Perpetual ecosystem growth

[cryptocheshire]

That’s hard to estimate. But if we assume retail crypto portfolios to be somewhere between 5k-50k and a per asset allocation of 5-15% of the entire pf, we’re at range of $250-$7500. This is how much on a rough average a retail trader would allocate to znn.

[mehowbrainz]

Sounds like for the average retail portfolio the acquisition buffer isn’t too high. A $7500 swap is only $15 commission. We have to also remember that even though we have to be inviting to newcomer marketers into the ecosystem, someone inexperienced and unwilling to experiment with his own cash / data tools upfront, may have a hard time to justify his budget to AZ. It’ll always be in the proof for me, and hence the need for pre-built conversion rate proven funnels aka what zenon.org is attempting to build i.e. eliminating the complex architectural requirements to prove performance. Then marketers become awareness / remarketing drivers. Hopefully other performance marketers come around and build their own systems / funnels too.

[sumamu]

@cryptocheshire

But keep in mind, CEXs charge usually less than 50 basis points (buy or sell) and they have to cover way more than just marketing costs.

Traders can just hold WZNN during the trade. The fees only apply when swapping between ZNN/WZNN.

The fee only applied when swapping ZNN to wZNN.

@cryptocheshire

Don’t forget that we need their volume to get listed on larger venues @sumamu

Yes, but to get volume we need to reach out to new users. And marketing does that. As you can see we’re not getting any volume now and I haven’t seen much volume in the past 10 months since I’ve joined the community, so we need to start somewhere.

What’s the alternative?
We keep chasing our own tail:
we don’t grow > we need marketing > new marketer comes > can’t prove results before getting funds > can’t get funding to prove results > marketer leaves > we don’t grow

[cryptocheshire]

@sumamu

The fee only applied when swapping ZNN to wZNN.

Oh right my bad, in that case 1 or 2% should be fine. I’ll edit my statement above

[cryptocheshire]

@sumamu

we need to start somewhere.

Yes, fully supporting this.

[aliencoder]

@sumamu

The only fee is paid by sellers. Once a user sells, the incentives for that user to continue to bring value to the ecosystem drops, but at least with this fee someone else will be incentivized to bring value.

Right on the spot! We really need these types of mechanisms to ensure sustainable marketing for this project.

@sumamu

Reality check:

Let’s face it, even a 10% fee after a 5X is cheaper than a 0% fee after a -90%.

Well said

[0x3639]

@sumamu

I understand that, but ever since I joined the community, most people complained about a lot of things, so that’s pretty much the norm. At least this time they can complain while the community is grown by this program and the WZNN price goes up.

Funny.

@sumamu

Think of it this way, if the fee is too small for marketers to even consider it, the program will fail from the start, so it might as well be zero.

True

@sumamu

The economical problem is that whichever fee is set initially will be the maximum fee

Good point. Increasing it will / could cause us to run out of ZNN. Maybe 1% is too low as I suggested.

@sumamu

Users in the community are rather experience and could register themselves as referrals, so that when they swap ZNN to WZNN to sell, they’ll still pay the fee, but if they don’t sell or buy back, they can use their own referral link when swapping the WZNN back to ZNN and have the entire fee refunded, as long as they return to the ecosystem.

Amazing. So LPs will not be punished. This entire proposal is very bullish IMO.

[cryptocheshire]

@0x3639

Good point. Increasing it will / could cause us to run out of ZNN. Maybe 1% is too low as I suggested.

Changed my vote to 3%

[0x3639]

I like 3% now. We can always go down from there and it costs LPs nothing. This will be a real incentive to market this project.

[aliencoder]

I think 3% is the sweet spot: not too low to dismiss the referral program, not too high to cause disruption.

For example, for a common $200 ZNN → wZNN swap the fee paid will be $6, enough to bring back 2 users into the ecosystem (and hopefully twice the value in $ terms that will flow back into the ecosystem).

[sol]

@sumamu

The economical problem is that whichever fee is set initially will be the maximum fee that’ll ever be able to set.

If you’re planning to be able to adjust this in the future, why not set the maximum fee to 10% and initialize a currentFee variable with the result of the poll?
This way we can adjust based on the whole spectrum of the poll, not just the winning the result.

@sol

Some people may want to manually enter the code when they swap

@sumamu

It won’t be possible, they’ll have to use a referral link.

I don’t understand this limitation. Won’t the API only require the referral code anyways?
What’s the difference between a referral code and a referral link?
Syrius Desktop doesn’t support URIs yet.

[sumamu]

@sol

If you’re planning to be able to adjust this in the future, why not set the maximum fee to 10% and initialize a currentFee variable with the result of the poll?

Theoretically you’re right, but there’s a minimum delay between these changes, so it’s better to be set to a percentage that’s been agreed on.

@sol

I don’t understand this limitation. Won’t the API only require the referral code anyways?
What’s the difference between a referral code and a referral link?
Syrius Desktop doesn’t support URIs yet.

The web app will only support referral links. If you are planning to implement the bridge interface in syrius you can allow users to just paste the referral link or a referral code.

