Proposal to Cover Operational Costs

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.

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

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

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

1 Like

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


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.

1 Like


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 :slight_smile: because it doesn’t matter.

1 Like

Did you read my previous post?

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


  • 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.

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 :slight_smile:

1 Like

and again…

  1. I 100% support the idea of paying bonuses to the team
  2. But I don’t understand why we should use EGF or CSP, there should be plenty of tokens left from the beginning 15% allocated to the development also due to inflation(validator reward) the bags get filled automatically.

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

we allocated 5% development fund…and we pay everything from the fund…like FX has 15% allocated to their development fund… your question does absolutely no sense

and I don’t understand why you move this discussion forward FoxGaming territory…

Do the team has my support to pay bonuses and operations cost from their development fund…yes do it! you earned it :slight_smile:

Why you not use your own fund @SCENE
Like you asked me to use my own fund
You can sell your car or house for fund

1 Like

Friends!) We are all in the same boat! Both success and failure are common to us!)

I think that there is not a single member in the community who would be against bonuses for the team! All only for! Because we value and respect work. And we see progress. But…

There are questions that are of interest to many.
It just needs to be cleared up. transparency. Clarity. strong community!
@FrenchXCore :+1:


that bonuses are given everyone agrees on that, the only question is where they should come from, DavidK did the right thing here by putting this poll …………………………………………………………………Disclaimer: This poll is just a tool to get the sentiment around this proposal and it will NOT affect on-chain voting in any way. If your proposal is getting a good sentiment around the community, it might signal that the proposal is good to go to the next phase, otherwise, some modifications might be necessary.

1 Like

meanwhile everyone cheers… we have 25K wallet addresses :rocket::muscle::+1::champagne::clinking_glasses::tada:


Hi !

Before anything, I’d like to remind ther’s no space for an argument, but only for open discussions. And I really don’t like when things become personal.
My intentions are solely to discuss point of views, without any intent to change anyone else’s opinion beside expressing our point of view, as a validator first, and as a personal $FX hodler…

@scene, I understand your point of view, but let me elaborate a bit.

May I (even if you left the convo) address some aspects:

  1. You say “Function X and Pundi X acts as 2 separate entities”
    This is 100% true (Pundi X Labs is listed here in Singapore and Function X Foundation here in Cyprus).
    But this point is only rhetorics and administrative. 100% of FunctionX was funded thru PundiX tokens. From a pure legal standpoint, it would be considered as an ICO (just like offering to buy a new token using ETH or BTC). And FunctionX foundation was only founded in january 2022 (despite FunctionX being launched in 2019 as far as I remember).

  2. You say “But to expect the Founders to use their own allocated shares for expenses is wrong.
    I agree : in my point of view, we shall not expect founders to use their personal funding (unless they’re willing to do so, and thus captivate a bigger part of the voting rights).
    But we should expect the foundation to use its allocated shares for that : as a reminder, I used to identify that team members controlled 199.9M $FX back in Jan 22 : ref. here. The transfers between the multiple addresses make it very hard to understand what is personal (I don’t care about this…) and what is the foundation’s. I wouldn’t care either if there were personal transfers of 1M $FX to team members each year as long as it is identified and made known (upfront if possible). DAO should be exercized wrt. to the CSP (community pool) only… But transparency is expected about foundation’s collective addresses.
    Those addresses are not known accurately. I would deeply appreciate to see that in the future, for transparency’s sake. I claimed this information almost a year ago, without a detailed response yet.
    It might not be considered as prioritary, but I personally think it is, even more than technical dev in those dark moments we’re living.

  3. You say “The allocation of shares is for taking the risk of establishing a company—the entrepreneur’s path.
    Again, I understand, but nothing like that was ever described in FunctionX white paper. But I have absolutely no issue with the idea of the founders and team members being remunerated : absolutely NONE. This is perfectly understandable and normal. But it needs to be disclosed.
    In this post above, @zaccheah communicated about operations over EGF. This is almost what I mean. I would even expect each transaction to have a small title (hiring, bonus, wages, gift, etc.), and to open this table to all foundation’s addresses (product dev, marketing, etc.).

  4. You say “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.
    Look at point 1 and referenced link, more than 35% was distributed to the foundation (actually, all unclaimed NPXS-to-FX conversion tokens were also distributed to the foundation…). I wouldn’t write that majority was distributed to the public since half of the tokens came back to the foundation…

  5. You say : “The FX tokens were distributed in a manner where a user has to do an activity called ‘MINING’ on XWallet to receive FX.
    There was also direct conversion (beside hodling NPXS to earn FX). This is why I think we’ve had an ICO scheme.

  6. FXG
    To me, it’s simply a (good) project running over FX, like MarginX. A good thing by itself, but living its own life (and that we can’t prevent anyway since any contract can be ran on FX EVM). But that can’t be bad for FX, and I actually expect more projects like that one to be incentivized, because we need to grow the community with many use cases.

And to conclude, I don’t have any issue with the team using the EGF funding to fund this bonus : as we could see in @zaccheah 's post, many funding were even done without asking for anyone’s permission. That’s what EGF delegation to founders is designed for.
However, using the CSP for that require DAO voting.
And IMHO, CSP (community pool) should be reserved for external projects (such as MarginX, Fox Gaming, etc.), all those bringing value into the FX ecosystem.
Ethereum and Elrond/MultiversX are working that way… Cosmos is even more restricted.
We can think about “maintenance fee” in the future, when we’ll see a fully consolidated, documented and open-source blockchain and product-line.

