Proposal to Cover Operational Costs

[FrenchXCore]

Hi everyone !

I’m kinda perplex over this proposal. Are we talking team’s tokens assignment (no vote required) or Community Pool ?

Does that mean that genesis token allocations (product dev, incentives, egf, etc.) is not enough (we initiallly noted it was for a 10-15 years effort) ?

As reminded here FunctionX DAO governance - #2 by FrenchXCore (almost a year ago), almost 200M $FX tokens were allocated to the team at genesis.

Most of the efforts on subsequents projects (beside project itself) were funded by the Community Pool, not by team’s funds.

Dilution of the token value into more team tokens looks like nonsense to me, unless there is full transparency about DAO and governance and much more explanation.

Moreover, team’s validators are still producing many commissions and rewards (thru inflation) that could help this purpose. I’d prefer the Community Pool to fund external projects only.

Eventually, I really still expect to see transparency in the multiple teams addresses’, members, status of funds, roadmap, etc. The community is developing fast, the pace is still but continuous, and we don’t wanna miss the next bullrun…

Just my 2 cents.
As it is, we would clearly vote “ABSTAIN” and maybe even “NO” given that many things are still expecting an answer…

Regards,
FrenchXCore

[Fox_Coin]

…im bit of perplex too.

In addition to the 200M team tokens assignment and the inflation rewards from team validstors…

…there are also 15% funds for marketing, engineering and development (50M FX tokens)

What happend with the 50,000,000 tokens from the 15% pool and the 200,000,000M tokens from the team….why we need another 3,000,000?

[Darry]

I will return to my vote awaiting answers, is now the right time in this bear market, many investors are at a loss right now

[LKYBOB]

I’m am also perplexed as my value alone is down by 2m AUD, and have the same questions as @FrenchXCore we need better knowledge of the past funds position set out previous & a detailed spread of where these funds will go

[cop4200]

I agree, we need clarity. A healthy DAO is all about clarity to the community.

1. Where do we stand for funds allocated for Engineering and Product/marketing.
2. The marketing campaigns we have been running: FXDM, Liquidity incentives, MarginX incentives were all funded from EGF. What are the marketing funds (18 million +) used for if campaigns are to be funded through community pools.
3. Clarity on commissions accumulation from the team validators and the plan how these will be used.

[zaccheah]

Dear team,

So far we have spent 9,963,573.75 $FX tokens from the EGF funds on hiring, operations and liquidity. The remaining 65,757,331.25 of the EGF funds are delegated to validators and continue to earn yields. Attaching spreadsheet here.

As @DavidK announced, we’re proposing to allocate 3 million $FX for operations and year-end bonus, either from option 1 CSP through governance voting, or option 2 EGF. The inclination might be to allocate it from the EGF without diluting CSP. However, we would like to state the case for CSP application.

The team is rolling out various features and products eg: fx-swap, f(x)Wallet, explorer, evm support etc. And also upcoming ones like Ledger, Keplr support in Q1. Hence, just like everyone else, we want to have a chance to apply for CSP. Not wanting the team that built Function X to apply seems counterintuitive. The whitepaper mentions that EGF will run 15 years, so will our allocation for engineering, marketing & products. We believe it is actually in the community’s interest to encourage us to apply for governance and to keep EGF strong for 15 years. Finally, based on past experience, most of the 3M FX will NOT hit the market, and will be kept by team members.

Wishing everyone a good health and joyous season!

[FrenchXCore]

Hi @zaccheah !

I believe the team is already highly motivated by the accomplishments realized so far, and the gaining momentum from external actors. The team members should also be highly motivated by the future price momentum on the FX token…

As you know, there has been a continuous requests over project’s funds transparency, and your response above only answers part of it.

Product dev & marketing (55M FX) are clearly supposed to cover active developments, including EVM, SDK, tools (wallet, explorer, …).
Right now, I can’t say we reached a stable release version, especially with respect to documentation, developer’s section, oracles, ERC20-FX IBC GW, etc. notwithstanding the initial proposal for an FX phone OS.

I sincerely think you should be able to provide, monthly or maybe semesterly, expenses of the project in each category.

I don’t see any issues in using EGF-funds for the team, but only for extra work, not for project’s work, at least until we consider we reached a stable environment.

Respectfully
@FrenchXCore

[Jan]

I support this proposal, YES.

• i’m just a hodler
• functionx has brought me nothing but good and positivity
• well deserved
• admirable that a team ask through community voting for something they created themselves
• it gives me the feeling that i can do something back for the whole team.

Despite the well thought comments, it personally would hurt me if this proposal would not pass, would even scare me a bith tbh.

[andablue]

I support the idea of motivating the team, despite all the well thought concern by strong community members, personally i think sometimes we are trying to prevent the team from applying. We instead throw our hats supporting others that is applying even when very little is built yet by others. We should motivate the team to have more tokens, not less.

