A vision for GTON CAPITAL in Q4 2022/Q1 2023

Dear community, dear GTON-Team,
I genuinely believe that the new strategy for the GC project is truly great and visionary. Since it was released in december, there were just a few additions I had. Now with the final voting in place - and an even more encompassing view on it -, I want to build upon, what is already proposed by the development team, and maybe add a little bit here and there. Because I made a large part of this posting, after the team released their strategy in december, but before they released their final voting proposal, some of the remarks I had got funnily enough already anticpated by them.

Before we start lets take a look at the official documents.

Now let us talk about the things that should be built, in my opinion, in Q4 2022/Q1 2023 after the first batch of products got released.

A) First, let’s carefully distinguish between two things, GTON CAPITAL Net and GTON CAPITAL…
If GTON gets it’s own blockchain, it should be - of course - the superordinated structure compared to everything else in this ecosystem. Also, it should get it’s own independant place, website and social media presence. I propose for the blockchain, GTON CAPITAL Net, a website that should include…
a) an introduction about the blockchain, the GTON token and it’s basic functionalities
b) extensive material about the development on this blockchain; so that other development teams can easily grasp how they can get their project done
c) an overview about all the dapps that exist in the GTON ecosystem
d) analytics/statistics; one of the statistics should show how much money the DAO has; how much revenue goes in and how much money is spent on which things; it should basically be like a pie chart, that should show so and so much money do we, as a DAO collect through bonding and other services like swaps on OGSwap or lp farming on Candyshop and so and so much money do we spend to liquidity pools, core functioning as well as marketing, and is used to fund projects due to a project catalyst inspired funding scheme - look at point e) -, or is reserved for buybacks with the pathway protocol, etc.; hint --) this got already in a similar form anticpated by the team, where they talk about monthly reports; I would like to be able to watch this in an interactive way, daily and automatically updated on the website
e) and last but not least something similar to the already mentioned project catalyst; it is basically a pot of money made available by the GTON CAPITAL Net DAO; independant development teams can propose ideas, and can describe what they want to develop on this blockchain and the community can afterwards vote with their holdings, which projects should get funded with the money in the pot. Projects that didn’t get enough votings to be funded by the DAO, should be able to take a collateralized loan from the DAO, that they have to pay back.

Second the GTON CAPITAL dapp should be subordinated; it should just be a dapp, like many, in the ecosystem - even, if it is an important dapp. It should mostly include…
a) staking
b) bonding
c) voting

However, like everything else in this ecosystem - all of this is very interconnected with each other… That means, GTON CAPITAL Net will use the bonding functionality from GTON CAPITAL as a revenue stream. Yet, it should not end with that; it should just be the beginning!

Let me elaborate on that… Due to crypto, my views shifted from a statist position a little bit more to a libertarian position… However, I still believe, the best way to build an ecosystem is like a state that collects on one hand taxes to build on the other hand roads, schools, infrastructure and so on… Therfore, the GTON CAPITAL Net DAO should on one hand collect money due to fees on their services, and spend it on the other hand on building the ecosystem, and in a lesser degree on marketing, and so on.

So, I plea that, what was once the idea for only one dapp and functionality, namely GTON CAPITAL and bonding, should get expanded and should become a core principle and a characteristic of the whole ecosystem. Behind every product in the ecosystem should be the question, how can we monetize it, so that not only the egoistic individual but also our GTON CAPITAL Net DAO can make money from it.

That means, later on, we should also generate a revenue stream from a tiny, tiny, tiny fee on every swap on OGSwap and lp farming on Candyshop, as well as from every future official team project and from every third party project that got funded through our project catalyst fund. Imagine that we have hundred ecosystem projects and all of them generate, every second through a small portion of fees, a revenue stream for us; the GCNet DAO.

