NetVRk DAO Proposal #5: Evolving Chains for NetVRk's Future Growth

Objective

1. Relaunch NetVRk token to re-establish value levels prior to the recent EOA wallet key attack mentioned here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hr0-ur5T0Oasn2QYVr7gA7L17aBs_8QdhF5c2S0AdvM/edit#heading=h.ilj9zoieywbp
2. Use this opportunity to launch NetVRk token on chains aligned with NFT, Metaverse, GameFi infrastructure, growth potential and high traction.
3. Limit the impact to technical debt and backlog in choosing the new chains.

Disclaimer This is a pulse check proposal, i.e. non-binding. We will use this proposal to get community sentiment and feedback on which chains are preferred, and you can select one or more chains when voting. The final decision of the chains will be made considering the technical and capital resources for presented options.

Goal

1. Complete Token Swap (targeting Jan 5th) and eliminate negative value impact resulting from the EOA Wallet key attack.
2. Set up a stronger foundation for NetVRk ecosystem and its future growth by aligning with a high growth potential GameFi, NFT, Metaverse supporting chain.

Description and Details:

1. Determine the chain or chains to launch the token.
2. Establish our ecosystem on these new chains.

What chains are being considered? The existing chains where NetVRk token is live are Ethereum and Polygon. We have an option to stay on these chains, but the following current problems exist:

Ethereum:

1. Expensive to conduct transactions, especially where it relates to NFT, and GameFi transactions which will impact future traction.
2. Swap transactions are also a factor so as the chain gets congested, it has a negative impact on swaps.

Polygon:

1. Cheaper than Ethereum but the narrative is not specifically aligned with GameFi, NFTs, Metaverse.
2. Scaling problems with RPC infrastructure exist.

New chains being considered:

Avalanche (AVAX)

1. GameFi, Metaverse infrastructure
2. Cheap transactions
3. Good scalability
4. EVM Chain Since Avalanche is EVM compatible it will have minimal impact to our current timeline of dApp integrations.

Arbitrum

1. Cheap transactions
2. Decent scalability
3. EVM Chain
4. Layer 2 solution for ethereum network Because Arbitrum is EVM compatible it will have minimal impact to our current timeline of dApp integrations. However, it doesn't have specific GameFi, NFT, or Metaverse support in its infrastructure. So we won't be able to benefit from traction increase resulting from overall sector hype if we go to Arbitrum.

Optimism

1. Cheap transactions
2. Decent scalability
3. EVM Chain
4. Layer 2 solution for ethereum network Optimism is EVM compatible so it will have minimal impact to our current timeline of dApp integrations. However, it doesn't have specific GameFi, NFT, or Metaverse support in its infrastructure. So we won't be able to benefit from traction increase resulting from overall sector hype if we go to Optimism.

Solana

1. GameFi, Metaverse infrastructure
2. Cheap transactions
3. Good scalability
4. Non-EVM Chain Solana is not EVM compatible, meaning it will have a significant negative impact on our current timeline of dApp integrations. We also don't have any RUST developers on the team currently, so we will need time to recruit RUST devs, vet them out and update all of our ecosystem to RUST and Solana compatibility. While there is benefit in going to SOL, we recommend that this be considered after our game is launched at a later stage in the roadmap. Starting now with an EVM chain is a smarter choice.

Tezos

1. On-chain governance
2. Smart contract language diversity
3. Limited GameFi, NFT, or Metaverse infrastructure
4. Non-EVM Chain Choosing Tezos provides unique features like on-chain governance and self-amendment capabilities. However, the non-EVM nature of Tezos and the limited support for certain sectors may pose challenges for immediate dApp integrations and tapping into current industry trends.

Voting Options In the proposal below, you will have the option to select one or more chains of your preference.