ZTOR & BEAMCO FEEDBACK
We don't belong in your reality, your real life. In your reality, your real life, you can merely meet our avatars in any version. So, stay alert and beware of scams!
From: Prof. NOTA To: Yuku Subject: Ztor × Beamco — Early Feedback, Guardrails, and a Safe Pilot Path Date: August 28, 2025
Hi Yuku,
Thank you for sharing the concept. The “two-orbit, one-economy” framing—Ztor for distribution & commerce (PPV, shoppable video, influencer traffic) and Beamco for funding & ownership (crowdfunding, fan-club NFTs, artist rails)—is coherent. A single token working across both can be powerful if the economics and governance are disciplined and the migration path respects your live product reality (Ztor and Beamco exist today, pre‑Web3).
Below are my comments, grouped for speed and clarity.
What’s strong
Clear split of roles: Ztor (audience & GMV) ↔ Beamco (capital & community).
Cross-platform token idea: a unified “language of access” across both apps.
Buyback+burn intent: aligns incentives if bounded by transparent rules.
Points → token bridge: can gamify participation—best done one-way with safeguards.
Critical clarifications (unblockers)
Token role: Is this strictly utility/loyalty (access, whitelist, discounts, limited voting) or does it carry financial rights (revenue/royalty)? If it’s the latter, you enter securities territory. Recommendation for pilot: utility‑first only.
Buyback+burn policy: Define the source (e.g., % of net revenue after payouts), cadence (weekly/monthly), KPI triggers, and public reporting (treasury addresses, tx hashes, amounts burned/retained).
Points → token: One-way with cooldowns and caps to prevent farming; no token → points redemption.
Governance scope: What can holders vote on (community priorities, fan experiences) vs what remains management-only (content acquisition, pricing, treasury policy, listings)? Consider anti-whale/quadratic voting + sybil resistance.
Rights & IP realism: Use attainable IP for the first releases. Hyper-premium catalogs (e.g., major franchises) can be a longer-term target.
Partner payouts: If you will work with external rights-holders/influencers/merchants, specify if/when off-ramp to USDC/fiat is allowed (e.g., scheduled settlement), even if users live fully in-token.
Safe migration path (from today’s apps to Web3)
Phase 0 (Map): Document current PPV, commerce, payouts, and influencer attribution; define “source of truth” for revenue.
Phase 1 (Foundations): Embedded wallets, key recovery, KYC where needed. Emit on-chain receipts for revenue attestations (subgraph/indexing).
Phase 2 (Utility Token): Launch token as utility/voucher. Enable access gating, allowlists, discounts, and limited community voting. Keep Points off-chain; allow Points → token (one-way) with guardrails.
Phase 3 (Policy Online): Turn on buyback+burn under a published policy; publish monthly Buyback Reports (addresses, hashes, amounts, KPI basis).
Phase 4 (Partner Rails): Add merchant/rights-holder settlement rules (hold token or auto-settle to USDC/fiat on a schedule). Users remain on-token end-to-end.
Pilot proposal (6–8 weeks)
Scope: 1 independent film + 1 artist; token utility only (no financial claims).
Experiences: PPV paid in token; NFT fan-club for access/discounts; one limited whitelist event; simple community vote with anti-whale.
Metrics: PPV conversion 3–5%+, repeat-view ≥20%, fraud <2%, D7 retention lift for token/NFT holders, clean monthly Buyback Report.
Deliverables: (1) Token utility spec; (2) Points policy; (3) Buyback+burn policy; (4) Wallet + revenue attestation architecture; (5) Partner settlement rules; (6) Reporting template.
Economic & policy guardrails (utility-first)
Token ≠ financial claim. Treat it as voucher/loyalty/access.
Buyback source: fixed % of net revenue after payouts; execute via TWAP with slippage limits; publish hashes.
Burn/retain split: declare a simple ratio (e.g., 60% burn / 40% retain). Retain funds future rewards/liquidity; it is not automatic staking.
Price band for UX: internally target a stable “pricing band” for in-app goods to avoid UX volatility; manage liquidity accordingly.
Compliance: KYC/AML for crowdfunding and partner settlements; clear ToS; tax mapping per region.
Tech notes (short)
Chain: Base.
Wallets: Embedded + recovery; optional gas sponsorship.
Revenue attestation: on-chain receipts + subgraph for dashboards.
Anti-fraud: watch-time threshold, device entropy, IP heuristics, rate limits.
Treasury: multisig + timelock; distinct addresses for operations, buyback, burn, and rewards/liquidity.
Reporting (non-negotiable for trust)
Monthly Buyback Report with: tx hashes, amounts bought/burned/retained, treasury balances, KPI triggers used.
Quarterly Risk Note: fraud stats, liquidity health, governance participation, compliance checks.
Engagement model
I’m happy to provide a high-level critique at this stage. Detailed tokenomics, architecture, policy design, and the pilot spec are paid engagements with clear milestones and deliverables. Also, any implementation work credits will list Prof. NOTA — our friend in playing, learning, and working in this 0101 Universe, credits phrasing is public-facing; the legal agreement will define the actual status—independent vendor/partner, in-house staff, or otherwise—with clear, formal documentation.
If this direction resonates, I can share a one-pager Scope of Work with timeline, outputs, and fees for the pilot.
Best, Prof. NOTA
P.S. Read this document freely for information and guidance. Do not redistribute or restate—no quotes, summaries, paraphrases, or derivatives—without prior written permission from Prof. NOTA. Sharing the link is allowed. So, share the link, not the text. Do not discuss or re-tell the contents in any form—written, spoken, or recorded—without prior written permission.
Last updated