Learn & Earn - Pundi X & Function X

So since last year, Learn & Earn has been on the rise, from Binance to CoinMarketCap to CoinGecko and many others doing it.

To educate and onboard potential investors or crypto enthusiast who just want to learn more about a certain project or blockchain in general.



Will Pundi X / Function X be able to do a proposal to use some of the EGF / Community Pool Fund to do this? To teach potential investors about our ecosystem and try to onboard them while doing it.


A good example from Singapore Chain Debrief - Nexus: Earn As You Learn About Crypto - ChainDebrief
The website is very pleasing to the eyes and simple for the user.

Another example is CoinMarketCap & CoinGecko’s Learn & Earn.

5 Likes

Coinbase also has a feature called “Learn And Earn”
But, and I do not know if @SCENE 's website have the same, if you just google you can find all the answers on the net instead of taking the course. So the question is do most people do the course (and learn something about those tokens) or do they just “cheat”?

1 Like

If its a course about the project’s own ecosystem, there may not be any answer in google unless some of the questions are about blockchain in general. It makes the user learn about the project, at least.

For example the question could be something about FX having subnets and parachains which is not available in google. The team can come up with good questions that is not easily found in google - related to our project.

Also, there’s a reason why so many big companies does it.

It teaches and engages the audience although i understand that there may be some who try to cheat. But the majority may actually learn something about Pundi X / Function X and that is what we are lacking right now - nobody knows what our ecosystem can do.

2 Likes

I love the idea of Learn and Earn. This is what got me to follow new crypto assets (not all) that I am benefiting from now.

The amount you can earn is very less so it kind of forces you to buy more in the long run to capitalize on them.

One other benefit I see is that it is a great marketing tool. The ones who see the project are generally traders and hodlers. Additionally, it greatly increases the amount of addresses connected to the token concerned.

Right now, CMC shows that there are 5,756 addresses that hold FX. A $2 (dependent of price of fx) learn and earn campaign with a total budget of 200,000 FX could increase the total addresses to over 100,000 on CMC would look very promising to any new investors. ADA has been doing it for years now.

1 Like

Yea. Kucoin does it too and it only gives $1 and people are still willing to sit through and read and learn about the project and then do the test.

Team can allocate like $500k and $1 per test, we can reach out to so many people.

Hopefully the team can consider doing it too. I mean, why not…

2 Likes

With $500k at $1/individual and lets take a high retention rate of 80% (hoping that people will most likely hold to ‘cash in’ in the future) that would increase the amount of holders to 405,878 overall.

This would give the supporters the boasting rights (in a good sense) of a large global community and generate highly positive word of mouth campaign in my opinion.

I sure do hope that the team looks into this.

1 Like

With how the community spent pool is increasing, the team can definitely dish out 500k easily.

After 3 years, we don’t even have 10k holders - counting Ethereum + FxCore. Even random coins have higher holder count. Nobody knows about this project.

Learn & Earn could definitely boost activity and put some eyes here.

3 Likes

Thats true and in my opinion ‘a critical point of concern’ with fx that needs to be addressed. This type of marketing should be able to address the issue pretty easily.

Most of the top projects did it or still do it. Some which have ‘no base (imo)’ are gaining more and more followers each day through this method. If it wasn’t working why are new projects popping up on Learn and Earn campaigns.

4 Likes

There has to be 2 steps for it to take off.

  1. Building the “Learn & Earn” page
  2. Marketing the “Learn & Earn” page so people know about it

This is how we onboard new potential investors, educate our current investors about our ecosystem and also guide the general public aka crypto enthusiasts about blockchain in general which will in turn, give us a good reputation.

This way, our flag - Pundi X & Function X will have more eyeballs.

A domino effect is all we need.

2 Likes

I think Point 1 could be addressed very easily as most of the materials already exist. It should take 2-5 days to get the first draft ready. Its more about how determined the team is and if they share our point of view.

For Point 2, I would say ‘leave it to the well known exchanges and website (like cmc) to filter out bad behaviour.’

1 Like

Being listed on StakingRewards will give us many eyeballs…

Wonder if the team applied before.

Well, once EVM is implemented, i hope things will start to move.

2 Likes

As for the funding of such initiative, I would really like to see the team spend the team’s EGF instead of the community spend pool.
Team still owns more than 70% of all tokens generated and Big investors NEVER enter a project where team owns more than 20%…

1 Like

That is a very large percentage. Could scare a lot of people let alone big investors. Don’t know how much belongs to the foundation minus team members. Would be nice to know that?