Therby, it’s basically a cycle… The GTON CAPITAL Net DAO collects fees/“taxes” through it’s ecosystem products, and then spends it on the funding and development of new ecosystem products… And these new ecosystem products generate together with the already existing ecosystem products now even more fees/“taxes” that go to the GTON CAPITAL Net DAO, which will fund the next generation of new ecosystem products… It’s a perfect cycle, where both sides will accelerate each other because of positive feedback effects. Or in simple terms, more ecosystem products means more fees/“taxes”/money for the DAO and more fees/“taxes”/money for the DAO means more ecosystem products.

Our goal should be to become, due to this, one of the most well-funded projects in the industry. So, GTON CAPITAL Net should not only be not a non-proft-organisation, but be like a “ultra-for-profit-organisation” - it should literally swim in money. We need so much money, because we need to be compatitive with Solana, Cardano and so on, who have an advantage due to their earlier start… And that is expensive.

A bad example in this regard is the Ergo blockchain… Don’t get me wrong, I like Ergo and wouldn’t have invested in it, if I wouldn’t believe in it… It is a beast of its own and it is ethically principelled… However, in my opinion, one flaw of this principeles, is to be too proud of its decentraliced structure… One picture that gets several times reposted is this…

It shows that nearly all of the initial token allocation went to the public, and just a little bit went to the foundation. That is cheered on as decentralization… Well in my view, it means that the foundation is poor… So it can’t afford the development of it’s own ecosystem, it is dependant on the good will of generous whales, who offer some grants and development teams, who code on it, because it is more or less fun for them. On top of that, one egoistic and greedy individual - called “the bearwhale”, you can google the “bearwhale saga” - was able to gather a huge amount of Ergo through mining in an early development stage, and then used this power to crash the market two times. So much about public allocation of a coin; now it is centralized in the hands of a harmful individual, instead of the hands of a publicly owned foundation/DAO… No, no, no - this is not the way! We should approach the matter completely different…

Again, I repeat myself but a blockchain that I would prefer, is build like a state…
a) It constantly collects money - from an expanding revenue stream -, due to all its ecosystem products, and takes this money to invest into the creation of new ecosystem products.
b) To prevent financial corruption and misuse, everything has to be through visualized statistics 100% public and transparent. Where the money comes from and where the money goes to, should through oracles, or something like this, get automatically calculated; and it should be reproducible by the public, like open source code. Or in other words, all of this should be, due to analytics and statistics, totally transparent and there should be no way, what so ever, to manipulate numbers.
c) Also, what is funded and what is not, depends mostly on how helpful it is to secure and expand the development of the whole ecosystem and the economic goals of the DAO and its members. Especially which new third projects should get funded by the DAO, should be decided through a voting system.

To take all of this into consideration, I propose that the development team should add to
a‌) The Ecosystem Reserve Fund
b) The Ecosystem Liquidity Fund
c) The Ecosystem Insurance Fund
d) The Ecosystem Building (or Catalyst) Fund; this should be the fund that is used for funding the development of the whole ecosystem through a project catalyst-like mechanism.

In addition to that, I want to explore with B) and C), further and supplementary options, how we can create the basis for a flourishing ecosystem. The mayor strategy for Q4 2022/Q1 2023 should be… “Don’t just build dapps… Build dapps that build dapps!” If you build a dapp, you have one dapp, but if you build a dapp that builds dapps, you build one dapp, but you maybe will get ten or hundred dapps out of it… So the strategy should be clear… That means…

B) Build an IDO launchpad… Of course, I don’t have to explain, how this works; you know that better than me and there are countless examples on that - but for completness… When new crypto projects start their development process, they need funds… Another option to fund these projects - in comparison to the already mentioned project catalyst like funding mechanism - is, if a project is selling their tokens at low prices to early investors. So we should offer third party development teams this option, on the future GTON blockchain. However, the roots of the GTON ecosystem are multichain, and multichain is the future… So, unlike to many other IDO launchpads, here it should be possible, to launch these tokens on a wide variety of blockchains, not only on GTON CAPITAL Net. However, to make use of GTONs special swapping capabilities, it should even be possible that a seller makes its offering on blockchain A, and a buyer buys these tokens with tokens, that he has on blockchain B… It seems to me, that OGSwap is in the meantime also used as launchpad… So the question should be, if OGSwap gets permanently adapted to serve this functionality, or, if a new explicit launchpad is needed.

