Demand-Based Development + Open-Proposal System #XIOfeedback

As the first quarter of the year comes to a close, we could not be more proud of what the Blockzero Labs community of Citizens has accomplished so far in 2021.

  1. Launched Flashstake on New Years Day that reached over $12M in TVL in the first month and recorded over 100 years of total Flashstake Days.

  2. Revealed AquaFi, a universal liquidity mining protocol for the decentralized world.
    Announced a partnership with UMA Protocol to be the first project to join the Blockzero Labs Accelerator Program.

  3. Published the Around the Block Video/Podcast Series hosted by Lea Thompson with a lineup of guests like: Stani Kulechov (Founder of Aave), Nick Johnson (Creator of ENS Domains), and Jordan Lyall (ConsenSys)

The pure amount of curiosity and intrigue that continues to energize the community shows us we are onto something special. Now, we just need to find a way to scale.

As we move into the next chapter of our journey together, we thought it would be a good time to take a step back, analyze our current trajectory, share some areas we need to improve upon, and get clarity on the future ahead for Blockzero Labs.

The video today will be an overview of this Medium article: What Will Be the Next Token Created by Blockzero Labs? | by Zachary Dash | Blockzero Labs | Mar, 2021 | Medium

Here is what to expect:

  1. Share some transparent takeaways and challenges we’ve had over the last few months based on our current business model and roadmap

  2. Based on the takeaways, explore alternative systems for our token creation and project development process

  3. Give an updated timeline and insight on the next token we would like to introduce to the Blockzero Labs community

As always, we are looking for feedback and community discussion on this topic.

#XIOfeedback In the comments below, share your thoughts on the two proposals listed in the article (Demand-Based Development + Open-Proposal System) along with any other comments/questions you have!


So, first of all, congratulations on a great job as always. Coming to the feedback. The proposed model, based on the demand and requests of citizens, is certainly the best way to carry out future projects (at least in my opinion). A model based solely on time risks seeing projects that are not really supported by the citizen base that freezes because there is no demand. In this case we would then have to wait months with a dead project in our hands, before a new token is launched. It is not the best in efficiency. As for the platform for new proposals: that’s what we really need. A site or app where anyone can propose their ideas in an automatic, clear and standardized way. Where all other citizens can also vote and choose the best projects, as well as vote for the direction to take in the management of projects already started. I would try to develop a mobile app for this kind of tasks

1 Like

To start with: congratulations on all the successes and wishing to be part of this city for a long journey.

My recap, as a humble BZ citizen is the following

Strong points

  • Flash token and What to say about this? The idea is unique in the crypto space and the implementation is superb. Yes, there was a problem along the road, but BZ could sort it in a flawless manner.
  • The community: This is by far the best community in the crypto space. There is really a sense of being part of something big and having your voice heard. The continuous communication between the core team and the citizens and the feedback, voting, taking part of decisions make it feel that we really count.
  • The transparency: the team was always transparent in every step that it has taken, and this is, sadly, rare, and very appreciated.

Points to improve

  • Outreach and marketing: Something very much discussed but still lacking, in my opinion. In a complete bull run where good, and even shit, projects are growing fast we have an amazing idea (Flash) that is lagging behind and a governance token (XIO) that hasn’t really moved int he last 3 months. The projects and ecosystem is unique, and they create a lot of value. This has to be translated in some metrics, which at the moment are not.

About the questions on the post, .i.e. the two proposals:

  • Demand-based development: yes yes yes! There are great ideas but we need to fully develop them and make them grow until they can fly by themselves. So I would ask the community: should we move into a new project or should we continue building the one we have? Maybe a solution in-between? This, of course, would change the token earning original plan, so the team has to thread carefully or they risk losing the confidence of the community.

  • Open-proposal system: This is also a great idea and an opportunity to develop ideas or projects from any citizen. The implementation would be difficult. For instances, some issues it could have are: 1) What if a majority wants an idea that is not viable or not good enough? the core citizens should have the last word. 2) What if someone proposes an idea that is very good. How is he rewarded? Food for thought.

