoshi, Double Trouble) as lore fluff but no technical depth. Mismatches: Private discussions with the founder revealed no clear revenue model (“the game earns money” via wagering/cosmetics, but details withheld to avoid “unfair advantage”), contradicting sustainability needs. Founder admitted a basic product exists but isn’t testable, and the SNS is a “test” of the ecosystem, with plans to proceed without it.
  • Evidence from X (@Botcoin_Gold, 107 followers): Promotional posts hype mining/NFTs but show low engagement (e.g., 40 likes on key announcements), no product updates beyond teases. Ties to Pokedbots are evident, but this feels like an extension without standalone value.
    This misaligns with Dominic’s “bar” for SNS decentralization (What is the bar for a project decentralizing with the SNS?), requiring a working, decentralized product pre-launch—Botcoin has neither.

Red Flags and Risks

  • Centralization: Single principal for all developer neurons; treasury control could enable rugs, akin to BoomDAO exploits.
  • Lack of Transparency/Sustainability: Founder evasive on revenue (e.g., % to liquidity, business plan), viewing SNS as optional despite seed-like raise. No ROI path outlined, risking runway exhaustion like many SNS projects (as discussed in forum threads on 6-9 month sustainability).
  • Product Immaturity: No MVP, dependencies on alpha tools, no audits
  • Dump Potential: Airdrops (15%) and mining (50%) could flood supply; low raise minimizes community input.

Conclusion and Voting Stance

Botcoin’s gamified concept has creative potential but falls short as an SNS due to centralization, no working product, opaque revenue, and minimal open-source efforts—failing core guidelines for mature, decentralized protocols. As with seed investments, sustainability is key; without a clear business plan or demo, this risks becoming another underperforming project draining ecosystem trust.
Questions for the developers:

  • Can you provide a detailed revenue model, including % breakdowns for funds (e.g., liquidity vs. development) and how the game sustains post-raise?
  • When will GitHub be fully open-sourced with code for EB8/mining logic, and can you share a testable MVP or audit reports?
  • How will you decentralize initial neurons beyond one principal and mitigate treasury risks?
  • What metrics (e.g., user acquisition, token burns) ensure long-term value, especially with dependencies like Toko?
    Until these are addressed (e.g., via forum updates, whitepaper, or code drops), I must vote NO on this proposal.

Sources | bitel911 @dehypokriet

Sources Used in This Review

Disclaimer | bitel911 @dehypokriet

Note: This analysis was assisted by Grok 4, an AI built by xAI, to brainstorm, structure, and refine the content for clarity and objectivity. All opinions and voting decisions remain my own as a Voting Neuron Grantee.

Why use AI assistance? As someone with dyslexia and autism, tools like Grok help organize thoughts into professional, readable formats without altering the core analysis. This ensures transparency in the review process while leveraging tech for better ecosystem discussions.

Date: August 27, 2025

4 Likes