I am very delighted to see Function X internal team built f(x)Swap and use $f(x) as a native tokens. If an outsider team built it, they would have applied for CSP, and I believe we will support this third party grants.

Long time holder here.

[SCENE]

Here’s my take as a community member.

I wholeheartedly vote ‘YES’ - so that the team can expand and recruit more builders to help the Foundation grow in an upstream direction.

As far as I know, the Function X Foundation did not launch any ICO or seek VC funding. It is a non-profit foundation.

Personal opinion:
The team is entitled to the initial genesis allocation, and it is a RIGHT because they built it from the ground up with internal funds. Just like how traditional companies or founders get allocated a portion of the company’s shares, in their case, it is tokens.

But you have to realize that the genesis allocation is just token shares, which are not backed by a floor value compared to an ICO where companies sell you tokens at a fixed price for operations.

• Allocated shares doesn’t equal to operations/funding

To continue operating and expanding the team by hiring more developers and engineers, it is of paramount importance that they propose an operations funding proposal, utilizing EGF or CP.

DO NOT mix the genesis allocation with future operations.

• You build a company
• You get shares at the start for risking capital to build the company
• This is a common practice and a well-deserved ‘right’

Operations and funding are totally separate matters from genesis allocation.

The community wants the Foundation to grow, yet, they are also the ones holding it back by saying ‘no’.

---

Products the team has built:

• FXCore Classic + EVM and its consistent upgrades
• FXSwap
• FXWallet - multiple variations throughout the months to improve the UI/UX for the community
• FX Websites (multiple, including Forum, StarScan, and more)
• p(x)Card hardware wallet / p(x)Change App
• Other DApps that are not announced yet
• On-going partnerships with other major companies like Ledger (not announced)
• All the tech, design, HR and more backend working tirelessly that the community don’t see
• Many more that are in the roadmap
• Many more that I did not mention

If you want the Foundation to grow, I hope you guys don’t block the pathway to success for Function X.

By being able to hire more developers, there will be more PRODUCTS in the Function X ecosystem that will benefit EVERYONE.

• It is a steady process, and the Foundation is definitely shaping its trajectory for a better future

Function X is building in all market conditions, and WE, as the community, should be PROUD that the Foundation is still working hard to dish out more updates and upgrades.

Let us do our part by supporting the Foundation’s efforts and commitments.

• Vote ‘YES’!

Happy December, everyone!

[Riz_Truth]

I wholeheartedly support the transparency from the foundation requesting the fund and also the fund seems reasonable. However, since the main goal of decentralization is transparency, it would be nice to know:

1. Who and how many members are on each team?
2. How much are they being incentivized for their effort?
3. What about the rewards you earned from delegation? Is that not enough? Selling those rewards should slowly reduce the power of the team validators over time and give more power to the people.
4. Does a person share multiple roles within the organisation?
5. Is someone working for both FunctionX and PundiX that will get paid in whole? In this case, they are not full time employees of FunctionX; so should get reduced pay. Only dedicated staff are eligible for full pay.
6. As for bonus, can you be a bit clear as to who gets it and how much.
7. Will people be paid in fx or cash? In case of cash, where/to whom do you plan to sell the fx?
8. As the price of the token is volatile, could you not propose $500k instead of a fixed amount of fx. So, every quarter, you get $125k realeased in fx (whatever, the price may be at that time)

Also, I would add that why not propose a similar amount to list at the big exchanges or as many as you can as fx ecosystem now clearly has use cases.

[FrenchXCore]

Hi everyone !

Let’s be clear.
I don’t have any issue with the team’s being incentivized for their great work so far. That would be insane to go against this idea.

1. My main point is that the project needs to be decentralized. And so far, the FX project is centralized, i.e. most whale account keys are controlled by team members (for now). I understand the long term Idea of distributing tokens over different participants.
   The project can be stopped in a few minutes if you control more than 2/3 of the tokens. And it is the case right now, even while delegating those tokens to public validators.

2. I have to disagree with you @SCENE about the idea there was no ICO. 100% of the project was funded by PundiX token holders (including PundiX team members) who converted their tokens, and half of that value (35% over 65%) was diluted toward the team to build this project. Users trusted the team by allowing for such operation. But more dilution seems unfair toward initial investors. Lots of them are already angry at the value of their initial investment. As far as i’m concerned, FunctionX is the infrastructure of PundiX (and more now) but should have been part of the PundiX project. There was no specific blockchain developed beside a specific Cosmos implementation. That’s why we need more transparency and a real roadmap to develop the community.

3. With respect to future projects, we need to define what is part of the FunctionX project’s initial funding (explorer, Wallet, etc.), what is the update roadmap.

In brief, we need visibility and transparency. Otherwise, we’ll be just another cryptocurrency project… That’s what DAO is about.

Respectfully
@FrenchXCore

[SCENE]

Allow me to give you a comparison between Function X vs Foxgaming or even other projects.