Thanks for the journet!

1 Like

Firstly for me, and I think for many people who have been involved in crypto currency for awhile now. A core value is decentralization. For me that doesn’t just mean permission less networks, or trustless networks although these are key features.
For me this also speaks community, that the whole is greater than the some of its parts, that the communal voice is wiser. its why I’m a big fan of DAO’s and its why I really like the idea of having the core team take ideas from the community, refine them, or propose their own. but yet have the community decide on what projects block zero pursues.

And it makes economic sense! if the community is excited about a project, the participation will be greater from grass roots and thats what start ups need to get off the ground.

Awesome work

p.s: I watched this on the TG channel, I noticed the TG is a little inactive, are xlp rewards extended to TG?

Great accomplishments so far! & it’s great to see that BZ is always looking to continually improve.

Feedback on your token proposal method:

  • This is exactly what we need to see, and the example you will set will empower many people here to put forward there own proposals. Awesome stuff.

Things that need to be clarified/considered with multiple projects/proposals:

  • Caps on project resource allocation.
  • Will BZ resource community voted projects with BZ developers or will it be entirely on the individual with the idea to make the vision a reality? Mentoring here would be pertinent if you wanted a visionary to create a system.
  • Will there be a cap on ongoing projects? As BZ starts to have more projects under the XIO umbrella, is the team going to scale proportionately?
  • How much time is being devoted to XIO vs FLASH vs AQUA right now? (This will give the community a sense of BZ prioritization at present)

Taking a step back from token proposals. Giving the community clear guidance on how we can get involved in marketing and token adoption with the current tokens would be a the best place to start. As a forum there are multiple amazing ideas that have been put up, but aside from getting some community traction, I personally wouldn’t have a clue where to go next and what steps were involved in making it a reality.

Reinforcing XID-dbfa1, his comment here:

Is on point.

Key takeaway - guidance on making current initiatives a reality would be a great start. Then look at how we can make token proposals as a community.

First of all congrats. I think both ideas are fantastic. The demand model will allow us to focus on current project and only start new ones if they are really good and worth moving the resources away from current ones.
The open proposal will allow anyone to post a project and idea, which is awesome!
I can’t wait to hear about your idea :slight_smile: April 16th come fast!

1 Like
  1. I think we definitely need a time based schedule for the development of the new tokens. This will ensure that we are remaining true to the “Token Studio” model. A pure demand based model will always want to pull the resource from R&D(new token development) to the existing projects(as they will have their native citizens who dont care about any other new token).

Hence I would want to stay with a time based model.

  1. Having said that , we may reduce the number to tokens proposed to be developed in a year depending on the team strength and operational challenges. For instance, if we believe that the current core citizens and developers are not able to sustain the development of future tokens quarterly, we may make only 3 tokens in a year till the time we find more core citizens or developers to go ahead with.

Proposal #1 | Demand-Based Development

My worry about a pure demand-based development model is that I am of the opinion the cryptosphere is much too impatient compared to actual developmental schedules.

How about mirroring the decaying (vesting) token claim model we already have, but instead for new projects to be funded? So, they don’t get all the capital upfront, but 50% in first month, 25% in second month, etc.

If the project seems to be doing well, the community can always vote to allocate more funds, and the vesting schedule starts for those new funds.

If a project isn’t performing, or the community votes to end it for any reason, then the vesting schedule can end prematurely.

Each month all projects require a continuation vote, that has three outcomes:

  1. Inject new funds with independent vesting schedule (project proposes new funding level).
  2. Continue without change.
  3. Terminate vesting schedule and prohibit re-application (needs to be severe to discourage citizens from using this option).

Proposal #2 | Open-Proposal System

Love this Open-Proposal System. In the funding model I proposed above, new projects can have acceptance opportunities each month, and the vesting schedule would start a month afterwards, to allow for additional project building / strategizing.

Giving funds immediately would carry a lot of risk regarding keeping to schedule as acceptance might require project members to reshuffle their lives and therefore delay the development.