I, totally, agree that EGF funds should be offloaded into promising projects and marketing that can ultimately bring down the percentage. This would ultimately achieve more decentralization of authority.

You have been highlighting the accumulation/use of Community Spend Pool funds and there has not been a clear answer as to what is happening (such as Kronos Funding).

Wonder what FXDM team thinks about all this. Isn’t the reason they exist is to respond to marketing discussion proposed by the community? Or just handing over prizes for tweets.

My main objective is to make sure this project (in which we - some friends and myself - invested 5% of our fundings, and almost 25% of my free time) is persistent.

Currently, I do not have enough technical feedback from the team (Zac, David, etc.) to understand what their intentions in the future are.

When I say “the team owns more than 70% of the tokens”, I mean the foundation itself, and the multiple funds. I’ve been claiming for more transparency about it for a while but didn’t really get a clear answer.
CSP and EGF are still used as if they were the same, but they’re not. I don’t really care which one we use for Kronos, but it was written it was an EGF effort, so I would assume they would be coming from the EGF ; however, the funds were coming from the CSP.

The project won’t takeoff as long as this will not be clarified. Or else, it will be just like some other coins, bull then crash… And when I see its potential, it’s driving me crazy at times…

3 Likes

Hi,

I think there are good points mentioned here, we acknowledge the concerns from the community. There are a few points to clarify and discuss, and first of all, thanks to @Mdmdmd83 for pointing it out.
The concerns and discussion are important for us (both Foundation and community) to keep going forward and protect the decentralization of the project.

Please find my personal thoughts below:

  1. Regarding to the EGF and CSP
  • When we started to design the tokenomics back in 2018, the fundamental is clear. Both EGF and CSP belong to the community, not the foundation. As stated on Feb All Hands Meeting, there was an error in the code, and Community Spend Pool is listed together with EGF.
    This is the reason why the proposal withdrawal pool came from CSP. But again, both belong to the community and will be utilized to fund the project initiatives from the community. Governance proposals are required to utilize those funds.

  • I suggest we can have an open discussion to separate these two and also clarify the utilizations of EGF and CSP.
    As an example, what are the criterias to allow projects to utilize funds from EGF and CSP? I think once it is clear, we can have a better understanding about this and it will be beneficial for FX in the future, since we are currently still at an early stage. With the upcoming EVM and developments, we are expecting more developers to come to FX and this will be a crucial point.

  1. Regarding the 70% of tokens owned by Foundation.
    This is incorrect. As we all know, 20% of the FX supply generated on TGE. 65% of supply is allocated for Public (NPXS/NPXSXEM swap), 20% for EGF (which is belong to community), and the rest of 15% for Engineering + Product & Marketing.

I hope it clarifies.

3 Likes

Ecosystem Genesis Fund (EGF)

  • EGF can be applied by other projects so we leave this untouched till a project applies for funding
  • The first few projects that apply is extremely important - has to be beneficial to FX ecosystem

It has to be very strict because the current price of FX haven’t explode yet so funds are considered very limited so the team should decide which project is most beneficial and actually require funding without getting influenced by the community.


Community Spent Pool (CSP)

  • The team can use these funds to “approach” projects they want to collab/partner with
  • EGF is for projects to apply for funding while CSP is for the team to make the first step

With this, the team can scan current projects in the market and if they see a project that fit the FX ecosystem, the team can make the first step to approach and use the fund to collab/partner with them, including funding them to build on FX network.


To the community:

So far, from what I’ve seen, the community is very eager, maybe too eager, they say YES to almost every project that applies without thinking straight.

I hope the community can sit back and try to think from a business point of view. The first few projects that goes live once EVM is implemented cannot fail if we want to catch the attention of VCs/AIs.

So please do not accept every project that applies just because you are eager for something to happen. There is a reason why the passing rate for funding is less than 5%.

4 Likes

This explains a lot. Thanks @indra.

@SCENE as the funds are currently being staked (at 30% APY), it would dramatically increase the percentage yearly which @Mdmdmd83 correctly pointed out to be an issue that needs to be addressed. 20% seems to be a sweet point that the foundation should aim at maintaining.

As for the EGF, I really do want to see full control handed to committee members from the foundation. Just like Uniswap and everyone else does. No voting would be required to disburse those funds and the committee’s decision would be final. Maybe, community members can nominate 1-2 members every quarter to represent the community (through voting on the forum).

