# Shill.wtf

A meme token launchpad with built in marketing rewards using verifable social media performance, and claimed using proofs of account ownership.

## Open Design Questions

### Entry point

1. User launches new meme token using the platform and decides on a marketing campaign period

2. Prequalified memes listing. Only existing popular memes can be listed, reward retroactvely the shillers who made it happen at tme of minting (launchpad listing)

3. Market Existing tokens/accounts. Can simply lock some shilling funds and decide on campaign period.

Comment:
Idea of prequalified memes is intriguing because it allows retroactve attribution to standard web2 users which is interesting way to onboard. This is enabled by things like proof of twitter permissionlessly. However, there is complexity to how a meme is chosen. Lets take BEAST as an example. How do we attribute this? Account based or hashtag based? For only new ones, it makes things simpler.

Another consideration is dilution, in the simple approach of option (1) the shillers % is only given to users that take part in that period, but whereas by having it open, only a fraction would realistically claim. so a lot of the mint will be simply sitting in the smart contracts (which is also really cool for creating a buzz around this idea!!)

### The lifecycle of a token
In the preliminary design, we have 3 phases:
1- Marketing (premint): Campaign competition
2- Launchpad (Mint): Bonding curve
3- DEX listing on shill.wtf custom pools (with flywheel) at threshold trigger.

Is this the best design?
Do we want to allow any other DEX listing like uniswap? Allowing any DEX gives flexiblity to users and distribution ability. But if we want to introduce the flywheel using a shill fund we need our own custom pools.

### Flywheel economics

This is related to the DEX listing or even the launchpad bonding curve phase. The idea is that some transaction fee goes back to the shill fund which is distributed every epoch (preliminary design: 1 epoch = 1 week).

However we also need to charge fees for the LPs. So assuming standard 0.3% for LPs and an extra 0.3% for shill fund this brings it up to 0.6% which is more expensive for transacting users than the simple DEX. However, if the LPs are getting 0.3 in a standard pool and 0.3 in shill.wtf pool they are getting the same, only in second choice they are rewarding shillers which is good for them. So if all (or most) LPs deposit in the shill pools then users will find best liquidty there and hence best prices. Would this actually happen?

### Decentralization

There are two touch points on how "decentralized" we can have it.

a) How to link a social media handle to a wallet address?

One way is to use something like proof of twitter to claim. This doesnt need a registation or any offchain database, and is the most principled web3 way to do it. The other option is to use twitter api and use auth2 for user to sign in and tie an account to a wallet, but this requires shill.wtf team to run a db offchain that links them together and stores it until distribution.

b) Marketing rules discretion.

The ideal case the user specifies the marketing rules like: min 50views per tweet to qualify, or a user has to have min 10 users, which are sybil and anti-bot rules. However, if we simply adhere to rules blindly to distrbute tokens, bots might find gaps and try to game it, thereby giving tokens to cheating users that did not actually deliver value. On other hand, having discretion to filter tweets concentrates power at hands of shill.wtf team to decide who gets tokens and who doesnt.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that we can accept a level of centralization at beginning to deliver the ux and distribution and work deliberately towards decentralization. This means having two forms of auth for problem (a), and for (b) study carefully anti bot ideas.