TG3 blockchain commitment — short summary for Martin
Two threads we need a call on before next week's session with TG3. Everything below is short by design — the deep math, the sequence diagrams, and the cap-table distributions live in the docs portal.
1. Three options to interpret the BC commitment
The current SHA/IA wording — "all on-chain development on EtherLink, customer-facing chains operator's choice" — admits three substantively different architectures. We need TG3 to pick one before we commit engineering.
| What it means | |
|---|---|
| Option A — Parallel deployments | Same HTLC contract on both Base and EtherLink. Operators choose at campaign creation. Real EtherLink campaigns happen on EtherLink. |
| Option B — Metadata on EtherLink | Funds always stay on Base. EtherLink contract is an on-chain registry that mirrors every deal, but holds no value. UX unchanged for everyone. |
| Option C — Base facade + EtherLink logic | Operator interacts with Base only. Cross-chain messaging defers every business-logic decision to a contract on EtherLink. Most expensive; produces the strongest on-chain footprint on EtherLink. |
Full architectures, sequence diagrams, and Solidity-level detail: → Options — technical detail in the docs portal.
Operator/streamer/Verifluence UX, cost-per-campaign, and total cost of ownership over the SHA term: → Commitments and consequences.
The cleanest headline (at the conservative 2K-deliveries/year first-year baseline, post Martin-confirmed market rates of €100/hr engineering and $4K/day audit):
| Build cost | 15-yr TCO | Build + 15-yr TCO | × TG3's €200K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Option A | ~$35K | ~$443K | ~$478K | 2.2× |
| Option B | ~$17K | ~$113K | ~$130K | 0.6× |
| Option C | ~$130K | ~$1.09M | ~$1.22M | 5.7× |
2. Three hypothetical share-performance scenarios
We've modelled how each architecture would translate into enterprise-value impact and how that loss distributes across the cap table. Full methodology, sensitivity to discount rate (10% / 15% / 25%) and volume (2K / 10K / 50K / 200K deliveries per year), and the per-shareholder pro-rata tables: → Share performance projection.
NPV cost at r=15%, conservative 2K-deliveries/year baseline:
| Scenario | Total NPV cost | Founders bear (85%) | TG3 bears (9%) | TG3 bears (15%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Option A (typical) | $207K | $176K | $19K (9–14% of €200K cheque) | $31K |
| Option B | $61K | $52K | $5K (2–4%) | $9K |
| Option C | $557K | $473K | $50K (23–39%) | $84K |
At Verifluence's mature growth scenario (200K deliveries/yr — 100× the conservative baseline), the same numbers scale ~7×: under Option C, TG3's pro-rata loss reaches 160–275% of their invested capital purely from stake-value reduction.
What this tells us for the call: TG3 isn't just imposing a cost on Verifluence — they pay ~9–15% of every dollar they ask us to spend, via reduction in their own stake's value. The math is most extreme for Option C and most palatable for Option B.
What we need from this conversation
- Agreement on which of A / B / C we present to TG3 as our preferred interpretation. B is the natural answer on cost; C is the natural answer if TG3 has externally promised the Tezos Foundation a flagship EtherLink integration.
- Confirmation of the cap-table percentages used in the share-performance distribution (currently illustrative — base case 85% founders / 6% ESOP / 9% TG3 with €200K → 9% post-money €2.22M; sensitivity case 79% / 6% / 15% with €200K → 15% post-money €1.33M). The math is linear; small differences won't change the structural ranking but will refine the pro-rata loss numbers per party.
- Any growth-assumption corrections. The numbers above use a deliberately conservative flat-volume floor (2K deliveries/yr forever). If we want to anchor the conversation on a different volume assumption, all dollar figures scale linearly with that change.
Read order if you want depth
- Introduction & assumptions — user redlines, technical assumptions, market assumptions, and the at-a-glance decision matrix.
- Options — technical detail — sequence diagrams + Solidity volumes + audit budgets per option.
- Commitments and consequences — UX impact, per-campaign cost, full build + cost-of-ownership table.
- Share-performance projection — NPV, sensitivity, cap-table distribution, what it means per party.
Estimated reading time: 25 minutes for all four, 5 minutes for just the introduction.