This would streamline development process and we would see innovations happening at a greater pace.

With regards to CSP, it can follow the current voting process that is in place. So, from foundation they get 10% vote support and they would have to reach 40% quorum. Maybe down the line, it could be developed to be more like how Solana Ecosystem works (see https://solana.com/ecosystem). Its transparent and progressive.

So, we have two systems for any project in place. If a project gets rejected by EGF and the project owners are confident that it is a great product, they can just go for the CSP next. I hope the EGF funds would set the highest standard when choosing projects, i.e. a lot gets rejected and only the highest quality passes. If the quarterly quota is reached, projects would be rejected as well. And confident teams that gets rejected could reapply for CSP funds to get the funding.

This could ensure that the ecosystem has a centralized as well as decentralized process in place for better decision making. i.e. promising projects get the funds quickly, confident projects wait in line.

Seems great.

Yeah, i agree that the EGF should have very high standards and very strict entry. Because i’ve seen a lot of great protocols that didn’t even need funding.

So for those that apply for funding, they should either have a very good technical background, reputation, track record or if they don’t have any of that but their project looks really top-notched, they can definitely go for it.

And good idea that if it is rejected by EGF, they can go through the CSP process. An early ecosystem definitely needs to be centralized during its early stages to make sure it has a solid foundation so once it becomes decentralized, it can be self-sustainable.

1 Like

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…

  1. 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.

  1. 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 ?)

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.

  1. Ecosystem Genesis Fund (“EGF”)

    We can see that multiple addresses benefitted from the EGF between june 2020 and may 2021 :

[…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.

[…]

4 Likes
  1. Product and marketing (“PM”)

    The whole 18.9M $FX (TGE 5%) funding was transferred back into (Engineering ETH adress)[Address 0xd3e327c4867b0934d3204aa9050321339718d80f | Etherscan] : Tx on January 20th, 2020

    Conclusion #2 : Absolutely no issue with that since it is team’s money to improve the project. But it would be great to have transparency about how funding is being used as most projects do. Refer to para 3.

  2. Engineering (“E”) - now Product and Marketing & Engineering (“PME”)

    • Endowed with 56,8M $FX (TGE 10%+5%)issued from TGE : [PME-ETH01] (Token Transfer | Etherscan)
    • 2.5k $FX used on August 19th, 2019 Tx
    • 0.9M $FX used on Sept 2019, Dec 2020 and June 2021 Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3
    • 55.9M $FX transferred on June 2021 Tx, of which :
      • 30M $FX sent to PME-FX01
        • $FX are mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.
        • Here, my worry is I don’t see any expense at all.
      • 25.9M $FX sent to PME-FX02, of which:
        • 1.12M $FX transferred to this FxCore wallet on April 5th, 2022, used to delegate to BlindGotchi
        • Other $FX are mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.
        • I don’t see any expense at all neither.

    Conclusion #3 : Only 1.5% expense found in 3 years for product & marketing and engineering. No details.

  3. Extra bonus task (EBT)

    • Endowed with 18.9M $FX (TGE 5%) in March 2019
    • 15.1M $FX transferred in May 2019 to EBT-ETH01 then transferred in May 2021 to EBT-ETH02 then transferred to EBT-ETH03
      • First staked (405k $FX rewards), then :
      • Exclusively controlled by the team and never used for extra bonus tasks for NPXS and NPXSXEM users : thus, this should be considered as team’s funding as well.
      • $FX mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.

    Conclusion #4 : The Extra Bonus Task was not distributed to public and is in direct control of the team.

  4. Public (NPXS/NPXSXEM) conversion (PCV)

  • Endowed with 170.4M $FX (TGE 45%) in March 2019 (from TGE)

  • 2.8M $FX transferred directly to XWallet for swap [Tx] (Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan)

    • see XWallet : 9.57M $FX haven’t been converted so far
  • 45.4M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH01 : Tx

    • then transferred to PCV-ETH011 : Tx
    • 5.00M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011a : Tx
    • 6.61M $FX transferred to Uniswap FX contract PCV-ETH011b : Tx
      • which purpose ? liquidity pool ?
    • 15.0M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011c : Tx
      • then transferred to PCV-FX08 : Tx
        • 10k $FX used by the team to submit proposal #5 : Tx
        • 10k $FX used by the team to submit proposal #4 : Tx
        • 1k $FX used by the team to submit proposal #1 : Tx
    • 7.00M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011d : Tx
    • 10.0M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011e : Tx
      • then transferred 4.04M $FX transferred to PCV-FX10 : Tx
      • then transferred 5.96M $FX transferred to PCV-FX11 : Tx
    • 1.67M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011f : Tx
    • not used for conversion
    • mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.
    • fully controlled by the team
  • 45.4M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH02 : Tx

