𝕄𝕒𝕔𝕜𝕄𝕠𝕣𝕖

Posting this here for anyone else looking into our Ticketing Proposal. Please take a second to read through it if you are on the fence. Thank you. --------------------------------------------- Thank Yuta, I really appreciate your careful investigation into the surrounding market, and the failures and successes. "the value accrues to the ticketing company, not the chain, and the chain layer gets quietly removed once it stops improving something concrete." 1st and foremost - the value accrues to both in our proposal, the ticketing company, and the chain. Every transaction processed will be a Cardano mainnet transaction. -Ticket Sold (minted NFT, creates rev for treasury via native fees and TVL) -Ticket Transfer (Cardano mainnet TX) -Ticket Sale (Cardano mainnet TX) -Ticket Update (Cardano mainnet TX) -Ticket Used (Cardano mainnet TX) Additionally, the treasury will retain 5% of all platform fees, in addition to the regularly created TXs. "what does the Cardano layer concretely improve for Sellout that Web2 can't?" First, I'd like to think that having a native asset, rather than a smart contract reference, is a huge structural advantage. As these are basically RWAs to some extent, the native asset structure makes the most sense when handling NFTs. This also leaves room for the Tickets to evolve into collectibles and engagement tooling for artists, venues, and event organizers. Secondly, anti-scalping and anti-counterfeiting. Since they are NFTs, they include immutable metadata which can be used for tracking the history of the ticket and creating an unduplicatable asset. Third, and not mentioned in our proposal, is the idea of the company becoming a SPO. Through the stored value in each NFT, we will accrue a small of ADA that when multiplied across 100s of thousands of tickets could be used to subsidize a pool, ultimately leading to the platform subsidizing costs for event organizers and consumers. This is a Cardano only mechanism that the Sellout CEO was completely sold on. Finally, re-sale control. Although not done on the ledger level, having control over royalties is paramount for event organizers. This can only be done with fully digitalized ticketing, and best done with NFTs, in our professional opinion. Now, moving on to the points raised on ADAtool: "Token-first funding (2017–18 ICO class) Raised from token buyers rather than customers; requiring fans/organizers to use a token added friction; the 2018 downturn ended runways." There has not been, nor will there ever be, a token sale. We agree that tokens only add additional friction in ticketing. "Wallet friction at the venue door Consumer flows requiring wallets/gas at entry did not displace QR codes; entry must work offline for all attendees." This is actually a great point that no one has brought up yet, and one that we solved in Phase 1 of our project. We did not change Sellout's current process, nor will we. All ticket check-ins are batched separately from the rest of ticketing actions. This allows us to capture all the data from the event before submitting it to chain. This includes offline mode, as well as literal sign ins done with pen and paper. "Distribution over technology Incumbents hold venue contracts and primary inventory; startups had working technology and no inventory. Ticketmaster acquired Upgraded (2018); no public blockchain ticketing product followed." This could be addressed in a multitude of different ways. My personal opinion here is that they basically paid to remove their true competition. They know the value blockchain ticketing will have and don't want it to disrupt their monopoly. "Anti-scalping vs rights-holder economics Resale revenue is a feature for rights holders; scalping-resistance products faced buyers whose economics they opposed." The MP provides an outlet for a user to securely transfer, buy, sell or trade a ticket they had already purchased for an upcoming show. This is not a new idea - AXS and Ticketmaster both have 3p marketplaces that offer no consumer protections against price or fraud. "NFT-market correlation (2021–22 class) Projects funded and framed as NFT plays contracted with the NFT market itself." This is not a NFT project. This is an infrastructure play. The first iteration of NFTs (2021-22 class) were used sparingly in applications and more for collectability. We do not debate this. Our proposal represents an evolution in NFT capabilities. "The surviving configuration and its two documented outcomes Operating survivors hide the chain and sell B2B into existing distribution (GET white-label, UEFA×TIXnGO, True Tickets×Shubert, Sympla×Polygon). Two outcomes recur in this group: economic value accrues to the ticketing company rather than the chain (GET: 5M tickets, token −98.9%), and the blockchain layer is de-emphasized or removed over time (True Tickets' marketing, Ticketmaster's shelving)." The main goal of the platform is that people do not know that it operates on blockchain. That's not to say blockchain is shameful. People have proven they do not care what the technology is as long as it's easy to use and works when it's supposed to. Additionally, it directly benefits the blockchain. This product will produce TX fees, and our proposal itself is structured as a loan, with a permanent 5% revenue share to the treasury. I am not sure if you are aware of this portion of the proposal or not. I know this is a lot to digest but i wrote it all by hand so I hope you will take the time to actually understand what I am saying here. AI will not do this justice, I treated this as if it was a live interview. I answered this the second I saw it and did not run it through anything. I am passionate and committed this is the correct progression for this product. If Cardano doesn't take us up on it. We will take it somewhere that will. This product belongs on blockchain.