I really like Seizan’s proposal… And just from the research I have done, it looks to be a tie between ARB and avalanche from a builder’s perspective.. avalanches growth and volume well exceeds ARB. I will say it again I’m not a builder.. Builder input accepted.
Sharing the publicly available information on the state of the K9 treasury and the budgets, which were voted on by the community.
As of January 19th, 2026, these are the liquid assets of the treasury:
ETH: 82 = $263,400
USDC: $108,000
Total: $363,400
Month Budget:
Development & Operations: $45k / month
Marketing Sub DAO: $15k / month
Total: $60k per month
I will point out that this is just going on etherscan, searching K9safe.eth and knowing the budgets that were voted for on this forum, and I highlight this because it is information that everyone has access to
3 Likes
So as we can see revenue creation and spending has to be our next thoughts moving forward to preserve and build the treasury.
FWIW our quest platform and agent 9 both seem like a great fit on Base. Could either of these be readily monetizable as services?
Our quest platform is really intuitive and engaging. Can we repurpose quests as a plug & play onboarding platform (like Galxe/Zealy, except we focus on onboarding and loyalty incentives instead of short-term promo campaigns)? There’s a big push to build on Base this year and all those apps will need community onboarding.
1 Like
It cant be because people voted for option 5, so the next few months will be focused on token minting and migration instead. This was my challenge and concern in the whale chat because I cant see how we have enough time (with a 6 month runway) to complete the operations of option 5 AND create a revenue generation platform to save the treasury (especially with a smaller dev team). Unless someone can give me another pov?
1 Like
I’ll try to state my concern as simply as possible:
- The DAO is operating with limited funds, and our runway is decreasing.
- It’s still not clear (at least to me) what the all-in cost of executing Option 5 actually is (migration + 23% mint/claims + liquidity + security review/audit + operations), and therefore how much we realistically have left for continued development afterward.
I understand this thread is not formally deciding where we will build products next.
However, with our current budget constraints, I don’t think we can treat “migration chain” and “build chain” as totally separate decisions. If we migrate treasury + supply to a chain that we are unlikely to build on, we risk spending scarce resources on a move that creates no new utility, at which point KNINE becomes a meme token with no product delivery, and that is effectively the end of K9 Finance.
So unless there is an explicit two-step plan (settle on Chain A now, then build on Chain B later) with a budget and rationale, I think we should bias toward migrating to the chain where we are most likely to build and where we can realistically access ecosystem support (grants, audit programs, BD) to reduce our execution burden.
With that framing: can someone articulate the concrete strategic reason Base or BNB are being prioritized here (beyond “easy for users”), and how that translates into a realistic path to shipping revenue-generating products post-migration?
2 Likes
Thank you for this response, I agree with you entirely, and this really builds on my earlier comment. I don’t want to be that person but from my perspective it doesn’t make sense for the dev team to spend months executing all elements of Option 5 right now, especially if doing so would consume half of the treasury and leave insufficient funding to ensure K9’s long-term survival.
I understand that the majority voted for Option 5, and that should absolutely be respected. That said, is there room for flexibility in how it’s implemented? For example, could certain elements be postponed and honoured at a later stage, perhaps once we’ve secured a new home or developed a utility that generates sustainable revenue? That approach might better protect the project while still respecting the community’s decision. Based on the path that’s been communicated by the team, I’m concerned it will ultimately drain the treasury to zero. If that happens, it would effectively mark the end of K9 as a viable project and reduce it to nothing more than a meme token.