---

To give you a clear presentation:

Function X
Allocated Shares for the creation of the blockchain (Founder Rights)
No ICO
No private seed or VC funding

• Every founding members in EVERY project in EVERY industry, including traditional companies gets an allocation for building the base layer foundation
• Function X and Pundi X operate as separate companies
• The ICO raised from Pundi X is being used for daily operations and developments of XPOS

FOX GAMING
Allocated Shares for the creation of Fox Gaming (Founder Rights)
Raised private seed rounds with NO vesting period
Raised funding from EGF

By your logic, FOX Gaming should use their allocated shares to fund their expenses for future developments. Why still raise private seed rounds and EGF? They can just use their FXG tokens for expenses.

Read this carefully again. ^

---

They did all 3 and seed members of FXG even dumped FXG on FX community.

• It is pure contradictory.
• FXG and other projects can allocate shares and raise funds TWICE but Function X can’t?
• Function X’s motto is to release products on mainnet before trying to raise funds

---

Do you know how other projects do their fundraising?

• Other projects raised funds by selling tokens to VCs with a vesting period
• Function X doesn’t do that because VCs will dump tokens after tokens are unlocked

The genesis allocation was allocated to them for creating the blockchain and majority of it was distributed to the public. It isn’t meant to be used for operations.

• Ask yourself this.

You create a company. Do you allocate a portion to yourself as a founding member? It isn’t supposed to be used for expenses. Expenses are funded through money raised and that is through EGF or private seed rounds and VC/Angel.

[Fox_Coin]

@SCENE

I have to disagree with you too. FX was primarily funded by PundixToken not sure if you were around then. Personally, I swapped 16,000,000 NPXS with a conversion rate of 1:400 into FX.
So this is more or less an ICO that FX did.

The big question is from which pool should the 3,000,000 be distributed if there is still a lot of FX in the company wallets that got allocated from the start left.

Personally, I do not have a problem paying out bonuses to the team. I mean, I´m literally building a project on FunctionX because I trust and love the team and what they are doing.
But I don’t see a reason we have to use CSP or EGF for it, and if we do so I want clarity about whos getting it and how much they receive and what how much tokens will be sold for operations cost directly.

I’m not going to vote yes on a 525,000USD proposal just because I love the team and they deserve it

[SCENE]

I was there and even took part in Pundi X’s ICO. But those are separate issues.

• Function X and Pundi X acts as 2 separate entities

We are talking about Genesis allocation and Founder’s allocation.

Every founding members get an allocated portion of the creation of their project, including yours which is totally okay.

→ But to expect the Founders to use their own allocated shares for expenses is wrong.
→ The allocation of shares is for taking the risk of establishing a company—the entrepreneur’s path.
→ It isn’t supposed to be used for expenses
→ Funds raised are used for expenses and operations, not by using ‘YOUR PERSONAL’ shares unless it is token sale

There are proper procedures and steps taken when doing a fundraising.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
The FX tokens were distributed in a manner where a user has to do an activity called ‘MINING’ on XWallet to receive FX.

• That is not an ICO
• FX isn’t a security since users had to do an action to obtain the FX tokens

I think you may have forgotten about this that users had to do an action to obtain FX.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[KuzoIV]

I don’t really see why discussion going to that way @SCENE

There are requirements for such proposal team is asking. It must be fulfilled before taking any step. And it should include vesting period etc.

Again let’s start plan for Dao restructuring allocate funds in proper manners.

Am still till now wait @indra reply as this can’t go in this direction by emotions

[SCENE]

The discussion started by saying that the team should use Genesis Allocation for expenses and operations.

• Read Fox’s first post.
• My post was saying that there’s nothing wrong with FX trying to raise funds from EGF

They have been producing a lot of products and partnerships/collaborations.

[Fox_Coin]

@SCENE

On TGE event there were two allocations 10% and 5% for development (37860452 and 18930226FX). Why not use these tokens instead of a proposal on EGF and CSP? No one will complain if the Foundation will pay bonuses to their employees.

I didn’t forget, but you can call it what you want. You bought/swapped with NPXS your newly minted FX and they got released over and vesting plan…that’s not mining just because you call it mining. The fx already got minted on TGE and got distributed over time. But that should be part of the discussion here because it doesn’t matter.

[SCENE]

Did you read my previous post?

You also allocated FXG tokens to yourself. Why didn’t you use your FXG tokens for expenses?

Instead:

• You raised private seed rounds
• You raised EGF funding

You see the contradiction?

I will end the convo here since I’ve provided all the information needed for common sense.

You seem to have cognitive bias.

[Fox_Coin]

We never allocated team shares in the fox project yet…
I bought my self into seed round with my private money
We used 100% of seed round money for developing and LP providing

There will be team allocation due to a merging of three projects into FoxGaming making our Project much more attractive. But these allocation will be paid our of the development fund not from seed money