Summary
Provide decentralized consensus matching and CCO services for blockchain consensus systems.
1.1 Protocol Objectives
This protocol primarily aims to provide decentralized consensus matching and CCO services for blockchain consensus systems. CCO (Community Consensus Offering) refers to community consensus supply. Unlike the traditional ICO's unregulated issuance model, it is closer to a "POW/POS etc. for Consensus Offering" approach. CCO emphasizes the interactive participation and strategic decision-making by community members in the consensus process. The issuance of its tokens relies on a consensus mechanism — Proof of Position — to validate the objectives' legitimacy and ensure that actions taken during development are aligned with the collective interests of participants. It adheres to the growing trend towards decentralized and community-driven projects. By gaining broad support and aligning with community values, this method ensures the validity of demand and enhances the project's success rate.
1.2 Protocol Roles
The roles in this protocol are logical classifications of users based on different motivations and participation behaviors, including: Alpha Broker, Beta Miner, Investor, and Issuer. For any user, roles may overlap.
Alpha Broker: Refers to users participating in the Proof of Position consensus. They are required to stake their own position assets as collateral to assist the Issuer in completing the token issuance and, in return, earn Alpha rewards. This role is characterized by high risk and high reward.
Beta Miner: Refers to users who provide liquidity to the protocol’s self-custody fund pool. Using ETH as an example, any user can deposit ETH assets into the fund pool, creating a position certificate for the protocol and earning annualized capital gains through a yield certificate. Users can redeem their liquidity assets at any time via the certificate. This role is characterized by low risk and stable returns.
Investor: Refers to users who directly invest in projects that have passed the position consensus and receive project tokens in return. Investors can participate based on their own judgment or by following subscribed Alpha Brokers as a basis for decision-making.
Issuer: Refers to a blockchain consensus system that issues assets through CCO (Community Consensus Offering). The specific executor of the issuance process within the protocol is called the Contractor.
1.3 Needs
Venture Capital Scale: In 2023, the global venture capital market's funding pool reached nearly $2 trillion, with the crypto sector accounting for only a few billion dollars—less than 1% of the total. Observing the industry landscape and the growth trajectory of artificial intelligence, the crypto sector still has significant growth potential. According to Root Data, there are thousands of crypto venture funds, with total investments from January to June 2024 amounting to around $5 billion, and the annual figure is expected to surpass $10 billion. This data does not include BRC-20, IDO, and IEO fundraising. The statistics indicate that the productive capacity for innovation in the crypto space has not been fully realized, as decentralized sectors or decentralized consensus projects require decentralized venture capital financial support—a need that centralized traditional capital cannot fully meet.
Contradictions Between VC and Consensus Systems: Although traditional centralized venture capital can provide blockchain projects with necessary funding and resources, its centralized nature and focus on profits may sometimes conflict with the decentralized and community-driven consensus principles upon which many blockchain protocols are based:
Centralization vs. Decentralization: Traditional venture capitalists typically aim to maximize returns, often leading to a concentration of power and influence in the decision-making process. This can conflict with the decentralized nature of blockchain consensus systems, which are designed to distribute power among a broad range of participants to ensure fairness, transparency, and security. Centralized influence can undermine the community-driven nature of these systems.
Profit Motives vs. Community Interests: Traditional venture capital generally prioritizes short- to medium-term profitability, favoring projects that promise high returns. This focus may drive changes in protocol that are contrary to the community agreements and long-term sustainability upon which consensus systems rely. As a result, community value or technological principles may be compromised in pursuit of profit.
Impact on Governance: If traditional venture capital holds a significant amount of tokens, they may wield substantial influence within the blockchain network. This could potentially undermine the decentralized governance model that many blockchain projects strive to maintain.
Impact on Innovation: Centralized decision-making structures in traditional capital can stifle diversity and creativity, as the preferences of a few investors may dominate the entire investment direction. This limits the range of truly innovative projects, as investors may prefer to fund familiar sectors and models rather than explore new, untested technologies or business models.
Exploration and Development of Decentralized Capital
Since 2018, community funds defined as Venture DAOs have grown to encompass hundreds of organizations, such as Moloch DAO, DAOHaus, MetaCartel, MetaCartel Ventures, bitDAO, ForceDAO, CultDAO, and The LAO, among others. In terms of fundraising capacity, these DAOs have demonstrated robust capital-raising abilities. For example, one community DAO raised $230 million during its initial funding round. This indicates that community capital is not only growing rapidly in numbers but also managing increasingly larger funds, making it a significant capital force within the blockchain sector.
While community capital based on DAOs has made notable progress in recent years, especially in terms of openness and transparency, it must be acknowledged that they still remain relatively "centralized."
Synbo Protocol’s fully decentralized capital protocol is perfectly aligned with the "Consensus-Self-Custody" social collaboration model. By leveraging decentralization, transparency, community participation, and flexibility, it provides consensus matching and CCO issuance. This model resolves the inherent contradictions between traditional venture capital and decentralization and breaks free from the awkward imitation of traditional capital operation models by DAO capital. Synbo Protocol's decentralized CCO service model could radically transform the investment capital landscape in decentralized sectors, unleashing innovation potential and further democratizing the Token Offering model.
Last updated