Feasibility Study for AI Prediction Market Expansion (KGM)

Proposed Feasibility Study: Assessing Expansion of K9 Finance DAO to Base with AI-Agent Powered Prediction Markets for DAO Governance Outcomes

Proposal Overview

This document proposes conducting a comprehensive feasibility study to evaluate the potential expansion of K9 Finance DAO to Base, an Ethereum Layer-2 chain backed by Coinbase. The study would focus on developing and deploying “K9 Governance Markets” (KGM): a decentralized prediction market protocol targeting underserved niches such as DAO governance outcomes, AI agent performance, and on-chain reputation events.

By leveraging K9’s core competencies in liquid staking derivatives (e.g., BoneCrusher), DAO AI agent creation (via partnerships like Bad Idea AI), and airdrop applications, the study aims to determine the project’s viability amid the Shibarium product sunset on February 25, 2026, and ongoing liquidity migration discussions.

The proposed study would assess technical, economic, operational, legal/regulatory, and market aspects, providing actionable recommendations for K9 DAO governance.

Estimated study duration: 4–6 weeks; budget: $50K–$75K (primarily for research, analysis, and external consultations). Funding could be sourced from K9 treasury emissions or grants, with a focus on Coinbase/Base ecosystem opportunities to offset costs.

Approval of this proposal would enable data-driven decision-making, positioning K9 for strategic growth in 2026 DeFi trends like AI-integrated prediction markets.

Rationale for the Study

K9 Finance DAO has demonstrated resilience and innovation:

  • As Shibarium’s official liquid staking provider, K9 launched BoneCrusher, enabling liquid yields on staked BONE.

  • Integrated AI agents for governance enhancements through Bad Idea AI, including bots for proposal support.

  • Managed successful airdrop/reward programs (e.g., esKNINE distributions) and navigated the 2025 bridge exploit with holder-first restitution.

With Shibarium sunsetting, a cross-chain expansion is critical. Base offers advantages like low fees, fast settlements, Coinbase fiat ramps, and a booming prediction market ecosystem (e.g., Limitless Exchange with $900M+ volume). However, deploying KGM requires rigorous evaluation to confirm alignment with K9’s strengths and mitigate risks in a competitive L2 landscape.

This study would fill knowledge gaps, such as niche market demand, grant accessibility, and integration challenges, ensuring resources are allocated efficiently.

Objectives of the Feasibility Study

The study would aim to:

  1. Assess Market Opportunity: Analyze Base’s prediction market gaps (e.g., DAO governance niches) and project demand/TVL potential ($10M+ in Year 1).

  2. Evaluate Technical Viability: Review compatibility of K9’s tech stack (AI agents, liquid staking) with Base’s EVM/Superchain; estimate development timeline (3–6 months).

  3. Analyze Economic Aspects: Model costs ($300K–$400K for deployment), revenues ($5–15M annually from fees), and ROI; include grant estimates (e.g., $50K–$500K+ from Coinbase/Base funds).

  4. Examine Operational Feasibility: Assess team readiness, migration logistics, and scalability.

  5. Review Legal/Regulatory Risks: Evaluate compliance for prediction markets (e.g., CFTC overlap) and mitigation strategies.

  6. Identify Risks and Mitigations: Quantify overall feasibility (e.g., 80–90% confidence levels) and recommend go/no-go criteria.

  7. Explore Grant Opportunities: Detail Coinbase/Base grants, with estimates ($50K–$150K for audits) and approval likeliness (30–50% based on ecosystem benchmarks).

Methodology

The study would employ a mixed-methods approach:

  • Desk Research: Review Base ecosystem data (TVL, prediction volumes), K9 historical metrics, and industry reports (e.g., DeFi Llama, Chainalysis).

  • Stakeholder Interviews: Consult K9 devs, community members (via DAO Forum/Snapshot), Base builders, and AI partners.

  • Competitive Analysis: Benchmark against Limitless, PredictBase; model niche demand using tools like on-chain analytics.

  • Financial Modeling: Use spreadsheets/simulations for cost/revenue projections; assess grant applications (e.g., Superchain Audit Grants via Hacken).

  • Risk Assessment: SWOT analysis and scenario planning (e.g., grant denial impacts).

  • Grant Evaluation: Research Coinbase Ventures/Base Ecosystem Fund; simulate applications to estimate success rates (medium likeliness: 30–50%, based on ~20–40% approval for aligned projects; selectivity in recent cycles ~17% for audits).

Data collection would prioritize open-source tools and community input to align with K9’s ethos.