Congrats to the core team. Always great to look back and be proud of what you achieved during Q1 2021.

Starting off with some reflections on the video:

What does it mean to have a mission such as “Blockzero is to become the YCombinator of a decentralized world”?
Speaking for myself I do not know enough about what this actually implies. What is needed and in what order should we prioritize activities, objectives and resources? There’s just so much that a copy and adapt strategy requires to be evaluated and more importantly to get people committed to it.
Here I find it very positive that the build, launch, and own the next generation of decentralized projects should be clear to all.
The WHY could be perhaps more clear as commented here. And instead of because we want to create something like [YCombinator]( We could perhaps find something more aspirational, or audacious.
Last, if YCombinator is our raw model, we should address HOW to make it. YCombinator is a big machine and there is not much public record how it grew into it. But today’s core idea is stated in their philosophy:

‘We think founders are most productive when they can spend most of their time building. Our goal is to create an environment where you can focus exclusively on building product and talking to users.’

I don’t want to read to much into this, but a central aspect to me seems to be the opportunity to give a founder the liberty to work on their idea. And here I see that the token tournament with the prize money is a good start, specifically if it come in combination with dev time.
Not sure if this suffices or if we already know what other pre-conditions should be met in order to activate and welcome more founders? It certainly would be interesting to identify them and work towards such targets. I think there is quite some potential that can be tapped into from some dedicated citizens who could work on just this.

(Continuing later with the questions, sorry for going off topic)

Cool projects that needs a professional marketing behind. There’s no reason to rush thinking new projects.

Proposal 1

Shift away from a “Time-Based” development process and move forward to a “Demand-Based” system

Recalling what was named during the first discussion, it was my impression that most citizens favor the time based development. Specifically we discussed how long the development roadmap can be and 3 months for token suggestions was named as a good timeline.
Personally long term projects are more interesting to me and I draw the line between Blockzero, where I am much more long-term, and the token offsprings where I see myself leaning towards short-term perspectives.
That said I find the time based development suitable at the moment.
Suitability as in matching

  • the disruptive nature of blockchain

  • bull cycle we are in at the moment
    (To elaborate on this: in this bull run I see little of advantage for projects that have been around for years and those that surfaced more recently)

  • evolutionary stage of Blockzero
    (Referring to our raw model YCombinator, I guess they too favored time over demand at the beginning.)

Continuing with the final point in above list, I would very much appreciate a move towards demand. Ultimately, demand is what makes a project fly, not the time it takes to achieve an objective. Hence, demand is the logical choice to go with. However, at the current stage I do not see that we have what it takes to act accordingly. Resources, vitality, experiences, skills, alignment, structural capital.
To address these temporary weaknesses we could aim for to improve resources. Here citizens can currently contribute with XSI or XIO and both indirectly can support single token projects. But perhaps we can add another option with a direct impact on a chosen topic. Would it be possible to add funding to a chosen cause? To give an example: Many citizens have asked for L2 solutions to reduce gas costs. Would it be an option to call for investments or work with the single purpose to increase temporarily dev staffing to achieve this faster?
Such an option could exist in parallel to the current model and still be a move towards demand based development. The biggest advantage I see it’s not just saying I want this it’s much more I believe in this, and therefore I increase my time or financial investment.
Obvious challenges would be security and co-ordination of outsourcing but it could be also a good step towards decentralized governance.

Proposal 2

Open-proposal system

I am fine with the system as is. You guys are doing a great job and take on a lot of responsibility.
So the proposal is not that important to me.
In the long run, this would be great and if the core team wants to have less responsibility I also support a quick change.
A minor concern is that we could loose focus on long-term objectives. Building a DeFi suit where tokens connect to each other has a nice tone. Or building the necessary things to achieve the mission of becoming Ycombinator of a decentralized world. But that could as well be achieved “naturally” if everyone considers this objective in their choices.