C) Build a project that I already described, in another forum post I made, namely GTONFiver… To make it simple, here I quote myself… “So, you can compare it with Fiver… You want, that someone creates something for you, like a logo, a website, an animation, a dapp/a program, code, etc. and you are willing to pay them. So you go to “GtonFiver”, create an assignment, tell people what you want and start the contest… Now, on the other side people that are capable to fullfill these assignments go to “GtonFiver” and create your logo, website, animation, dapp/program, whatever… When the contest is over you finaly choose, what your preferred result is and your stake will automatically go to the winner.” This should be the third way, how we can fund our ecosystem. More on that in the specific thread.

D) A little bit unrelated to the rest of this proposal, is, that I propose, that another mayor focus in Q4 2022/Q1 2023 should be on the creation of our own wallet. Basically, it should be very much like Metamask and it should be available as desktop, browser extension and mobile wallet. Key features should be…
a‌) multichain support, that is definately a necessity, because it shouldn’t matter on what blockchain you store your GTON token
b‌) multiple dapp connectors; you should be able to connect with Ethereum dapps, as well as with Cardano, Ergo or GTON dapps and so on.
c‌) integrated GTON staking
d‌) integrated crosschain and onchain swaps, it should be possible to make inside of this wallet swaps, like with OGSwap
e‌) it should be possible to connect this wallet to a ledger hardware device and it should have a read-only option for paper wallets, to store your coins/tokens safely

Finally, I would like to round off the proposal with an infographic that should briefly summarize what has been described.

Feedback from the community and the team is very appreciated.

Kind regards,



I didn’t want to reformulate my previous comment, therefor just a quick update…

So, I reconsidered if it really makes sense to differentiate between GTON CAPITAL Net and GTON CAPITAL - especially, since Alex reminded us again in his newest twitter postings that GTON CAPITAL will more or less evolve into GTON CAPITAL Net… So, I changed my view on that more and more and would now say… Nope, it doesn’t make sense to differentiate between those two products, and we should view them as one and the same thing…

So I also updated the infographic…



i very much like the vision. Some points that came to my mind when i read it:

  1. I totally agree about the whole arguments of transparency. And yes, it would be good to have all the mentioned topics (e.g., like funds distribution) shown in a transparent way. Yet, i think it is also a good idea to have sort of an independent point where certain data could be checked against what is communicated from the official side. This has nothing to do with “mistrusting the team”, but one of the major advantages of public blockchains is the mere fact that they are public. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that everybody can check the most relevant data, e.g., due to technical obstacles. Therefore, i think it is always a good idea to have independent sources that provide relevant data to the public.

  2. I very much like the idea of the “tax”. Another argument could be that projects use the infrastructure provided and they have to pay for this, e.g., in order for the infrastructure to get maintained and developed further. I understood from the proposal above that especially the development aspect was very important and i couldn’t agree more. Having the best tech today doesn’t necessarily mean that we will have the best tech tomorrow. Especially not in a fast developing field like blockcains. Or like Philip Rosenthal said: who stopped improving stopped being good!

Additionally, i think it is very important that running GTON CAPITAL Net is a community effort. Therefore, i would love to see as many community nodes as possible!

One thing i’m not quite sure about is the idea to see GTON CAPITAL and GTON CAPITAL Net as one thing. Maybe i missed some of the discussions about this topic, then i would appreciate if someone could repeat the major arguments here, but i do strongly believe that it should really be seen as two different things. GTON CAPITAL Net is more like an infrastructure component and GTON CAPITAL is indeed a dApp build on top of it, just as proposed in the original vision here. As a comparison, maybe someone wants to have a look at DeFiChain and CakeDeFi and how they separated those two from each other (and no, i don’t want to start a discussion of the CakeDeFi CEO here… :slight_smile: ).

