24 August 2022 / 09:00-11:00AM (UTC-5) 


Council: Elation Studios, Rebecca Zhu, Song Sjun, Sash | Elacity, M&N, DR, PG Bao, infi, Jingyu, Strawberry Council

Secretariat: Cassie, Greg


Ryan, Phantz Club


  1. Suggestion 171 – Feeds Web App development proposal 
  2. Suggestion 173 – ESC liquidity collaboration between CR and Elk Finance
  3. BD Team Proposal
  4. Elab proposal


1) Suggestion 171 – Feeds Web App development proposal

  • https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/62f11ad204223900785d22c9
  • Feeds is committed to using the whole Elastos stack and they are already using Hive, Carrier and DID.
  • A mobile native app version is currently available, and the future is about developing a web app version.
  • Why a web app?
    • Easier to update and upgrade.
    • Web app helps provide access to Feeds to more users.
    • More users using Feeds on a daily basis for their social media needs will drive traffic to Elastos – all from one decentralized platform, Feeds Web App.
  • Twitter mirroring is integrated already and Reddit integration is coming soon. Post in Feeds and it is shared across your social media networks is the goal.
  • The SDK is being worked on so that others can build on the technology that Feeds provides more easily. More integration possible by external projects.
  • There will be opportunities for business expansion through rewards, reputation scores, advertising, etc.


Elation – Will the current native app still be supported? And will any excess ELA be returned to CR? Can the suggestion be edited with more clarity?

Yes the native apps will be supported alongside the web app because EF funds the native app. The hope is that any excess funds can be used for further improvements and additions to Feeds. EF currently funds, and will continue to fund, Feeds native app as it’s a “proof of concept” for the Elastos tech that can be used for troubleshooting. Yes the suggestion can be updated to include the specifics following the completion of set milestones.

2) Suggestion 173 – ESC liquidity collaboration between CR and Elk Finance

  • https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/62f776e86705da0078a75805
  • Elk launched on ESC in 2021 as possibly the first non-Elastos community project. Totally independently funded and brought new users to explore the new environment of the Smart Chain.
  • Elk has interacted with many projects on ESC already and the co-marketing endeavors (AMAs, social media, etc.) so far have brought a good number of interactions between many ecosystem projects (Essentials, Glide, FilDA, CreDA). Elk connects 19 blockchains, and fast.
  • Multi-chain projects that want to use the ElkNet bridge themselves can bring their tokens to ESC as owners of their “own bridge”. Bridging as a Service (BaaS) allows projects to move their tokens 1:1 across 19 chains (more will be added). No liquidity. Example:
    • A project on MATIC using ElkNet BaaS can make their token available to both chains, with no fragmentation, no mint/burn, very fast and very safely.
    • This is different to using the current bridge, which just moves ELK. The liquidity support is to make swapping ELK to ELA much easier and cost-effective.
    • If projects can find out about Elk through the current bridge then they will realise (and we’ll tell them) how simple making a bridge of their own is using the ElkNet.
    • New projects can then enter Elastos simply and quickly.
  • Elk is firstly looking to bring cross-chain swaps to the ElkNet:
    • Example
      • 1000 MATIC on Polygon a user wants to send to ESC
      • Currently the proceed is:
        • Swap MATIC to ELK
        • Send ELK to ESC
        • Swap ELK to ELA
        • Go explore ESC!
      • Cross-chain swaps allow a single transaction to move the value:
        • 1000 MATIC on Polygon
        • Swap to ELA on ESC via ElkNet
        • Just one transaction
        • Needs liquidity both ends


MButcho – why not use Glide DEX for liquidity? Can it be shared?

Elk – At this point there is no dex aggregator that makes this possible. Glide and Elk has previously agreed to not dilute ELK/ELA liquidity on ESC and the partnership they set-up (but has been paused for now) was designed to build the ELK/ELA pool on ElkDEX and allowing Glide to handle all trading from ELA to other (non-ELK) assets.

Elation – multisig holders? Who are they? Can you add some statistics to the suggestion?

Elk – CR members. Elk team. The LP is shared for security. The CR will always control 20,000 ELA paired with the equivalent in ELK. Elk Finance controls their “share”. Yes we can add some statistics.

Cassie – How will the token swap occur? And who gets the final say after one year?

Elk – We will clarify this in the edited proposal. The CR will get the final say after one year and can break the LP. Maybe we can assess the situation after six months instead of one year?

Elation – Will you change any of your fees, max amount limits etc as a result of this proposal?

Elk – We can look into this for sure. Great idea!

Sash – What is the liquidity like in other chains? Where will it be “easy to transfer from”?

