Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my previous comments. I’d like to address your points systematically and factually:
1. Team Allocation
Comparing team allocation percentages with other projects:
- ICPSwap: 26% Team allocation / 26% Swap
- OpenChat: 23% Team allocation / 25.1% Swap
- HotOrNot: 25.75% Team Allocation / 33% Swap
- Neutrinite: 20% Team Allocation / 30% Swap
- Sonic: 20.5% Team Allocation / 21% Swap
WaterNeuron: 19.3% Team Allocation / 24.7% Swap
With the large amount of ICP deposited in those swap teams control a much larger portion of ICP. Contrary to what you pointed out, WaterNeuron’s team allocation of 19.3% is slightly lower compared to other projects. This aligns with industry norms and is on the conservative side. This fact could support the argument that the allocation is reasonable and perhaps even modest.
2. Locking Period
While a 5-year vesting period may seem extensive, some industry examples show a range of vesting periods. If DFINITY seeds vest over 4 years, a 3-year vesting period for WaterNeuron could be a reasonable compromise. Lengthier vesting periods often aim to ensure long-term commitment and alignment with the project’s success.
3. Rewards Distribution
Regarding the reward distribution and the calculations, the example given:
“At 1% of the supply, with 1 swap there will be 47,863 ICP distributed every year.”
If there is any misunderstanding in calculations, the provided spreadsheet should clarify it. Ensuring clarity in reward mechanisms is crucial for stakeholder confidence.
4. Identifying Key Stakeholders
The mention of “Max” seems to be a misunderstanding. If it was meant to reference someone not relevant, correcting such details is important for accuracy.
5. Inclusion in Neuron Fund
Decisions regarding the Neuron Fund should indeed follow the set rules, and discussions about fund contributions need to adhere to these guidelines:
DFINITY’s voting on upcoming SNS launch proposals [DFINITY's voting on upcoming SNS launch proposals].
Understanding the contribution limits and the rationale behind previous funding decisions can provide context for current proposals. Comparing WaterNeuron’s hard cap of 70k ICP with other funded projects shows a relatively conservative approach.
6. Understanding Liquid Staking
Liquid staking is a complex yet crucial concept. Continuous learning and understanding these mechanisms will enhance discussions and decisions. If further clarification is needed, there are numerous resources available for detailed study.
Conclusion
While the feedback was direct, it’s important to ensure the conversation remains constructive and fact-based. Addressing potential misunderstandings and providing clear, logical responses can help in maintaining a healthy discourse around the project’s development and its potential impact.
Your engagement and critique, even if perceived as critical, can drive improvements and clarity. Ensuring accuracy and mutual understanding should be the goal of such discussions. If there are further specific points or clarifications needed, a detailed and objective analysis would be beneficial for all stakeholders involved.