Anyway, i would like to again stress that i very much appreciated the vision. Good to see things like this coming from the community!



Absolutely like the proposal and structure for Q4/Q1 2023.

As u said this year we’re focusing on building and establishing revenue stream and traction for the GC.

GCNet and GC has no difference since GCNet is an important stage to become independent chain with modern governance and $GTON as DAO and Native token priced by Pathway algo.

More dapps and products GCNet will have more pathway influence it will have in place.

We proposed a special Angel role to establish reporting about funds, revenue, expenses and etc everything u mention will be implemented this year. Not sure that everything can be public, but Pathway is a tool for prevention of any “insider” market manipulation, so MMs must look at PWPeg and design MM strategy according to it. Since, PW actions are happening in random time (based on Chainlink VRF), there is no inside manipulation possible.

I see this as an important step to the project development decentralization.

Sure, Q1 2023 we’ll be focused on customer apps, dapps constructors and grant programs for devs, also collabs with another DAOs and VCs to make smarter decisions about grants allocations.

Thanks for your effort! Wanna see more proposals like this and it’s actually inspiring me and another core contributors to work harder and smarter to reach same level of influence as Solana or Ethereum.

Nothing is impossible and #WA𝔾MI :fleur_de_lis:


Interesting concept described :mortar_board:

As far as u mentioned SUSY:

I think we missed SuSy Oracles infrastructure here as well, so called SUSY DONs based on ChainLink oracles.

My suggestion is to consider SUSY DONs as monetization component also for the DAO.

Is that possible in any case or near future?

Example: we can provide custom data feeds (EMA, liquidity, TVL, volumes, users and etc) not only for GTON CAPITAL, but also for another projects sitting on Fantom and another chains.


thank you all, for your feedback; that is very motivating.

Yes, I understand what you mean :).
First, transparency is really important and to have transparency, you have to fullfill two conditions…
a) An easy way to understand the presented data, so that common people, not just those, who like to dig deep in big data, data science, financial mathematics, informatik, and so on can understand it…
b) And you have to be sure that, that, what is presented to you is trustworthy… One way, you can be sure, is, if you have, like Alex said in his reply, a tool that prevents - due to its nature - any manipulation or, like you said, if you have independent watchers. The best way would be, if there is both - just to be sure.

Second, the point I tried to make about a kind of taxing mechanism as a core value in this ecosystem is pretty much the main concern in this proposal. I want to quote from an article, delivered by messari.io, called power and wealth in cryptoeconomies:
“Imagine you’re designing a new economic system from scratch. You’re deciding everything from resource allocation to property rights to how this entire system will ultimately be governed and controlled. How would you design it?”

That is a good question, isn’t it? Everybody should ask themself this question… We will see that there are all kinds of answers to that - and different people value different core values - such as decentralisation, fairness, freedom and so on. To have an example for that, I will quote from an article called Ergo & The lessons of bitcoin maximalism:
“The first objective of Bitcoin is to reduce the power of governments to control and manipulate the currency of the world. This is known as the separation of money and state, and Bitcoin’s primary tools for this purpose are decentralization and cryptography. […] Separating money from the state ensures monetary neutrality, which would empower individuals from anywhere in the world to access a pure, capitalist world market. A noble goal, indeed. This is made possible by the fact that BTC was distributed fairly and naturally, without the influence of governments or Venture Capitalists. Bitcoin is a true democratic and open source project, that was made by people with genuine intentions, for the good of humanity at large. […] The most common encroachment on Bitcoin’s values comes by way of centralization. A quick look into the token distribution of major crypto projects is all that is needed to realize that these projects are in no way fair for the average investor. The Algorand blockchain, for example, was made possible through exorbitant VC funding. This has caused significant harm to retail investors, because the vesting schedule for these funds allows investors to dump their coins every time the price goes up. In the world of DeFi, this is what is known as a ‘rug pull’. In the world of Bitcoin, nobody owns the rug.”

