Hi @indra (and everyone else) !
Thanks a lot for your answers.
Here is some insight I gathered, which I’m using as our analysis of the project… updated as of today’s post.
It is very detailed, so, for readers-in-a-hurry, don’t hesitate to jump to the conclusions…
- Regarding EGF and CSP
-
CSP is directly related to blockchain rules, voting on proposals and if a proposal passes both criteria of minimum participation (40%) and YES (50%), the proposal will collect the amount requested.
-
EGF is related to an FX address managed by the foundation, and is not linked directly to proposals (can’t be per blockchain rules). This means the foundation (controlling the EGF private key) can directly send the $FX to the proposer. Rules have now been set-up in the EGF guidelines, but EGF is still “privately”-controlled (private key). If we were to consider that the EGF is directly controlled by the voting power, then the EGF fundings should be donated fully to the CSP.
- Regarding the voting power (tokens) controlled by the foundation, here is a detailed analysis of blockchain that kinda give more insight as well: please refer to this post (Team FX addresses ?)
- This TGE address shows what was done after the Token Generation Event (TGE) - 378.6M $FX tokens :
- Team:
- EGF : transaction link : 20% - 75.7M $FX 1st address - 2nd address
- Product & Marketing : transaction link : 5% - 18.9M $FX
- Engineering : transaction link : 10% - 37.9M $FX
- Public:
- Extra bonus task : transaction link : 5% - 18.9M $FX
- Public (NPXS/NPXSXEM swap) conversion : transaction link : 45% - 170.7M $FX
- Public staking : transaction link : 15% - 56.8M $FX
- some 200 $FX for whatever…
- Team:
As you can see, I included the EGF ont the team side because only the team centrally controls the funds in there, not the community (at least, not in a decentralized manner).
I wouldn’t have if the EGF funds were sent back in the CSP which require community voting before being sent to the requestor (whether it’s the team or anyone else).
I also wouldn’t mind seeing the EGF in control of the team if there was strong traceability of the funds used in the EGF. But I’ll come back to that later on…
Now, let’s come back to the funds affected during TGE.
-
Ecosystem Genesis Fund (“EGF”)
We can see that multiple addresses benefitted from the EGF between june 2020 and may 2021 :
- ETH-EGF01 address : 0.75M $FX
- ETH-EGF02 address : 5.54M $FX
- This address especially shows that funds were used to fund liquidity pool to swap NPXS for FX, thus ?burning? PUNDIX at the expense of EGF fund.
- ETH-EGF03 address : 1.61M $FX
- This address was later used by someone to convert to wETH, and play swith SHIB and dYdX
- ETH-EGF04 address : 0.65M $FX
- ETH-EGF05 address : 0.48M $FX
- ETH-EGF06 address : 0.32M $FX
- ETH-EGF07 address : 0.16M $FX
- ETH-EGF08 address : 0.18M $FX
- ETH-EGF09 address : 0.08M $FX
- ETH-EGF10 address : 0.10M $FX
- ETH-EGF11 address : 0.03M $FX
- ETH-EGF12 address : 0.09M $FX
- ETH-EGF13 address : 65.76M $FX, of which
- 30.00M $FX were sent in 08/2021 to new EGF-ETH100 fund, of which:
- 21.12M $FX were sent to EGF-FX01 address : Tx
- 8.88M $FX were sent to EGF-FX02 address : Tx
- This address was used to transfer out 0.41M $FX to an internal address Tx on April 3rd, 2022
- 35.76M $FX were sent in 08/2021 to new EGF-02 fund
- [EGF-FX03] fx1j59we8wnp72sna8fjdchpkf0s62m0q9va5yv03
- [EGF-FX04] fx19ukzjkag6n4lqgejfu33046qc036rw76thgsqv
- [EGF-FX05] fx1mtsq7ta90r3xj35q5sq3tcudelkyhzlh8dufzp
- 30.00M $FX were sent in 08/2021 to new EGF-ETH100 fund, of which:
[…updated 14/APR/2022 : 2nd part of EGF not described…]
So, from the original EGF fund, endowed with 75.7M $FX at TGE:
- Almost 10M $FX were used without any control of the community : that’s why I consider it is not “community’s”.
- Part of this fund was used for NPXS conversion (only the team could do that) when this address should have been used for that.
- Did this operation lead to a burn of NPXS (and thus PUNDIX) ?
- Part of it is used to delegate to validators (team and public).
- A very small part of it was used without details.
- Delegation rewards are being collected and have stayed within use of EGF-FX01 and EGF-FX02.
Conclusion #1 : IMHO, if the details are not public, the fund is not public. I sincerely do not have any problem with the team controlling the EGF, but it should be considered as “team’s funding” then, not community’s.
Transferring them in the CSP (except for FXDM which proposal was voted YES) would send a strong signal about decentralization of the project, although it may not be used anymore for arbitrary delegation to validators, but, at the same time, it would lower the “circulating supply” and increase fairly all validator’s voting power.
[…]