So 3 questions:

  1. Could someone (@DavidK , @zaccheah ) address the issue of the origin of the funding for this proposal (EGF ? CSP ?) ?
  2. Can we expect more transparency in the project’s ongoing funding in the near future ?
  3. Can we expect an updated roadmap (and white paper even) ? We’ve gone so far from the initial intent (FX WP) that it will be difficult to reconcile things if we don’t see a re-baseline.



This is incorrect, the Pundi X tokens were burnt I wouldn’t consider it an ICO. Please correct me if I am wrong @DavidK .

One reason I went into Pundi X and followed by Function X is because the team listened and did not do an ICO for Function X. Very few team would listen because they were red hot in 2019 and could have easily gotten nice funding from Function X ICO if they did it. Respectfully my response to @FrenchXCore.

And yes Fox Marketplace have a lot of potential, congrats for getting 100% YES @Fox_Coin I whole hearted support it and will load a bag of FXG from FXSwap.

1 Like

Function x get fund from pundix
From 13 usdt percoin to be 0.37 $
Big loss for investor

Shall we try and bring more clarity to a few things to tie up these loose end, once and for all.

  1. Whether it can be considered technically an ico, or not ?

  2. Whether these funds needed proposed can be attained from delegation/validations rewards?

  3. Perhaps a separate proposal for end of year bonuses…just a suggestion to get that rolling before Christmas, while the other is returned to later…

  4. How much runaway ahead does the foundation have, without comprising other operations.

  5. Even more trust can be attained, if the foundation can kindly support the FAQs, esp how funds were spent, etc etc.

  6. Also I need a bonus, being on reddit for the past 4 yrs maintaining and keeping it somewhat alive, daily. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

  7. Welcome back @Riz_Truth was worried and did seek out for you. Glad you’re back and safe.

  8. I have noted some funds and time was somewhat used up on the BOB developments. This is why I am hesitant to see it go away completely (well for now as it stands) would be great to kick start this one day when fx is more alive and healthy.

  9. Maybe some of these new funds should include more marketing. Since we haven’t really seen much spent on fx previously.

  10. I think most of us will vote yes because it’s going back into the foundation, but it’s just the FAQs needs more closer attentions. It would have been much more smoother if they were addressed when these questions were raised up over the years. The foundation accountant should be able to clear these up in no time.

  11. Regardless of everything the team have done absolutely brilliant over the years and circumstances. You have my support. Also I see these additional funds requested, as the last 3m fx, which will be some time before we see it depleted anyways, rather than seeing them sit there idle.

  12. And yes the pundix/npxsnem tokens were burnt for fx.

@DavidK @zaccheah @indra


Good questions asked, as always @Superbit123

You are right that pundix and npxsxem were burnt for $FX, hence I doubt we can call it an ICO. An ICO says the team are raising funds, what transpired was $FX largely went to the original Pundi X community. I’d be hard pressed to find another project (Pundi X, 2018 January ICOed) that gave back most of the new project tokens (Function X, 2018 announced) to the community.

As mentioned above ~10m $FX were spent on hiring, operations and liquidity. This obviously is much less than we spent on Function X. We didn’t sell much $FX because we didn’t want sell pressure back then, and not now. Maybe in a few years time after Function X fully takes off.

I do not think validators’ revenue should be used to cover dev funds, just like FrenchXCore should be rewarded for his validator efforts by revenue and his extra effort was via a Presidential Award. Same goes for Superbit123. You should be rewarded for your effort on Reddit (fxdm) which is superb! and this should be separated effort from your future Pundi X and Function X validators, which we think you will run :-).

In any case, our intention is not to create any schism, but I hope one day the community will give us the blessing to draw from CSP as the original whitepaper runway is 15 years tokenomics. For now, we will NOT apply operational cost from CSP funds.


Maybe the time is not come for this proposal but its good that we had a tough discussion here about that. Thanks for everyone for your train of thought. I hope in the near future we gonna see this proposal passing. Maybe in the next bullrun? :rocket: :shamrock:

Best regards


just a note that niggles the back of my brain; when 5 or 10 Fx air drops are offered to the community says hey we hold great value in our token & on the other hand we want 3 million to rewards the team sends 2 different messages; the CSP has great value that could well reward all long term supporters, I think if it’s long sustaining support desired better management equality should be observed for all.


This feels like voting for our own rugpull.
Not only is the price painfully down for the majority, the lp is bad the ranking went a 100+ down.
The project is not gaining any traction. All major realeases did nothing to attract any serious number of users, within the crypto sphere fx is still largly unknown, kucoin is apparently in the process of reconsidering the fx listing. Pundix went nowhere, xpos has barely made any impact,
Im wondering to what degree the funds are used to canabalize any liq we put in.


This is the piece which i struggle to understand. On one side you have organization spending peanuts for marketing (small airdrops and fxdm rewards) but asks for a decent amount for bonuses.

I believe the developers deserve to be compensated well but what good are the products they build, if there is nobody to use them.

I know this is off topic, but i am bringing it up here to point out how low marketing is on management’s priority list which could be devastating even for a really good product.

History shows, a bad product can sell well with really good marketing & an amazing product can fail due to bad marketing.