Well, that is exactly the reason why a time based releasing schedule is not good in this space. People (and I don’t mean citizens, but regular crypto people thst will be 99% of the investors in our new projects) are not going to wait months and months on end, waiting for development of new projects or improvement of old ones. They will quickly get bored, dump their bags and tank the price. So we care about the price? No, we don’t, but we must face the problem, since, let’s be honest, 90% of the visibility of a project is due to its price rising and the marketcap of a token gives credibility. The bigger the better. If we have a super good token, but it stays under 100M marketcap forever, it won’t do any good. We need to harvest that “impatience” of the market

Demand-based development can bring some flexibility to the way we build the projects imo, cuz if an older project works well and the community wants to push the development faster then we can vote on that and we can shift the focus for a while to the old project instead of building the new one. It can also work in reverse, if a new project gets a lot of traction and hype we can vote to focus on it instead of focusing on an already established project, that can already hold on it’s own without needing continuous development. The only future problem I see with this is if a certain project gets traction for the wrong reasons (overly vocal holders maybe? Idk) and it grabs too much resources, but so far I don’t see this happening, maybe after we pass the 4-5 launched projects mark we will see some resource allocation problems.

Regarding the open-proposal system, it’s something that can work well, but I think that proposing new ideas shouldn’t be incentivised (aka giving XSI points just for proposing an idea), this way we will have more quality over quantity and we won’t have to sift through hundreds of ideas posted just to gain some XIO.

Demand based developement

This can be a great way going forward because more persons will be willing to contribute to the development of the project and take part in promoting the project. With that said this approach will help to build awareness from outsiders and may help to fill a need that a project may lack. One way to look at it is if you try to sell a person something they dont want they wont be interested but if you were to sell something they need they will be interested

Open-Proposal System

I like this idea also looking closely on the video i see that there would be a reputation tied to each user which would be great to know how much of an influence the person making the proposal will have. My only concern is if someone with bad intentions make a proposal and then gamify it. This is a great concept and i will like to see it in action and also participate, i believe there should be some eligibility for making a proposal.

I do like the idea.
It was actually part of the initial vision of the team: starting to build a new project, see the community reactions, keep going or stop and find something else.

I think it should actually pushed further, when reading the article.
I think the community should be able to allocate ressources of the coming months to the different projects.
How could we do that easily?

Here is one idea.

  • Every project could have a “champion” (project leader).
  • Before a vote occures, every champion speaks to support 3 versions of what he/she would like to develop the next months for its project. An ambitious one (which requires a high level of ressources), a medium one and a small one (with few ressources given).
  • Maybe it could use HR (human ressources) points to help decide. For exemple, we would know there are 50 HR available within BZ ecosystem, and every champion ask for 1, 3 or 7 HR points. We would then allocate the 50 points among all the proposals.
  • The community listen to all the champions, and then decide accordingly which project will have high/medium/low ressources.

=> That way, projects with strong need that will convince the community will be given what they need, while projects with less strategic needs or less convincing will have less funding.
As it requires time for everyone (champions to get ready, citizens to watch, think and debate…) and that projects need time to have things done, maybe this could happen every 2 months.


I enjoyed the “create your job” form you mentioned in a previous video, so I love the “submit you token idea” too.
It was initiated late december with a contest between various idea.
It could be done every 2 or 3 months to select a new project and its Champion, that would be competing for resources like all other live projects (cf previous point): should the idea gather enough ressources with the vote it could go live.


totally agree.

