VC vs STO – tokenization the future of fundraising?

Maciej Zieliński

28 Jan 2021
VC vs STO – tokenization the future of fundraising?

Tokenization is becoming a better alternative to solutions that have been present in the financial world for decades. Why might STO be a better choice than the traditional venture capital model? 

Finding a fund is one of the main challenges facing growth-hungry entrepreneurs. Over the years, the financial world has developed solutions that effectively help them do this.

One of them is venture capital (risk capital). VC is financing provided by investors to small companies that they believe have long-term growth potential. It usually comes from wealthy individuals or institutional investors such as banks. VC does not have to take the form of money. It can also take the form of technology or business advice. During the transaction, parts of the ownership of a company are sold to several investors through venture capital funds. 

VC has functioned for several decades as a source of obtaining funding for enterprises. However, it is important to be aware of its limitations. On the Nextrope blog we have taken a closer look at them, while trying to answer the question in what respects STO may be a better choice. 

VC vs STO - key differences

Control

It is common practice for a member of the Venture Capital management team to have a direct influence on the activities in the financed company, e.g. by joining the board. This means that by signing an agreement with the fund, the owners of the company lose full control over the management of their business.  From that moment on, the owners must inform the fund about every key decision, which the fund usually has the right to overrule. 

Of course, an experienced VC fund in this way is able to contribute to improving the management of the company and have a positive impact on its development. However, their possible lack of familiarity with the realities of a particular industry may result in blocking decisions that the owners consider to be the most appropriate.

By opting for an STO, they leave themselves the option to run their company in the way they think is best. It is up to the owners of the company to decide which decisions require a vote of the token holders and which they will make entirely independently. And if a vote is indeed necessary on a particular issue, investors will be able to take part in it through their account from anywhere in the world, which will significantly speed up the whole process.

Cost and time-consuming

The process of organising VS funding is relatively complex and involves many, often costly, intermediaries. In addition, it is extremely time-consuming. The first stages alone usually take between 12 and 18 months. This would not be such a big problem if it were not for the necessity to participate in numerous travelling marketing actions and negotiations with potential investors, which often distract owners from the development of their companies for several months.

In addition, VC always carries the risk of delays in funding. As venture capital involves the exchange of a large amount of funds, the investor may not be willing to submit them all at once. Often, a company will have to meet certain milestones in order to receive the entire amount requested.

On the other hand, a well executed tokenisation in some cases can result in funding being raised in as little as a few weeks. There are also no payment delays involved, as all funds go to the company as soon as tokenisation is completed. The process itself is also much simpler and involves far fewer intermediaries (READ HOW IT WORKS STEP BY STEP HERE).

VC vs STO: liquidity and entry barriers

Venture capital is demanding not only for the companies seeking funding, but also for the investors themselves. Usually, in order to join an investment round, they need to have relatively large capital at their disposal. Therefore, most of them are institutions or wealthy private individuals. It is the high entry barrier that significantly narrows the group of potential investors.

Added to this is the issue of high illiquidity. If someone is considering investing their money in venture capital, they must be prepared to freeze it for a very long time - about 7-12 years. A premature withdrawal of funds is associated with significant losses and cannot be carried out without management approval. Because of this lack of liquidity, investment in venture capital often scares off even those with sufficient capital.

STO, above all, allows the minimum investment amount to be set quite freely. This significantly broadens the group of investors - there can be thousands of them, they just need to be accredited. Moreover, it solves the problem of lack of liquidity. The tokens issued represent traditional ownership and revenue rights, while providing investors with the ability to freely trade them on secondary markets. As a result, they are able to liquidate their investment at essentially any time. 

STOs and Venture Capital - what's next? 

The growing popularity of STOs is just one manifestation of the digitalisation trend that is gaining momentum in financial markets and may soon lead to the emergence of completely new capital management mechanisms. Blockchain-based smart contracts and distributed ledgers will significantly speed up the process of not only raising and circulating capital, but also, for example, preparing an audit.

However, it is worth remembering that there are no universal solutions and STO will not be the most optimal choice in every case.  If you would like to find out how STO would work for your company, our team will be happy to answer all your questions. 

