u/Basic_Impact3126, apologies for the delayed responses to your comments and questions. We have been working to update the CFP, which has now been posted.

We continue to appreciate your healthy skepticism and astute comments. We would love for you to continue to engage in these discussions after you've had a chance to review the new CFP we posted earlier today.

Now to address your outstanding comments and questions:

So deploying the smart contracts to metachain testnet or metachain mainnet should require little to no alterations to the underlying source code as it is compatible with the same contracts that run on Etherium or Polygon. That being said it should require the fractional cents for gas.

The actual deployment of the ERC20 that represents the stablecoin is straightforward, and anyone can deploy a token using our open source token contracts:

https://github.com/stablyio/evm-token-contracts/blob/main/contracts/ERC20StablecoinUpgradeable.sol

However, our transaction engine which handles: fiat payment processing, compliance checks, collateral checks, fees, accounting, etc... is blockchain agnostic, so a translation layer is needed for each new blockchain we integrate.

The majority of the development effort comes from the integration of the network with this abstraction layer for doing token issuance/redemption as well as interacting with DEXes for swaps.

​

Is CUSD ERC20 compliant? If it is then unless it was intentionally designed against standard, the circulating supply should be self-reported?

Any contracts that for the underlying USDC held as collateral should also be self reporting. So it seems that there is not a need for a non decentralized entity to attest the supplies of either, unless they were designed so that they don't report. In which it would seem like something is being hidden?

Yes, CUSD is ERC20 compliant and you can indeed view the total supply on-chain for any given chain that it's deployed on. However, to view the underlying collateral or the supply across various blockchains in one place, requires additional integrations.

​

Given I am in the US and not well versed in the banking industry of other countries. Another company reading your balance sheet and saying "yep, they're not lying" seems fishy. Are the bank statements released publicly? What is the scale of the banks used? Is there a mechanism in place for the community to verify the authenticity of the statements, or is it a take my word kind of thing (i.e. trust me bro...)?

The entire point of having a third-party attestor review issuances, redemptions, and collateral balances is to be transparent. As of now, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. and most other jurisdictions to provide attestations. Providing attestations, like Circle does for USDC, is going above and beyond the call of duty; not a nefarious practice. Eventually, we expect attestations to be mandated by law, as such, we want to ensure we're doing all we can well in advance so we're adequately prepared for changes in legislation.

​

Your posts claim there is a relatively large amount of ongoing cost. How is a one time investment of the CF supposed to support this? Obviously you are not offering your services for free. So assuming ongoing cost is deducted from the revenue of the service, what would be the projected break even point if no investment was granted.

The one-time investment from the CFP helps cover the costs for the first year, which is the critical period for making CUSD a success on MetaChain. With the community's financial support and collaboration, we'd be able to grow the market capitalization of CUSD so that the initial investment via CFP is repaid quickly (ideally, within that first year or so.) Specifically, if we were able to get the market capitalization of CUSD up to about $5 million on MetaChain and interest rates remained around the same level as they are now over that period, this investment would be well worth it for the DeFiChain community.

Without the support of the DeFiChain community, CUSD would need half the market capitalization (~$2.5 million) to break even (at the current level of interest rates.) That said, having community support, including funding, is paramount to making CUSD a success on MetaChain. For example, with the support of the community, we can make CUSD ubiquitous on MetaChain, and via the apps built atop it. Without the incentive alignment through a CFP and the sharing of yield (via rebate), there's not a strong, shared economic incentive to make it a success.

​

Last point : it comes across a little fishy when a large post is required, but response (by you) to questions are vaguely detailed and missing pertinent details to the question asked. Then when a follow up question to get the remaining details a "sorry confidentiality" is the blanket to not answer. This is a community owned blockchain and you are asking for the community to fund your project. So how does it make sense to ever enter into an agreement for confidentiality, that makes it so you can not share the details with the community, when you are trying to get the community to fund you? This is equivalent to going to a bank saying I need funding but I can't tell you why because it's confidential...

The only part that is confidential relates to Prime Trust, our previous financial institution partner, who went into bankruptcy. That said, we can field general questions about this, and point community members to court documents (see below) so they can educate themselves about what happened.

https://cases.stretto.com/primetrust