Timeline

  • Week 1–2: Planning, desk research, and stakeholder outreach.

  • Week 3–4: Interviews, modeling, and analysis.

  • Week 5: Draft report; community feedback via K9 Forum.

  • Week 6: Finalize recommendations; present to Roundtable of Dogs for DAO vote.

Total: 4–6 weeks post-approval.

Budget Estimate

  • Personnel: $20K–$30K (5–7 part-time researchers/devs from K9 team/community).

  • Tools/Consultations: $10K–$15K (analytics subscriptions, external audits/grant experts).

  • Miscellaneous: $5K–$10K (travel, incentives for interviewees).

  • Contingency: 10–15% buffer.

Total: $50K–$75K. Potential offsets: Apply for Base Builder Grants (1–5 ETH ~$5K–$25K) during the study for partial funding.

Expected Outcomes and Benefits

  • Deliverables: Comprehensive report with feasibility scores, projections, risk matrix, and implementation roadmap.

  • Benefits to K9 DAO: Informed expansion decision; potential grant wins during study (e.g., 30–50% likeliness for $50K–$150K in audit/development support from Superchain/Coinbase programs); enhanced community engagement.

  • Strategic Value: Positions K9 as a forward-thinking DAO in AI-DeFi, capitalizing on Base’s 10M+ users and 2026 trends.

Risks of Not Conducting the Study

Proceeding without evaluation could lead to misallocated resources, regulatory pitfalls, or suboptimal niche selection in a fast-evolving space.

5 Likes

I love it!
Everyone made fun of me for saying Base all the time. You have taken your knowledge and experience and built what i couldn’t. Thank you for making this Proposal. This will definitely have my vote.

2 Likes

I see this proposal in a similar bucket to my earlier “Arbitrum migration” write-up: not something we should execute right now, but useful as a “what and where could K9 build” exploration (in this case: Base + prediction markets).

My concern is timing + cost. A $50k–$75k feasibility study is a big spend for us right now, especially if it leads us toward something we can’t realistically fund/build afterward. And the projected $5–$15M annual fees feels very ambitious without hard comps + assumptions.

I’m also cautious about chasing what’s “booming” today. It reminds me of chasing green candles, it looks attractive, but it often gets you rekt if you’re doing it because it’s hot, not because it fits your situation.

Before we commit meaningful treasury to new studies, I think we need a clear post-migration baseline:

  • what the treasury actually looks like after migration (liquid vs deployed/LP),
  • what our monthly burn becomes after the sunset,
  • what monthly income we expect (tax/fees/LP), and
  • runway.

That’s why I leaned Polygon earlier: we already have background work done there, and right now our posture should be sit tight, observe, communicate, calculate, not take on expensive new experiments.

Also, in this market right now, spending 1 ETH today could easily feel like spending 2 ETH in a few months if/when conditions improve. So IMO treasury spend should be kept minimal until we have the full picture.

All that said: I genuinely like the creativity here. If our core devs believe this is realistic and can be scoped properly, it could change my view, when you’re sailing in a storm, it’s not the time to experiment with a new crew, but if the same proven crew is confident, there is room to explore new ideas. If we do it, I’d strongly prefer a small Phase 0 with clear go/no-go criteria (and a much lower budget) before committing $50k–$75k.


Also @Joyride01 i dont think anyone made fun of you saying Base, but we just pointed out that we can NOT build liquid staking there;)

3 Likes

Appreciate the feedback, Seizan! Great points. I wanted to counter a couple, if I could. I framed it as a feasibility study because we’ll have so many ideas come in during this brainstorming phase, that we really need to flesh out the best ones. The cost was more than I expected, but if the devs thought it were a good fit, it would be well worth the spend for a $5-15 million/year ROI.

In researching chains, niche areas of need and considering K9’s strengths, this one kept coming up as the best alternative. Limitless has the market share in typical prediction markets on BASE, but we could capitalize on this special focus area to position K9 as the leader in DAO AI solutions, which would potentially help with marketing our AI bot.

Some strengths for me were the growth and institutional backing of BASE chain and the potential for grants. Just a few thoughts, and again, TYSM for the feedback!

2 Likes

I truly believe Base has the best opportunity to be the top L2.
Base has a sound infrastructure and the financial support to grow larger than other options.
Base would be K9 best opportunity to succeed and it would be best to get in sooner than later.
I am not the most knowledgeable on crypto but with the little research I did. It was easy to see the potential Base has.
Take a look at the following link

Base hits stage one decentralizing.

https://blog.base.org/base-has-reached-stage-1-decentralization

1 Like