The Exchequer or the Sovryn Protocol could offer that funding.
But as a SOV staker I would rather have that money spent on the Adoption front and UI building. Because the fund necessary are not peanuts, they are millions of dollars and if the Exchequer, who governs the Treasury does not have or is not willing to contribute with the total amount necessary then you could raise additional capital by organizing a sale of NFTs that hold the value in the revenue share and not in the artwork itself.
This way you do not need to introduce any new token. Origins remains part of the SOVRYN protocol and you raise the capital in a fairer way than you might do when involving VCs.
My post has nothing to do with governance but simply trying to solve the fundraising part of the problem. How you solve it? You sell a percentage of future revenue to someone that is willing to financially support the Origins Launchpad now and because this is a decentralized protocol you represent that by using an nft.
The part about airdrop is very much hypothetical, an additional token might never see the light of day and it might very well be the case that no OG token will ever exist, but it is good to think of future consequences of today’s actions, and that’s why I commented on the hypothetical future token, just to paint a more, whole picture, and if it is the case that we will launch an OG token in the future then the early supportrers ( The Exchequer/Sovryn Treasury and NFT holders) would be reimbursed or offered a pro rata share of the token supply.
Listened to the townhall and I am even less convinced then before we need any of this. Why is the developer not working within SOV for a salary? Still utterly unconvinced this needs 4 Mio USD for changing a bit of code and updating the website. The overhead for a new Adoption team with new management must be accounting for half of this already… SOV now has a great functioning adoption team. They seem on the case, I am sure they can handle the odd token launch every now and then - also this would create excitement for the whole platform not for a subprotocol that actually wants to depart in look and feel and URL, community engagement and everything.
This belongs inside core as well as ZERO. (I actually think MYNT has the best case for being and staying an independent subprotocol).
I also don´t see a rush to make this a reality. There is nothing that wants to launch badly anytime soon. Droppr seems delayed. MINT has gone to other waters. Market is in shit shape. I would say get trading app build out nicely + ZERO and when devs become available cause the brunt of the coding is done for the core of SOV then start on touching the Origins code again. If EC pays for it anyways why not do it inhouse?
SOV needs any attention it can get and OG is an attention getter more then anything. The only thing that speaks against having OG inside SOV is that SOV does not want to enable more shitcoins in general and not be associated with the creation of more shitcoins - but then let the project move on do its own thing on RSK and never look back…
With the Feb roadmap update - I believe getting ZERO live is the priority so - if the amended approach allows for both projects to move forward - I guess this works too. I loved the bonding curve idea and am disappointed it is no longer on the table but I also get reality. Unlike so other comments above - I DO see a sense of urgency. Not to dilute security or have bad UI etc - but to deliver value features like Zero to the mainstream. My sense is that 2022 will be a break out year for SOVRYN in the broader public eye and demonstrating CORE value like Zero will be important. Attention span of the public is limited and less deserving platforms could get that attention simply because of timing. Just my view from the broader picture.