XIO is a 9 MCAP project now. it’s embarassing to be honest (because it’s a 1 year and a half old project, because of its potential, because of its community, and because we are in a bull run since july 2020 [and much more since january 2021]).

it should be at least x4 from here (40M MCAP).

it has become kind of stable coin for the last 7 months.

i’m invested big in XIO and i’ve doubled down my investment just 1 month ago (knowing all the things i’ve said before), but i can see many flaws on how is the development structured right now.

my biggest concern is about the speed of developments here at blockzero.

quality of development, vision, marketing and speed are the 4 important legs in crypto.

the first 2 legs are great at blockzero. nothing to say about them.

problems come with marketing (still we are not sure what to do with it or how to do it)… the most of the top projects in crypto (or the new ones that are trending) can, in a matter of few weeks, engage thousands of people and you can see it on their twitter or tg chats. i think it’s a mix between being in the right branch of crypto (you know something that is trending at the moment, like polkadot, index tokens, launchpads, etc…) and by using all the typical channels to marketing it (twitter and youtube influencers, tg chats, etc…).

i think we have totally missed in marketing. we had 1 year and half of advantage in comparison to the most of the projects that are now trending and with a valuation of more than 100M that were born just 1 to 4 months ago. many of them are locking already 50M to 100M worth of value.

the last part is about speed and as @samuelnathanrichards said, for example aqua was announced at the end of december… if we are lucky it will be released at the end of april. it’s 4 months where people are just waiting sitting on XIO while 90% of projects are doing daily ATH.

obviously aqua will provide value to people that waited (as flash did). but the point is that flash was a 1 month wait (which can be affordable) while aqua is 4 months.

the schedule for new project should be fast than it is now. 1 or 2 months maximum.

we have to take advantage of the bull run, not the opposite. during a bear period it doesn’t matter.

and a last opinion: my stake in xio is big, but it’s just a part of my money only. i’m invested in many projects that are performing very well (EG: i can wait for xio long term).

BUT i can see that if a person wants to invest in a projects and he has only 1 shot he wouldn’t choose xio. just buy a launchpad stake, get a project at ido price and do 50x.

we have to speed up everything, that’s what i think.

1 Like

Congrats on the great start of 2021! There have been some hoops (e.g. Flash exploit), but that did not stop the Blockzero core and citizens, we just jumped over them and it made us stronger!!!

Regarding the proposals:
Demand development based on requests from citizens is the way Blockzero should go. I really like the idea.
The open proposal makes it possible to anyone to post their ideas. What a great way to include the community and also newbies with great ideas, who can become part of great projects, join our large community and grow to be a passionate citizen.

1 Like

Hey Dash, team & citizens,

At the very outset congrats for the wonderful launches and engaging opportunities. It has been an enthralling last year and the fun continues,

We had a chance to interact with @umarsa in the last studio sessions with @DrLuke, there is a lot happening behind scenes which a citizen may not be aware of. Tech & team are working diligently to bring out superior product.

(@citizens - if you are not able to follow up BZ updates and happenings, @DrLuke conducts a weekly update meeting every Wednesday @7:00 pm UTC on Zoom: Launch Meeting - Zoom + sessions are recorded and shared on youtube: DrLuke Crypto - YouTube )

@BZ team - Community has got your back, always.

@Dash, here are few observations:

  1. Roadmap is essential for progress, as you are aware too good discipline is solution to all problems. It was good to declare about launching 4 tokens/year, its good to follow a timetable. But as we progressed we understood the approach should be modified so lets reduce the count but follow a planned move.
  2. We realized contract audits are not as good as we thought them to be, bounties for vulnerabilities is a good way of dealing with them. We need to figure out a concrete solution, as we grow in size this challenge would magnify.

Respect your views with regards to time allocation, resources and reputation too.

Proposal #1 | Demand-Based Development

We should take a modified approach - need based + a timeline of atleast 1 project/six months.

Proposal #2 | Open-Proposal System :

We already had round 1 submission last year, is it possible to take any one from them?



My apologies for not uploading the last few sessions to YouTube
We have a very relaxed overview and open discussion about the markets and Blockzero and mostly end the session with some predictions for the next week or 2.

To be honest I wasn’t sure if people would want to watch this later on YouTube, but if there is some interest I will do the editing and timestamps and upload it.

1 Like

I beg to differ. Some of the biggest project (on the top 150 list of marketcap) lack a precise road map. They got released as a prototype and evolved on the road. Just look at sushiswap. It started as an experiment and changed over time with the requests of the user base. And now is the biggest amm on ethereum

1 Like