  • 45.4M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH03 : Tx

    • 26.0M $FX transferred to XWallet
      • see XWallet : 9.57M $FX haven’t been converted so far
    • 19.3M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH05 : Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3
      • see below
  • 31.2M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH05 : Tx

    • added 19.3M $FX from PCV-ETH03
    • total of 50.5M $FX
    • 49.56M $FX transferred to XWallet

    Conclusion #5 : 96.36M $FX were transferred to XWallet for conversion purposes - 9.57M $FX were not converted). 65.17M $FX were transferred directly to team addresses without any conversion. Team addresses are used to delegate to public and team validators.

  1. Public FX Staking (FXS)

MAIN CONCLUSIONS:
The project started in 2019:

  • EGF (TGE 20% - 75.7M $FX) detailed use is not really known, neither accounted for, and is in full control of the team. Part of it was used for NPXS conversion.
  • PME (TGE 15% - 56.8M $FX) funding only used 1.5% of total allocated funding. At this rate, 100 years would be needed to spend it all, not even considering what’s left (and constantly increasing) in the CSP !
  • EBT (TGE 5%) funding, which was supposed to be allocated to public users but 18.9M $FX (5% of TGE) are in control of team wallets.
  • PCV (TGE 45%) funding was supposed to be used for NPXS conversion only but 30.8M $FX (8.1% of TGE) are in control of team wallets.
  • FXS (TGE 15%) funding was supposed to be used for initial FX staking but 14.4M $FX (3.8% of TGE) are in control of team wallets.

This makes for a total minimum of 196.6M $FX (51.9% of TGE) in control of team wallets, not accounting for individual team member wallets.
If we ignore EGF and PME, this accounts for 64.1M $FX (16.9% of TGE) which should have never landed in team’s wallets.
[…updated 14/APR/2022 : 2nd part of EBT forgotten…]
We could also wonder why EBT, PCV and FXS reassigned funds would be used to provide rewards AND commission fees to team wallets, thus at the expense of community validators.
The good side of it is that those $FX were never used for anything else than staking and providing voting power to public and team validators.

My humble recommendations for a cleaner project:

  • Action 01: Deposit all unassigned EGF funding into CSP and provide full transparency towards any action led using the already-assigned EGF funds (past and future), in order to not consider this EGF as team’s.
  • Action 02: Accelerate & fund private & community developments, and make all projects public (FxWallet, FxExplorer, etc.) to allow for community-driven developments and bounties.
  • Action 03: Burn or airdrop the EBT funds and delegation rewards to current non-team delegators. A snapshot could easily be made for that. That would allow to not consider the EBT as team’s.
  • Action 04: Burn the unconverted PCV funds and delegation rewards. That would allow to not consider these funds as team’s.
  • Action 05: Burn the unstaked/unrewarded $FX from FXS

Why those recommendations ?

  1. Donating EGF into the CSP, and burning $FX tokens which are not supposed to be in team’s wallets, would :
    a- increase non-team voting power of each validator (esp. community’s)
    b- increase the use cases for CSP proposals and strongly increase decentralization
    c- create value on the token.
    d- lead the team to own a “smart” share of the contract’s tokens, and lead smart investors to come in.
  2. Airdropping long-standing delegators would thank them for staying around.
  3. Publishing source code and animating a dev community would accelerate integration in the whole ecosystem.

Addendum:
The list of team-controlled FX addresses is the following :

