“The ROI in this case would be:
Number use cases built on chain * trxn volume = revenue from validation.”
We don’t have [tangible] use cases for the token, and that’s going to translate over to ApeChain.
Without #1 above, the transaction vol would be non-existent and just be calculated based on the pre-existing token trxn vol.
The DAO can’t accept revenue - of any kind. So, what’s going to happen to the validation revenue?
That said, these are some of the discussions that need to happen and is specifically why this pair of AIPS, while well-intentioned, are deficient in many ways. Creating a new chain and adopting it, has a lot of moving parts; some of which only come into play after the chain goes live. I don’t see any of that in these AIPs.
Thanks for the questions ser. I also believe having a zk-Powered layer-2 would be great for Apecoin DAO. Answers to your questions below
General Questions
Please see “Ecosystem Development and Support” in the AIP Idea. Polygon Labs’ reputation for working alongside large brands and top tier Web3 native projects is unrivaled. As contemplated under the AIP Idea, Polygon Labs will work with ApeCoin DAO in a similar way it works with all top ecosystem developers.
This is for the ApeCoin DAO community to decide for itself.
Technical Questions
In addition to a large bug bounty on Immunify, Polygon Labs and other contributors are actively working to improve the CDK. All components of the Polygon CDK have been audited by leading firms.
To learn more about Polygon CDK, specifically scaling and security, please check out
Based on previous Implementation Partners’ “rollups as a service” offering, $200,000 is a practical estimated annual cost to deploy and maintain all the infrastructure and mandatory services (e.g., block explorer) for operating a CDK chain.
This is for the ApeCoin DAO community to decide for itself. Note that AIP Idea: ApeCoin DAO Development Program and Ecosystem Development Lead lays out a framework to your question
This is for the ApeCoin DAO community to decide for itself. Note that AIP Idea: ApeCoin DAO Development Program and Ecosystem Development Lead lays out a framework to your question.
Partnership and Collaboration Questions
Polygon Labs maintains strong relationships with many Implementation Partners building with CDK, among them Gateway.fm, representatives of whom have already posted in this Forum under this thread. This does not preclude other Implementation Partners from petitioning the DAO for approval (to deploy and maintain ApeChain)
See the answer to question 1 above. Note that Polygon Labs is renowned for its ecosystem support efforts with large brands and native Web3 developers alike. We believe Polygon Labs’ reputation, technology and long-term vision are best situated to help foster ApeChain’s growth in the Web3 space and beyond.
Scalability and Future Growth Questions
Polygon CDK was built to deliver “internet scale” to Ethereum and Web3. With theoretically infinite scalability and unified liquidity, CDK chains are built with scale as a central consideration. CDK also uses the exact same repositories as the Polygon zkEVM mainnet. This means that the software is tested for security, issues and scale before it is used by other projects/developers
CDK chains are EVM equivalent and thus maintain composability across EVM blockchain ecosystems as would any EVM equivalent, non-CDK chain (e.g., bridging and cross-chain messaging)
Regulatory and Compliance Questions
This is for the ApeCoin DAO community to decide for itself
This is for the ApeCoin DAO community to decide for itself
User Experience and Adoption Questions
While this too is for the ApeCoin DAO community to decide for itself, Polygon Labs would point out that this is largely a dApp design and UX concern, not a chain concern
Polygon Labs’ engineering team will work closely with an Implementation Partner to review the requirements of the existing chain and choose the best strategy from a number of proven migration plans that will ensure minimal-to-no disruption, zero loss of data and most seamless experience for the the project and its partners to migrate to the new chain
We don’t have [tangible] use cases for the token, and that’s going to translate over to ApeChain.
That’s okay since this is infra. You don’t need the use-cases to be tangible out the gate as that’s a bit of putting cart before the horse. You do need the use-cases to be hypothetical, and therefore requirements known to make said hypothetical use cases plausible. For instance, A) what requirements would Yuga need to have in order for Otherside blockchain interactions on ApeChain? B) if requirements are present can Yuga use the chain for legal/regulatory reasons. If those can be defined that’s enough to assume volume and see upside.