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Kajetan Olas

22 Nov 2024
Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Authors of the contents are not affiliated to the reviewed project in any way and none of the information presented should be taken as financial advice.

In this article we analyze tokenomics of Aethir - a project providing on-demand cloud compute resources for the AI, Gaming, and virtualized compute sectors.
Aethir aims to aggregate enterprise-grade GPUs from multiple providers into a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network). Its competitive edge comes from utlizing the GPUs for very specific use-cases, such as low-latency rendering for online games.
Due to decentralized nature of its infrastructure Aethir can meet the demands of online-gaming in any region. This is especially important for some gamer-abundant regions in Asia with underdeveloped cloud infrastructure that causes high latency ("lags").
We will analyze Aethir's tokenomics, give our opinion on what was done well, and provide specific recommendations on how to improve it.

Evaluation Summary

Aethir Tokenomics Structure

The total supply of ATH tokens is capped at 42 billion ATH. This fixed cap provides a predictable supply environment, and the complete emissions schedule is listed here. As of November 2024 there are approximately 5.2 Billion ATH in circulation. In a year from now (November 2025), the circulating supply will almost triple, and will amount to approximately 15 Billion ATH. By November 2028, today's circulating supply will be diluted by around 86%.

From an investor standpoint the rational decision would be to stake their tokens and hope for rewards that will balance the inflation. Currently the estimated APR for 3-year staking is 195% and for 4-year staking APR is 261%. The rewards are paid out weekly. Furthermore, stakers can expect to get additional rewards from partnered AI projects.

Staking Incentives

Rewards are calculated based on the staking duration and staked amount. These factors are equally important and they linearly influence weekly rewards. This means that someone who stakes 100 ATH for 2 weeks will have the same weekly rewards as someone who stakes 200 ATH for 1 week. This mechanism greatly emphasizes long-term holding. That's because holding a token makes sense only if you go for long-term staking. E.g. a whale staking $200k with 1 week lockup. will have the same weekly rewards as person staking $1k with 4 year lockup. Furthermore the ATH staking rewards are fixed and divided among stakers. Therefore Increase of user base is likely to come with decrease in rewards.
We believe the main weak-point of Aethirs staking is the lack of equivalency between rewards paid out to the users and value generated for the protocol as a result of staking.

Token Distribution

The token distribution of $ATH is well designed and comes with long vesting time-frames. 18-month cliff and 36-moths subsequent linear vesting is applied to team's allocation. This is higher than industry standard and is a sign of long-term commitment.

  • Checkers and Compute Providers: 50%
  • Ecosystem: 15%
  • Team: 12.5%
  • Investors: 11.5%
  • Airdrop: 6%
  • Advisors: 5%

Aethir's airdrop is divided into 3 phases to ensure that only loyal users get rewarded. This mechanism is very-well thought and we rate it highly. It fosters high community engagement within the first months of the project and sets the ground for potentially giving more-control to the DAO.

Governance and Community-Led Development

Aethir’s governance model promotes community-led decision-making in a very practical way. Instead of rushing with creation of a DAO for PR and marketing purposes Aethir is trying to make it the right way. They support projects building on their infrastructure and regularly share updates with their community in the most professional manner.

We believe Aethir would benefit from implementing reputation boosted voting. An example of such system is described here. The core assumption is to abandon the simplistic: 1 token = 1 vote and go towards: Votes = tokens * reputation_based_multiplication_factor.

In the attached example, reputation_based_multiplication_factor rises exponentially with the number of standard deviations above norm, with regard to user's rating. For compute compute providers at Aethir, user's rating could be replaced by provider's uptime.

Perspectives for the future

While it's important to analyze aspects such as supply-side tokenomics, or governance, we must keep in mind that 95% of project's success depends on demand-side. In this regard the outlook for Aethir may be very bright. The project declares $36M annual reccuring revenue. Revenue like this is very rare in the web3 space. Many projects are not able to generate any revenue after succesfull ICO event, due to lack fo product-market-fit.

If you're looking to create a robust tokenomics model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure your project’s resilience in the long term.