  • fx1pgmjd400qfkh6t2hu7gnme47wdj6adwwa2wkam
  • fx1wv2el7g92raz5jcv4fhsjvdcxl3hyqdd59repg
  • fx1lzjus804ufar37qulrwk5xva6f9h3p8wz47hs3
  • fx1g7d9ftp6xns5gfsk56j9khpzg2fz7g39nz8pny
  • fx1ftzv705fvyrfmqvnpjhjr0xh56c5jg980q0gul
  • fx1avpsgdwt74p6x9h29a432hjfczgcs5x7jwg4v5
  • fx1zq8l0qwfflptlnxxy0hn2syhr2upxqxd605ej5
  • fx17utygnz3dkuppck3462alzu7lss4z5tzlftx88
  • fx1nrph63zcfvm9t8lyp30p6c7fdvxwcxljt5j0z7
  • fx17wkl2qsukr8u0km3q48eetwzgcaxclgyvr6h67
  • fx1xx335mtdj3me7cs6sttedzufsqrrh6czll4s7k
  • fx1d0n60ana8u0sxs7gwn94mzu2xrtssfrlgqs8mv
  • fx18z0q0m4y6678wv66e4rzpcrjkcldfjz4m5w8wd
  • fx15xtp30u054ndnf833jrq4kz4wpvn95zsh9399f
  • fx1wwvxyfr6u2jpp2zmcqjs3ett9npl90per52uve
  • fx17uw98zmyv7q9cf4s9z3lumms6ctxtguyan44s9
  • fx12shesxtysrm4k82aa2mptl3ltws00akp8qlczv
  • fx1u8503d8hnmy806slfy9e48e7qs5335qm6nqzkc
  • fx1qthctpdlamudc6v8z47k9c4w8a5nwczcvmzud8
  • fx1rfmxx9cjq847x399k9aaajcqm8gdyc7ac82d37
  • fx1kt07kgqhps0hngfdxrfmvu2q2f5gez69vjf7fy
  • fx1qlaawfv2k2f283fxhyh5rwtwlusuzke4r07wt5
  • fx12vfqycy4g2sulwupzv59mmly9pltnh9z4qq6xs
  • fx1xv7xue38z22z02zc83mt42xh6zkmezsms2szau
  • fx17hkmdwrfq5f23903308pjrut7g99ue45vqmgux
  • fx16xnahksm0646kxu56zsspwq93ydapjwq2uzkuh
  • fx1zhp0eprcf59muyxchf4ux8gj9tmt39e7kzhm5z
  • fx1u7xfmfctxnfqv4ssp3q8q059578kllea7r362m
  • fx123ly93l9q0rsth709fryygxane2w23ynyftvm2
  • fx1ecf7tjc0p8lstpc6v0z8878py6krcdh3pyrdsk
  • fx16xmfu2t3pgx58a6erq8ssscn0rt2cjy5emcg77
  • fx1je0uncutnc8wpg5s2uth97t5sfkw83h4dnz2ar
  • fx13mjuh378z8yd4038eqlt5ef0z3wm8rp6xv2pxv
  • fx1uunshfpqhrek0af5u5q54qrfu5g33sc5ce05kx
  • fx1xveyp5x8795803czs0d3hgg6jt4d26k7gvqan9
  • fx1xg82dz9zl87mvr7z8vdgwwzhk8xw6725823p00
  • fx14lvghsxxs209pgpnja3fxcd0me2rvrk76me634
  • fx1uksxj5udt26qwtustg0v7p46x96pz4altu8rnu
  • fx1k3td70ns55pgnv8ukx9vafge083dv03eds2k44
  • fx16p2uyfvepc28hqkjv8vz5nku4rqme2gzjj6trd
  • fx1c63r7xh2kjaxd38r4qx5rq384gda3gcc22n49y
  • fx19ssv5t0mu7sy6ws98j7tc0rdp2ktlwq53tpe54
  • fx1r30q2gq740pjr7fsrtwvk6sjyu47g8urytl6a2
  • fx10p0e74j5uvpcafargagls2mwdkxtqqgs4rdzhn
  • fx16vyuc6cah9f3vrwtct6qfgc5lke63qkcc8zj6p
  • fx1prtqfq3pq55petdcqy9wrjapmuk5n9kvznaj4w
  • fx133ka8zgdn8emu02u623pq04gvhsl5uaufgzzue
  • fx1z5atvygcwpn49e9cx7l4rjjxv6js7a34c0334q
  • fx1j59we8wnp72sna8fjdchpkf0s62m0q9va5yv03
  • fx19ukzjkag6n4lqgejfu33046qc036rw76thgsqv
  • fx1mtsq7ta90r3xj35q5sq3tcudelkyhzlh8dufzp
  • fx1aymjyggdcme9vlhqg45hmx4fsr97vnm0kquray
    […updated 14/APR/2022 : forgot 2nd part of EBT as well as 2nd part of EGF…]

Thanks for reading it thru… and please have constructive comments from this post.
I almost spent the day writing it.

@FrenchXCore

8 Likes