[mr.ztark]

Not sure if I understand…

1. What if the ZNN to wZNN lane has lower volume than the wZNN to ZNN lane on the bridge?

2. If I want to bridge 1000 ZNN to wZNN when ZNN is $20, I’ll be looking at a $600 fee at 3%.

If I understand correctly, that’s offensive. I think the fee would have to be less than 1%.

How about a sliding scale?

Or…

How about something that utilizes protocol emissions to reward affiliates?

Lazy idea: Stake a bunch of ZNN from AZ for perpetuity and pay monthly $QSR to affiliates according to performance.

[aliencoder]

@mr.ztark

• What if the ZNN to wZNN lane has lower volume than the wZNN to ZNN lane on the bridge?

It doesn’t have any impact. The idea is to penalize exiting the ecosystem.

@mr.ztark

1. If I want to bridge 1000 ZNN to wZNN when ZNN is $20, I’ll be looking at a $600 fee at 3%.

If you want to dump such a large amount, $600 is peanuts for you. Initially, I voted for 5%. You’re penalized because you want exit the ecosystem. This means you have no interest left in this project. You will not contribute to this project anymore. Your sole purpose is to profit. Therefore, your 30 ZNN fee (notice I didn’t use the $ value) will be on good hands: marketers, believers, ZNN maxies or even fellow aliens (with the help of the referral program) will make use of the funds to engage, attract and convert new participants.

Even businesses can charge 2-3% and no one is complaining about fees. And they’re charging you for every credit card purchase.

@mr.ztark

How about something that utilizes protocol emissions to reward affiliates?

This can be implemented only into a sidechain. Another take: would you change protocol emissions for Bitcoin?

Here is my proposal for the xZNN fee mechanism:

@aliencoder

• 33% distributed to builders (contract deployers)
• 33% distributed to extension chain validators
• 34% burned (similar to ETH)

@mr.ztark

Lazy idea: Stake a bunch of ZNN from AZ for perpetuity and pay monthly $QSR to affiliates according to performance.

I think this is a valid idea that should be taken into consideration. The only problem is that the ZNN QSR are locked into the A-Z embedded.

[0x3639]

Alien is right. Look at sales tax. We pay 10% in certain markets in and around Chicago.

[mr.ztark]

I live in a tax free state and I don’t accept credit cards for this very reason. And ‘everyone’ complains about taxes.

[sumamu]

@mr.ztark

• What if the ZNN to wZNN lane has lower volume than the wZNN to ZNN lane on the bridge?

It’s not possible, because there can only be as much wZNN as was swapped from ZNN.

@mr.ztark

1. If I want to bridge 1000 ZNN to wZNN when ZNN is $20, I’ll be looking at a $600 fee at 3%.

I’m not saying $600 out of $20000 is cheap, but…if this mechanism gets us there I don’t think many will complain. And imagine how incentivized marketers will be to attract even more users.

@mr.ztark

If I understand correctly, that’s offensive. I think the fee would have to be less than 1%.

The fee can be lowered in the future if the community decides so, but it’s important to know that once the fee is lowered to a level, it can never be raised above that level ever again.

@mr.ztark

How about something that utilizes protocol emissions to reward affiliates?

Lazy idea: Stake a bunch of ZNN from AZ for perpetuity and pay monthly $QSR to affiliates according to performance.

Any external incentives source will be make it profitable to abuse the mechanism.

@mr.ztark

I live in a tax free state and I don’t accept credit cards for this very reason. And ‘everyone’ complains about taxes.

Awesome!

@aliencoder

The idea is to penalize exiting the ecosystem.

The main objective of this mechanism is to provide a sustainable source for rewarding marketing efforts so the community can grow over time. Accelerator-Z does something similar for the builders of the ecosystem and it’s working.

[dat_she_pepe]

How to shoot yourself in the foot. Setup a ridiculously high fee for crosschain txs. You guys are obsessed by marketing and forget that liquidity + volume is what gets you traction. I can’t wait to see influencers fighting for their shares of a ref links over a 100k liquidity market which will turn into a p&d fest.

[cryptocheshire]

@sumamu one issue I see is that if thevpenalty is too high it will disincentivize people from using wznn in the first place, especially if you add eth gas fees on top.

This could very well impact liquidity growth as @dat_she_pepe pointed out.

I know I also voted 3% but a smaller fee probably makes most sence. There is no shortage of funds to pay marketers. The shortage are marketers who actually know what they’re doing (or people who understand what effective marketing means)

Our focus should be on building liquidity and volume first and foremost.

[aliencoder]

@cryptocheshire

There is no shortage of funds to pay marketers

There is a shortage of liquid funds to pay marketers. AZ cannot sustain everything because (unfortunately) is not replenishable. Luckily, this mechanism is both auto-replenishable and scalable.

@cryptocheshire

The shortage are marketers who actually know what they’re doing

The shortage are marketers. There is literally no active marketing right now.

@dat_she_pepe

forget that liquidity + volume is what gets you traction

You forget that people that join the community and buy gets you liquidity + volume. What do you do to attract and convert people?

@cryptocheshire

Our focus should be on building liquidity and volume first and foremost.

It’s in the title: “perpetual ecosystem growth”

Like the team wisely said, Acta non verba