Thread by @_JakeEaton

1/ If you are like me and were excited for @Umee_CrossChain I have some bad news for you and I laid out my concerns and how to resolve them.

Please pay attention before touching this project. If you feel I got any details wrong please correct me!

#ATOM #CosmosEcosystem

2/ The most glaring issue to start is the 1.8 Billion dollar valuation they have given themselves pre-launch.

3/ To put it in perspective that is the current valuation of giant #AAVE, it is nearly 4x the price of established #Kava, and around 2/3 the valuation of #Osmosis with over 1.3B in TVL.

4/ Now tokens, 26% of tokens off the bat go to the team and their labs, 14% goes to VC investors and 5% go to coinlist where many can not even participate in depending on region like myself.

5/ Liquidity providers will only be given about 0.004% of tokens as an incentive for making a market and taking on potentially large impairment losses in early stages of the project, this is a slap in the face.

6/ 46% of tokens are reserved for a community #DAO, sounds great right? Let the community decide the future? Not even close if behind close doors get 40% of the tokens and 46% are out of circulation in this DAO it is impossible for the community to outvote the team on proposals.

7/ Unless all team members, VCs, and so forth have non voting tokens this is equivalent to the Zuckerberg of Facebook. Which to be clear no where in their white paper that I could see does it say they cannot vote.

8/ What this really means is the team and investors gave a 1.8B valuation and ensured they received or have access to at least 86% of the tokens.

9/ What needs to happen for me to change my mind and come back to the project is the following:

10/ The LP additional incentives need to be moved from 0.004% to at least 2.5% given the incredible valuation risk which could lead to higher impairment risks to liquidity providers.

11/ At least 10% of the DAO tokens needs to be airdropped to the stakers of chains they plan to add such as ATOM, OSMO, Juno etc.

12/ The seed investors, team, and labs needs a legal commitment that they will not vote or only get a smaller % of votes.

13/ We need more clarity on the differences between community and ecosystem tokens.

14/ Let’s be clear they did put in a lot of work to build a nice project but they are still asking for investors to fork up precious capital.

15/ Until this is done the Umee project moved from a #DeFi project I was so excited about to something I do not think I can support. They will use retail investors to shift their bags slowly to them. Earlier investors will likely lose a lot of money.

16/ If you are on the Umee team and would like to discuss this I am always open. The point of this thread is to address concerns from someone who came from very excited to use to upset with the platform.

Updates - 1 It appears when Umee went through Coinlist they valued themselves at about 650M. Only recent valuations have pushed them at 1.1-1.8B range.

Updates - 2 The 6 month cliff prevents the seed investors and team from voting and staking. Coinlist can stake but not vote. This period should end for all 6 months from February 15th 2022. Still does not address the concern of super majority control over the community funds.

Updates -3 According to the tokenomics of the white paper the private, team, Umee Labs and advisors have a 6 month cliff. Their lead engineer (I have a screenshot) says that you cannot vote during this cliff.

Well the numbers just do not add up then for the recent vote. Cont..

Updates - 4 for no voting power yet we have
- 10% of UMEE labs
- 15% of UMEE Team
-1% of Advisors
- 14% of a private
- 46% are “community funds”

This vote for the recent proposal is to high not counting linear vesting. There is something going on here.