So, we can see that our friend over there especially values the decentralisation aspect in cryptocurrencies…

And I agree with him in that regard, that power and money in a cryptocurrency shouldn’t be concentrated in the hands of a few greedy VC firms, who most and foremost really don’t care for the the future of the project and the common good, but instead follow their own shortterm particular interests. They can have some place on table, if they know how to behave - and don’t act like chimpanzees, throwing dishes around - but they should never be too powerful.

However, unlike this guy, I believe that it is a good thing, if power and money is concentrated in the hands of someone, if these hands deeply care for the common good and a positive development of the blockchain… And who could this be? Of course, nobody else as we all together, acting like one - in other words, a DAO.

So I come to the conclusion, that Defi 2.0 is the way forward. In this case, I will quote Alex: “The #DeFi 2.0 is probably just a new #buzzword. However, I see the real ‘paradigm shift’ moving us to the world with the #DAOs managing the markets for their own tokens based on different automated and autonomous algos :dna: a DAO of DAO”

This simple realization is so powerful, I am actually amazed that this development is not already well established. Because if we build on that, and innovate on more and more ways, how a blockchain can proactively make its own path forward, soon other blockchains will fall massively behind.

So, if we establish as a core foundational value in this ecosystem, that we have a DAO of DAOs and the sub-DAOs are monetized and pay every second to the DAO of DAOs taxes, while the DAO of DAOs is building new DAO ecosystem products… Then, how will a decentralized blockchain be able to compete with that?
Like, imagine that… Every ten minutes, will Gton Capital - in addition from its own earnings from bonding - due to tiny fees on every swap on OGSwap, every pull-out from CandyShop, and use of SuSyBridge receive 10.000€… Next ten minutes, and again 10.000€ received… Next ten minutes and again, and again and again… Alone in one month is this DAO of DAOs extremly rich… And now we start to use this money and power and fund third party development teams in their development on this blockchain under the condition, that they will monetize their product and pay us a little bit taxes as well… And now due to this, this DAO will receive not just from four, but for example from twenty ecosystem products all in all every ten minutes 100.000€… Now it is even richer then before and has more ecosystem products then before… And this goes on and on… Now please tell me anybody, how will a decentralized blockchain with no constant funding stream for the foundation, compete with that? On one hand, you have millions and millions of Dollar, which can be used to fund the development of the blockchain and ecosystem, also you can hire the most brilliant and smartest people in this scene and on the other hand you have a little bit funding from good whales and people who like to develop in their free time…

Third, well a discussion, if Gton Capital should be seperated into a blockchain and dapp or if that should be combined into one platform is a good thing :)… I will look into DefiChain and CakeDefi! My opinion shifted to prefer Gton Capital as a combination of a blockchain and dapp functionality, because it is more aligned with Occam’s proposal and I don’t see anymore what advantages there are otherwise, if there is a seperation… However I and the development team is definately open for any argument :).

Thank you :). It is estounishing in what a short time you, the team and the project have made a huge progress. During the Occam’s proposal I had the feeling that there was some kind of confusion in which direction we will develop, but shortly after that, and since then every aspect of this project got so much better and professional - the scope and vision, the proposals, the branding… I have the impression you and the team now know exactly what you do and that will lead to a massive success.
So, by the way, I especially love the new branding - words like classy, noble, elegant, wealthy and serious describe it very well… I can exactly remember my first impression, because I said it out loud… I said… “Wow, that looks so cool :O!”. We should never underestimate that, because your average consumer will not judge the code under the hood, but how it looks like - I guess, that is also a major reason, why Solana made it so quickly to the top 10, because it has - in comparison with examples like Algorand - this distinct, cool and memorable style. So, what I especially like about that new branding, is, that it is also a standardized theme and has a distinct style for multiple ecosystem products…

Hey, good idea :)! Yes, I didn’t consider SuSy Bridge, but you are totally right… If there is a way to monetize SuSy it should definately get done… The development team will probably find a way :).


let me just quote this

1 Like