Topic: [ANN][IDO] Boopsy: a token that rewards holders of BOOP with more BOOP (Read 312 times)

Try -  https://app.swaprex.com/welcome
to conduct your ico and distribute your token without problem.

Investor can recv token immediately , so you only need to add token in protocol and number of token and done

Got it. There actually is no team - the project is completed. In the end I don't see having 20% allocated to those who built the project being an obstacle for the success of this project so I'm going to keep that as-is for now. But it is totally fair if some folks aren't on board with that.

If I may reinforce my point, I am not disliking the fact that team has 20% allocation, if the team consisted of 100 person, I am more than happy to remove that concern from my mind. I am disliking the fact that the team is one person and he owned 20% that's "allocated" to be his payment and none were for project's future. He owned so much control over price that can swing prices whenever he want. This is not a good sign of investment no matter how we look at it.

But I am glad that you seems quite open minded and accepted this arguments cold headedly. In the end, are you planning to change this tokenomy or will you proceed with this 20%... payment?

Never meant to come across smug - just said we built a completed project and and the team is keeping 20%! I can totally understand why some people won't like that, which is fine too, its all good!

Overall it sounds like you are fine then with the distribution model, you just don't like the fact that the team is keeping 20%, especially since it is a small team. No problem, that is a perfectly fine stance to have. Cheers.

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but if I am right and you are indeed trying to associate yourself with those projects, I'll have to once again say you are not like them. Let's say that even a project allocate 30% of their token for team, these sums of fund are distributed and held by several people. As for your case, the entire 20% are for yourself. And worse, you've state that it is your right (rather smug, if I may give my personal opinion). The implication is, you held major portion of the token and you could easily sway the price to one side or simply destroy the entire price by selling them (i.e.: rug pull). Now tell me if you want to invest on a project that one specific person can manipulate its price at will?

I am not against the idea of a team have 20% (or more) allocation), it can be good thing because if it is utilized correctly, it can help project's future in form of persuading the team to work harder because the amount of money they earned (in fiat and banknotes) is tightly tied to token's price. But those token are released gradually, in stages, some even perhaps applies the model of monthly paycheck, and split to several people that'll minimize token centralization. What I don't see will work is someone (someone, not some people) granted such large control over token (and by it, its price).

About investing, farming, and staking, aren't the ultimate goal of those actions to gain more numbers on someone's holding/portfolio/balances? Thus, profit?

And no, the point I tried to propose here is not how it's quite unconventional to not doing presale, roadmap, etc. I don't even know what part of my long posts gave this impression. I think what I tried to say is quite clear, as I've repeated them several times. Departing from this, if I have to answer, then I think the first question should not be "how?" but rather "how much?"

You are absolutely right, I don't disagree with you. Thank you for asking good questions.

I should have been more precise with my words - most projects tend to allocate about 20% to the team, and in the examples above, usually even more then that for other various activities that don't include distributing to holders. For the typical 20% team allocation, I see it as a good thing because the team has skin in the game and wants to make the project succeed. I can see why some people would disagree with that though.

You're right about investing in projects - some are (semi) completed and people are waiting for it to become profitable. Some are also just in the ideation stage so I think you can argue they are hoping fort the project to be completed *and* then become profitable. I'm not sure every token or project is necessarily built to earn profits. Usually we see this with DeFi projects that do staking/yield farming. Some are just tokens that do interesting things (like AMPL, HEX, etc).

In any case I see your point, not trying to split hairs! Your points are all valid! It is a bit unconventional to not do seed investments, pre-sales, roadmaps, etc. Also - I am the main contributor but not the only one We are open to ideas - how should the tokens be distributed in your opinion?

Oh sorry, I thought you said "over half of the tokens themselves"? In a way that can be translated as a situation where the team keep more than half of the tokenomic to themselves (i.e.: the team)? I can see that none of the example you give allocate more than half for team benefit. With exception to XRP as I can't find their tokenomy walking freely on google, most of those "kept" token are allocated for marketing, development, or escrowed for future release.

Ampleforth, for example, only allocate 25% for team, and a quick surfing tell me the team consisted of 7 people. Stellar, well, their tokenomy is quite detailed, and to sum it up, I see none that said more than 50% are reserved for team. Polkadot has 30% allocated for undisclosed foundation activities that's shared with budget for immediate use of network development. Lend, as you said yourself, 10% for the team, and as I happen to be the one translated their WP long time ago, I knew team were made from bunch of people. The graph, 23%.

But let's cut the chase, I am led to believe that what your tried to point out is how your tokenomy model is not so different from other projects out there, so perhaps the question should be asked is: please show me a project that allocate 20% of their total token to one individual of the team, that state he is allowed to use the fund whatever he sees fit because it is his right and no promise is made  to develop the project in the future.

Also, please share your thought for the earlier paragraph of my previous post

Sure.

Ampleforth: https://medium.com/ampleforth/ampleforth-ieo-and-token-distribution-transparency-report-d7b632bbc838
Ecosystem: 23.2%, Team/Advisors: 25%, Treasury: 20%.
Total = 68.2% (this doesn't count the 21.8% given to seed investors and series A. With that, the total is 90%)

XRP: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ripple/comments/7pr341/xrp_distribution/
"So it’s safe to say that even after a bit of trickle sales of the co-founders, less than 20 billion XRP (20%) is owned by other people than the aforementioned. And included in this 20 billion XRP are also institutions, banks and charities that have made a business development agreement with Ripple Labs in the past."