Without #1 above, the transaction vol would be non-existent and just be calculated based on the pre-existing token trxn vol.
The hypothetical use case of Otherside addresses this provided a) and b) above can be acknowledged.
The DAO can’t accept revenue - of any kind. So, what’s going to happen to the validation revenue?
The DAO has holders that can accept revenue as a part of the decentralized network. 1. Money from treasury out to builders in form of grants 2. Revenue back to wallets with voting power in form of further decentralization.
I agree with the building part. However, we can’t achieve that - to any meaningful extent - unless we change our voting system. It’s our biggest problem atm - and one which doesn’t have an easy fix because, short of the Special Council doing anything about (as per my AIP) the voting, only the whales have the power to change it. And they’re not likely to do it as that would be giving up far too much power and control of the treasury.
FYI, it’s not just y00ts they gave money to. The Web3 landscape is littered with Polygon funded dApps and initiatives. And their BD and marketing teams are some of the best in all of Web3. But the fact is that those days of easy money are long gone.
Polygon Labs maintains a strong relationship with Yuga Labs and has had various touch points with numerous stakeholders over the years. Out of respect for the DAO and its processes, we would like to keep all AIP Idea-related conversations here, in the Forum. If Yuga Labs wishes to join the conversation, they are free to do so. However, we will not inject them into this process.
Note also that there has been some public positive sentiment from Yuga Labs regarding this AIP Idea (see this Tweet by Spencer, Chief Gaming Officer at Yuga Labs).
This money isn’t going to Polygon Labs, but rather an Implementation Partner that ApeCoin DAO can choose. We have verified partners that have proposals ready to go, Gateway being one of them.
Note also, as stated in a previous answer: Based on previous Implementation Partners’ “rollups as a service” offering, $200,000 is a practical estimated annual cost to deploy and maintain all the infrastructure and mandatory services (e.g., block explorer) for operating a CDK chain.
Migration is a very important topic that we at Gateway.fm addressed successfully previously. For Palm, we did a sophisticated upgrade procedure from their own private chain into Polygon’s tech with a hardfork and with no downtime of the network.
It took some time to develop and test of course.
Now we successfully did the migration of the Palm testnet, keeping all historical data and with no service disruption. Palm mainnet is scheduled to migrate in the next week.
What we are doing on that front is usually very similar to Ethereum’s “The Merge”, when underlying technology is replaced w/o having to stop block production, keeping all historical data, etc, so completely invisible to the users. Just at some point they suddenly get benefits of the Polygon tech
I am happy to discuss more in details if you are interested.
Well, we made the news. And right there, a third-party with no hands in this fight, understands - and clearly shows - the dependencies of these two AIPS.
There are options, what we currently offering out of the box at Gateway.fm is technically equivalent to zkEVM mainnet that you shared, the same prover, the same node (type 2 zkEVM). But there are other options available that we can discuss.
With the current architecture yes, you can use an ERC20 token on L1 to pay L2 gas fees, say $APE on Ethereum to pay gas fees on the zkEVM Rollup.
On the sequencer side, you can dynamically set up to cover a certain %% of the fees, from 0% (All fees fully paid by users) to 100% (no fees for users). It could be changed at any moment.
Keep in mind, if you pick a gasless network (no fees for users), someone needs to cover prover and data availability costs for L1.
Also fully gasless network could be susceptible for easy spamming.
The real great difficulty is then being able to create a utility so as to get people to come and use this chain, otherwise it would be a failure with a cost of 200k usd per year.
So before taking this big step I would think about solving this problem
Absolutely agree with it. First, we have to think about utility and how it can be used in a new way. If we’d think something new, it became a game changer for the whole Web3 as APE DAO as community behind it.
