The Roundtable of Dogs would have to review it and they can kick it back for adjustments to the proposal or decline the offer.
I like this better than the unsolicited proposals in telegram so I do have to tip my hat at the level of effort and professionalism here.
Having said that, you are right: I did say it’s not the only solution. There could be others. I just don’t know of anyone that does it in this manner. Maybe someone else does?
After much thought I believe this DOA recommendation should be properly Vetted BY the Round Table and K9 team and re submitted after proper review and consultation. Other alternative options should be considered when vetting this proposal.
This is the vetting process. The community must comment prior to the Round Table doing it’s review. Critical that this is not centralized and that a small number of people serve as gatekeepers to what the community can read.
I’m going to ask a question and I don’t want it taken in the wrong way:
Had we not voted to reduce taxes on buy and sell, would ApeBond or some other 3rd party have been needed to get our liquidity debt handled?
I just feel like removing funding to the wallets that could have taken care of the project were ripped away just because “taxes limit buy-in”.
If my original question is the case to why ApeBond is now entering the ring with their solution, we really need to slow down the voting process and vet the proposals all the way through.
Don’t vote away ownership of the project by forcing it into debt to other projects!
If I’m off-base, let me know. It just seems convenient that they’re sliding into our DMs so quickly after lowering taxes and sending 100K a month to other initiatives for the next 6 months.
We will have exposure to other communities through our marketing campaigns, so how much more exposure could ApeBond bring to the table?
In congruence with your foresight I believe we should pause on this proposal: Haste makes waste applies here. This project (K9) has barely gone through a launch with the backend still being worked out. We are in the process of ironing out some of the kinks (in the application). The most recent tax restructure is still on everyone’s mind. This institution (ApeBond) coming forth early, in all earnestness, with this is flattering; but we must consider their competition.
Although they are the first to come hither we have not seen anyone else set forth a counter/competitive offer.
If there is a vote on this option (proposal) I believe it would only be fair to include a vote of “decline” at this stage. I believe for every vote we set forth, since the first tax restructure came and went, we should install this in every vote as not doing so spells distrust in the project to futures. Not being able to say no, nay, decline, refuse, or reject, or otherwise allowing dissenting opinion within the vote; creates a one sided argument.
On the flip side, we should be doing our due diligence in sending an ambassador to the doors of ApeBond’s competition to see if they have any interest in K9.
Great discussion here so far and I love seeing the thoughtfulness in the proposal and the comments. From my perspective, I have a few points for consideration from our community and from ApeBond.
Approximately 25% Total Cost
There is a 5% initiation fee, 5% success fee, and what appears to be an average 15% discount on the tokens put up for bond purchases (based on historical averages from the ApeBond website). In short, $200,000 of potential liquidity immediately becomes $150,000 potential liquidity.
Only a 30-Day Lock Available
While the additional liquidity will be advantageous to K9, this seems to “kick the can down the road” in regards to potential sell pressure from this particular arbitrage opportunity. Not only will vesting unlock pressure be a consideration but also this bond sale, if approved, will occur shortly after the first vesting unlock when it is most likely (only my opinion) vested holders will sell to recoup their initial investment. The timing coupled with the 30-day lock could be more harmful to the project than the liquidity injection.
Opportunity Cost
We should take into consideration the treasury management proposal alongside the ApeBond proposal. While looking at treasury investments that may provide anywhere between 3%-13% APY over a year time-frame, this proposal has an immediate 25% expense.
While I appreciate ApeBond’s proposal, I am currently leaning toward this proposal not being the most efficient use of funds nor effort.
Thoughts?
Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback here Couch_Adventures
I don’t quite understand what you mean by saying if you hadn’t reduce the taxes liquidity debt wouldn’t have been an issue. Were the DAO using the reflect fees, liquidating half of those to put it back into the liquidity pool as a KNINE-WETH LP pair?
This is not voting away ownership, it’s actually building liquidity that the K9 Finance DAO 100% owns, which is great, because the DAO will control the liquidity making sure liquidity fluctuations are limited even if market sentiment isn’t great. Liquidity scales as the project grows, so closing your liquidity dept could be a one and done type of deal.
We slid into no dms ser 
, factually incorrect, and because we operate a B-B-C type of business we have a large community ready to get to know you guys, but our true value proposition is helping build POL for the partners we work with.
Hey Ryan! Thank you for your comment.
We’ve been operating as a Bonding Protocol for nearly 2 years now, helping projects grow their liquidity and what we often find is that projects wait too long to start building liquidity. Keep in mind that this is not a sprint and should be seen as a slow and sticky process which’ll take multiple months to complete. Throughout these months we will provide constant feedback in the form of reports and links to track the Bond(s) live.
We’re confident in the depth of analysis we conduct, combined with our technology and supportive community, which positions us as the premier bonding service in cryptocurrency. We’ve successfully facilitated Bonds for reputable projects like Floki, ORBS, Decubate, AiTech, and ChainGPT. With approximately 120 trusted partners relying on us for their liquidity raising endeavors, we believe we’re the ideal choice for the task at hand. We welcome any competition in the space and are prepared to defend our position.
Thanks for your comments here Archangel. I’ll try and address then point by point.
Total Costs:
There must have been a misunderstanding here, the fees are already incorporated into the discounts displayed on our dashboard link. So your calculation seems off → on average, we’ve observed a 13% discount across all the Bonds we’ve facilitated, accounting for fees. However, it’s essential to note that this figure represents an average, and we can’t guarantee exact returns.