Quadratic Voting in Web3

Kajetan Olas

04 Dec 2024
Quadratic Voting in Web3

Decentralized systems are reshaping how we interact, conduct transactions, and govern online communities. As Web3 continues to advance, the necessity for effective and fair voting mechanisms becomes apparent. Traditional voting systems, such as the one-token-one-vote model, often fall short in capturing the intensity of individual preferences, which can result in centralization. Quadratic Voting (QV) addresses this challenge by enabling individuals to express not only their choices but also the strength of their preferences.

In QV, voters are allocated a budget of credits that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The cost of casting multiple votes on a single issue increases quadratically, meaning that each additional vote costs more than the last. This system allows for a more precise expression of preferences, as individuals can invest more heavily in issues they care deeply about while conserving credits on matters of lesser importance.

Understanding Quadratic Voting

Quadratic Voting (QV) is a voting system designed to capture not only the choices of individuals but also the strength of their preferences. In most DAO voting mechanisms, each person typically has one vote per token, which limits the ability to express how strongly they feel about a particular matter. Furthermore, QV limits the power of whales and founding team who typically have large token allocations. These problems are adressed by making the cost of each additional vote increase quadratically.

In QV, each voter is given a budget of credits or tokens that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The key principle is that the cost to cast n votes on a single issue is proportional to the square of n. This quadratic cost function ensures that while voters can express stronger preferences, doing so requires a disproportionately higher expenditure of their voting credits. This mechanism discourages voters from concentrating all their influence on a single issue unless they feel very strongly about it. In the context of DAOs, it means that large holders will have a hard-time pushing through with a proposal if they'll try to do it on their own.

Practical Example

Consider a voter who has been allocated 25 voting credits to spend on several proposals. The voter has varying degrees of interest in three proposals: Proposal A, Proposal B, and Proposal C.

  • Proposal A: High interest.
  • Proposal B: Moderate interest.
  • Proposal C: Low interest.

The voter might allocate their credits as follows:

Proposal A:

  • Votes cast: 3
  • Cost: 9 delegated tokens

Proposal B:

  • Votes cast: 2
  • Cost: 4 delegated tokens

Proposal C:

  • Votes cast: 1
  • Cost: 1 delegated token

Total delegated tokens: 14
Remaining tokens: 11

With the remaining tokens, the voter can choose to allocate additional votes to the proposals based on their preferences or save for future proposals. If they feel particularly strong about Proposal A, they might decide to cast one more vote:

Additional vote on Proposal A:

  • New total votes: 4
  • New cost: 16 delegated tokens
  • Additional cost: 16−9 = 7 delegated tokens

Updated total delegated tokens: 14+7 = 21

Updated remaining tokens: 25−21 = 425 - 21 = 4

This additional vote on Proposal A costs 7 credits, significantly more than the previous vote, illustrating how the quadratic cost discourages excessive influence on a single issue without strong conviction.

Benefits of Implementing Quadratic Voting

Key Characteristics of the Quadratic Cost Function

  • Marginal Cost Increases Linearly: The marginal cost of each additional vote increases linearly. The cost difference between casting n and n−1 votes is 2n−1.
  • Total Cost Increases Quadratically: The total cost to cast multiple votes rises steeply, discouraging voters from concentrating too many votes on a single issue without significant reason.
  • Promotes Egalitarian Voting: Small voters are encouraged to participate, because relatively they have a much higher impact.

Advantages Over Traditional Voting Systems

Quadratic Voting offers several benefits compared to traditional one-person-one-vote systems:

  • Captures Preference Intensity: By allowing voters to express how strongly they feel about an issue, QV leads to outcomes that better reflect the collective welfare.
  • Reduces Majority Domination: The quadratic cost makes it costly for majority groups to overpower minority interests on every issue.
  • Encourages Honest Voting: Voters are incentivized to allocate votes in proportion to their true preferences, reducing manipulation.

By understanding the foundation of Quadratic Voting, stakeholders in Web3 communities can appreciate how this system supports more representative governance.

Conclusion

Quadratic voting is a novel voting system that may be used within DAOs to foster decentralization. The key idea is to make the cost of voting on a certain issue increase quadratically. The leading player that makes use of this mechanism is Optimism. If you're pondering about the design of your DAO, we highly recommend taking a look at their research on quadratic funding.

If you're looking to create a robust governance model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure that your DAO will stand out as a beacon of innovation and resilience in the long term.