Elk – Avalanche, Polygon, Fantom, Gnosis all have good native token/ELK liquidity – none of these blockchains have a direct bridging route to ESC on-chain. The liquidity support would make this a viable bridge for transfers up to ~1000USD at least.

BNB is also good for liquidity so is an option for BNB users too – specifically those that don’t want to send via Shadowtokens as the minimum amount may be too high for them.

Next steps:

Elk will change the proposal to incorporate suggestions and answer questions raised above. Including it coming from an Elk-owned DID for the official proposal.

3) BD Team Proposal – Elation Studios

  • Can this be approved for sharing during the AMA?
  • Straight to Q&A since Elation has already shared the slides with the Council


M&N – How are the metrics being tracked?

Elation – The KPIs are more for internal measuring than sharing. The granular KPIs need to be properly discussed and outlined during the strategy and alignment phase. 

I (Fakhul) is looking to wholly control how his group is run, and find the best methods of tracking and improving results over time. Yes there will be an overall goal, but how it is reached is ultimately up to the Growth Team lead. Certain KPIs and targets can change but the overall major KPIs are the only that need to be locked down and shared (leads converted, active users, price appreciation, etc.) Other KPIs may need adjusting and analyzing throughout the process.

Rebecca – We must ensure all the expenditure is tracked and avoid all doubts that could lead to accusations of corruption.

Elation – Agreed, and all financials will be strictly managed and transparent. Each tranche will only be released after the progress and tracking process is completed each 3 months.

(Cassie – Auditing of big proposals can be part of the CR Council.)

PG Bao – Maybe three proposals could be made for this instead? Phase One/Two/Three and off-chain voting through the CR Sec and Council can release each tranche of funds? 200,000ELA is too large an amount to authorize in one go.

Elation – Each milestone gets a payout. If milestones aren’t hit then no payout. If the KPIs aren’t working out then the proposal can be terminated, or termination sought, at each milestone. Even better would be to continue collaborative efforts to adjust the efforts to that the required progress can be achieved if milestones are not met.

Each payment has to be agreed by the council after reviewing audits by CR Sec of KPI tracking throughout each stage of the proposal.

DR – My concern with breaking it up is that if the proposal isn’t re-approved, the whole thing is for nothing. Also, it is not as if we are blindly giving these funds to an unknown person.

Song Sjun – What is the background of the team? Any contacts with projects and VCs? Or are they completely new and fresh faces/experiences?

Elation – This initial outline is a starting point. It will be developed and deepened over time. It is designed to bring results from a part time set-up who are heavily incentivized in order to drive the outcomes required. The team has to be made up of members with established experience and can’t be a raw recruit straight out of university.

More than 75% of the funding coming from the CRC is for incentives. So the CRC only spends ELA if KPIs are met. This reduces the risk to the CRC from the outset. The design of the proposal is specifically set out to only reward the Growth Team IF they produce results. If the results are good then the CRC pays. If they are not good enough then the CRC is not exposed to spending ELA for nothing tangible.

Half of the team is already in place (and have even started to make progress already for free). The remaining members are still being decided upon.

Song Sjun – Are the KPIs really useful for Elastos? A business plan is more important. Spending all this money on BD is too expensive without a clearer business plan in place.

Elation – Five KPIs have been mentioned and were agreed by multiple stakeholders, including EF and CRC members. The further detail and specifics will be enhanced and drawn up over the first 6-8 weeks of the Growth Team deployment. 

The Elavation plan has been shared and discussed in great detail in meetings and through documentation sharing for several weeks. Some members have contributed usefully and with great interest from the outset. Others have not participated yet, but their voices are heard and ideas can be incorporated if they are reasonable and well-considered. The opportunity to influence this decision has been available for some time.

310,000USD is all the funding that the CRC needs to be concerned about. For this amount of money it is an absolute bargain to get a team like this. It’s heavily incentive based in order to attract the right people for such a low base rate of pay. It costs so little compared to other enormous payouts to other teams that haven’t produced anything of value even after years of trying

It’s a way to get everyone aligned. A way to bring all the technology and talents and opportunities together to benefit Elastos. Elavation Growth Team is not a pseudo-CEO for Elastos.

Just to clarify as I think it was maybe lost in translation, the Elavation team is not a pure execution team. The leads will very much be part of setting the strategy and vision, however they will not be solely responsible for it. It will be in collaboration with the CRC/EF/Core teams.

This was on request of the members that joined the TLGG feedback meeting and the subsequent taskforce. The Elavation team cannot be the official CEO of Elastos but can help lead and bring others together through collaboration.

4) Elab proposal – M&N

  •  Moved to next meeting