Vesting:
The length of vesting is something that could be changed by the protocol involved. So if you think this should be longer than we’d be able to change that to 60, 90, 120 days, no problem. But keep in mind the longer the vest the higher the discount would become, so historically we have seen better results with 30 day vesting programs.
Moreover, it’s crucial to understand that this process is a slow one. Our team of data experts has carefully studied your tokenomics, considering factors like upcoming token unlocks, based on the vast amount of data we’ve collected over the past two years from similar bond initiatives. We’re taking a cautious and gradual approach to bonding to avoid putting excessive pressure on the liquidity pool and token price. With our specialized data analysis tools and bonding algorithms, we’re equipped to manage this balancing act effectively.
Lastly, the vest doesn’t end for all the Bonders all at once causing a cliff, that’s not what we aim to do. First of all we aim to encourage bonders to become token holders with pushing them to your community through marketing, encouraging them to get involved. Secondly, every single Bonders vesting time starts when they purchase the Bond. So say someone purchases today and I purchase 7 days from now, my vest would only start in 7 days’ time where theirs began today.
Opportunity Cost:
I think the opportunity cost that you’ve lost would have been taking ETH from the treasury to add more liquidity (which is needed according to our analysis) to your liquidity pool. That is ETH that could have been earning APY which is now deployed to your liquidity pool.
And again that 25% is incorrect and wouldn’t be immediate - our backend fee is taking as we continue Bonding. I would urge you to look at the tokenomics and look at the KNINE specifically divvied out for liquidity incentives and growth. Bonding would be using the tokens set aside for liquidity in a way that brings a return on investment, POL, and sustainability to the DAO. In the past we only had farming which is essentially giving your token away with 0% return, Bonding has an 87% return on average which is dramatically better in our opinion.
Personally I still believe that the K9 Round table or the treasury should have a complete evaluation of this contract to properly assess it validity. I don’t think the DOA has the ability to review all aspects and have an informed vote on this project. I believe this should have no less than a 3 person team properly evaluating this project and give informed feedback.
This. That is a great point. Why not just pair with ETH?
I agree with Joy here. Although I don’t fully grasp the ins and outs, it definitely feels off to just go with ApeBond before we see other options, especially when I don’t see how exactly it benefits the K9 community, but it does benefit ApeBond
I mean no offense by this, but why is there a rep of Ape-bond in the K9 DAO pitching their stuff to us?
Wouldn’t this be an obvious conflict of interest? This guy, by principal, can’t vote it down and has a vested interest for this to pass as a “yes.”
This whole thing feels off to me. Not trying to be alarmist, but I definitely think this should be thoroughly deliberated upon before passing anything.
Good day ApeBond team,
It is interesting that your team would offer a liquidity solution to K9 Finance.
One side of the K9 operation is that of Liquidity Solution for #Shibarium blockchain L1, L2 & L3/network.
Should we as a community & DAO really require additional liquidity, we should first look inward to #Shibarium partners and ourselves.
Please note that the reduction of our Buy & Sell taxes was to help the community grow. Not for the need to outsource our liquidity needs.
Our community, DAO and Partners work with integrity for WeAreAllRoyshi.
Hey Ralehale! Thanks for your feedback here.
We dropped a proposal, because the team asked us to, but please deliberate or maybe the Round Table would be the ideal group to do so.
Apes love Shibarium too 
! We’ve proven our tech in combination with a track record over the last 2 years in building sustainable liquidity for multiple other protocols. I don’t think there would be a Shib alternative to be honest (but if you’ll have us we’d like to be that protocol too 
).
Keep in mind that $KNINE’s liquidity is currently held on Eth and we’ve seen incredible traction on mainnet thus far.
I like this idea as it will bring liquidity to the project and more eyes from external audiences.
Sorry for the late reply; My belief, at this stage, is the project’s complexity hasn’t been properly aligned. Adding this into the mechanics of the token right now is something that we must consider at a later time.
Though your option for managing and diverting liquidity is well thought out, I still stand on putting a pause on your proposal.
Thank you.
I think it is important to recognize that these efforts are not mutually exclusive. By supporting this proposal, K9 DAO can also still add its own liquidity to the pool and continue building liquidity. This proposal, in my perspective, gives the opportunity for new holders (and existing community members) to become an active member of the DAO for a discounted price, while benefiting the project’s liquidity holdings.
The DAO has the opportunity to use only KNINE tokens (and retain ETH / stables for other uses including additional marketing, own liquidity, grant programmes, and more) to increase the liquidity profile of the token.
The bonding process, from my understanding, is a beneficial way to price KNINE tokens at a slight discount to users purchasing them using the LP tokens so that it is priced according to the demand in the market for a unique product like this
I want to simplify the pros and cons for the community, as I see them, for this proposal.
Pros:
Cons:
I think as a community we need to decide on a key point: Is issuing $200k of tokens to new holders, who are purchasing at a slight discount, worth the benefits above of adding $200k in liquidity, gaining access to a new audience of holders, and reserving flexibility with the hard assets in the treasury to do many more initiatives.
Ultimately when I see this proposal I see the pros and cons, however I believe the pros outweigh the cons. If this is approved we’d need to work diligently in concert with the Ape Bond team to put together a great marketing campaign for this new product that brings a lot of new eyes and attention to K9 DAO that may have never heard of the project