Stellar Lumens: https://www.stellar.org/lumens
"Nearly 20 billion lumens are out in the open market, and the Stellar Development Foundation retains the other 30 billion or so to develop and promote Stellar, per its mandate" (60%)

Polkadot: https://icodrops.com/polkadot/
"Available for Token Sale: 50%"

Lend (predecessor to Aave): https://medium.com/lendefi/lendefi-the-tokenomics-d6da40ba0716
Marketing:12.5%, Partners: 10%, Adoption: 10%, Team: 10%, Advisors: 5%, Reserve: 15% = 62.5%
When they migrated to Aave, they gave themselves another 18.75%. Total = 62.5 + 18.75 = 81.25% (https://insights.glassnode.com/aave-token-analysis-migration-staking/)

The Graph (https://thegraph.com/blog/announcing-the-graphs-grt-sale)
"Initial Total Token Supply: 10,000,000,000 GRT"
"Initial Circulating Token Supply: ~1,245,666,867 GRT"
"Amount for sale: 400,000,000 preGRT (Converting to 400,000,000 GRT)"
If we use circulating supply, 400/1245 = 32% for sale. (68% not for sale)


It is actually hard to find an example where more than 20 or 30% of tokens were distributed to holders. Cardano looks okay with keeping only about 33% of the supply. (https://cardano.org/genesis/)

If I may beg to differ, I think most people actually invest on projects in hope that it'll bloom and bring profits, not merely done. There are examples of projects that offered themselves while they are done and completed, a finished products, etc. and it still didn't guarantee the dev won't do rug pull. And that's the case where the project is backed by a team of people, not one person whose decision is ultimate and stated upfront that he can do whatever he wished with the funds because it is his "right".

And, actually this is the first time I heard a project keep 80% of the funds to themselves and only distribute 20%. Can you please mention some examples of projects with this tokenomy?

With projects that launch as ideas before they are completed, people buy tokens in hopes of the project actually getting done (creator gets paid before doing the work). With projects that launch in a completed state, people buy tokens for something that is already done (creator gets paid after doing the work). In essence it is the same thing except the creator self financed the development costs so that there could be no chance of failing to deliver on a promise. The end state is the same in both cases, except for the risk of failure to deliver has been eliminated with a completed project launch.

The issue with the uncompleted project launches is that the project may not carry out their work as promised. This is why they get classified as a security - you paid for a completed project that may not get completed. You do not need to classify a completed project as a security because there is no promise, everything is already done. It is property, not a promise.

By the way, most projects I see only distribute 20% and keep over half of the tokens themselves. In any case, how would you distribute these tokens alternatively? Airdrop maybe?

And this allocation is 20% of the initial supply (1 of 5 million), given that every holders got their payouts equally according to the number they hold until 100m reached, doesn't that mean you will very likely got 20% of the total supply? And that amount is allocated, owned, and controlled by one man only instead of a team of people, where this very human also said that it is completely up to him to use the funds on whatever he sees fit and that he has no responsibility to use them for project's future?

I was thinking why project name is Boopsy as it is a little strange lol Just read that it is a fun name that people will remember

yes hopefully that's true and when gas costs drop, enthusiasts show their action for the Boopsy project, and hopefully by being registered on coinpaprika the attractiveness of the Boopsy project is getting better and more and more people are glancing at it

I suspect it is a mix of skepticism, awareness, and high gas costs. Or perhaps people don't like the project? Possible.

Our twitter following is growing which is nice. Got listed on coinpaprika today too.

Hopefully gas price comes down. I don't think that will matter if we go into an alt super cycle though - something like Boopsy has the cute mechanics to help it go up.

Built multiple versions and tweaked the contract over time. Was mostly in its final shape late last year, but continued to tweak it this year.

Yes - funds goes to me for past work, not future. When you accept funds for future work, you are at risk of being labeled a security. Therefore, the project is fully complete and there is no promise of future work, and thus cannot be classified as a security.

Now if I decide to roll those funds into future projects or marketing efforts, that would be totally my choice and not something that is promised or expected in any way (once again, that could make it viewed as a security).

There are still not many people who want to participate in this project, the transaction activity is very minimal, is the cause another problem? such as the transaction fees are very high so that the people at this time still have not bought it or are not at all liked

So to summarize, no achievement because although it's been alive for around 6 months, those early months were the idea concoction phase and the project itself was just started to be developed around two to three months ago? And funds goes to... you? To compensate your contribution of LP?

Spot on. When 100m BOOPs are paid out, there will be no more payouts going forward. If there is demand for continued payout structure, I'd likely create a new version that allows existing holders to swap their existing BOOP in (perhaps the earlier you swap, the better rate you get?)

Good questions. The main contributor (myself) is a long time engineer and long time crypto enthusiast, but first time crypto-engineer. Spent much of the time studying other tokens (mostly Ampleforth and Antiample) and playing with different token dynamics. Then decided to launch on 2/21/21T21:21 as a tribute to Satoshi. Project was mostly completed late last year.

Funds goes to mostly to funding follow up projects (BOOP holders would get upgraded to new contract most likely, and we would tweak the token dynamics as we go). I put up my own $100k for initial liquidity (locked 3 months).

"Boopsy is a smart contract that awards more BOOPs to holders of BOOP until there are no more BOOPs to be given." - What will happen next when maximum supply of 100 millions will be reached? On the webpage it is mentioned that "no more BOOP will be created", but how then you are going to distribute rewards to holders? You will just swap BOOP to a new token and start all over again?