Epoch 7: Colonizing other Blockchains more details needed

Relating to : Epoch 7: Colonizing other Blockchains.

I speak for most people here and i can say most people are not to happy about this because its a bad idea. on its own it looks like a money grab, unless it is properly addressesed and communicated. And the real question here is our do we as the genesis holder benefit directly ? This Epoch7 is what will define whether this project has a future or not. Full disclose i’m on discord and i’ve listened to both AMA’s and this seems to be a question that is not being answered truthfully. I know in the AMA they talked about there being no competition with other blockchains. which is totally wrong and the whole community knows this. a lunch of another mars colony on another blockchain is a direct competition because it diverts interest from one blockchain to another which is doing better. For instance if this is launched on ethereum , ethereum has more liquidity so the price of land and clny will be much higher and therefore people on that blockchain benefit more than people on other blockchains. We members of marscolony on harmony made marscolony famous, it looks like you’ll be using that to launch on another blockchain where we will not have land there and continue to profit on our expense.

point1 ) when Marscolony was launched on one harmony it already had been launched another blockchain(binance) and failed. how do i know this because they where people in the group who posted this that another project by the same devs had been abandoned. So where all these people compensated, if so with what? So already this multichain blockchain colonising mars thing is a bit suspect at best. Unless all these blockachains are using the same token(clny) where its all interlinked where we all benefit from ethereum,matic or binance volume increase where its a win win for everyone not just the devs herer then here is best solution:

proposal to make this fair for everyone who has already bought land on harmony mars colony if these block chains are going to be independent.

Every new block chain launch should have a total of 42000 pieces of land.
the first 21 are automatically given to harmony one land owners on a 1:1 ratio for free and the rest are minted. because mars colony will already be famous mint price can be double lets $500.

another example. just because coke or any of the big brands launch in different countries, it doesn’t mean the shareholders are excluded from dividends from that country. which what you dev’s are trying to do ? if invest and am a shareholder if the brand grown and launches in different countries(blockchains) as a shareholder i should get a proportional monetary share to my holdings. otherwise if you are just cheating us. then at the financial meeting where shareholder vote, in this case the mars colony Dao we vote against these multichain blockchains because we don’ fully understand how this will benefit us, but as the devs you press on continuing, my question becomes is this still a community run project as you say or do already have an ulterior motive.

So to Mars colony Dev’s could please properly answer and not waffle on what exactly is Epoch 7 and how does it benefit us directly.


I must admit, when I first read the title, I was a bit against this, however, after reading through the logic of what is being said, the arguments made with regards to branding and expansion of that brand to other blockchains is a legit argument. Logically, the intellectual property going into the development of the code to be used on other blockchains are on the backs of investors both, BSC and ONE investors, these investors should be allowed to reap the rewards from their investment into the team and project that helped shape the value it brings to future investors. I think the dev team should really think about the investor when it comes to expansion, particularly those that helped build your brand (product) and help shape it. “Never forget those that helped you achieve your goals” Unknown author.

@father @brother


as an early investor myself, i also am a little bit worried about how this will affect me, but if i think this through, the devs surely have to include the harmony investors in future plans… because if we would have a feeling of being “cheeted” that could backlash on them heavily, by fud being spread etc from angry harmonauts. But let’s not get ahead of our selfs, i’m very bullish on this project and have the full trust in this team. Father en co have build something special, let’s keep it going!


@kandodo, @TdxTri @Aboeluqmaan

Thanks for asking the question, I don’t doubt quite a few people are thinking it.

I know my writing style can come across as blunt or even harsh at times, so before I reply I want to be clear, I mean no disrespect. It’s a good question, and I want to give a direct and honest answer. Then, in the places where I am intentionally being a bit snarky, I don’t mean the user who asked this question, who was genuine and has offered support and feedback. Those parts are in reply to the readers who are only here to make a few quick bucks.

Anyway, let’s get started.

The concern is based on a few issues:

  1. A failure of the team to explain the idea coherently (this is on me, I proofread Father’s post and didn’t expand the explanation. If it was written in Russian, we probably wouldn’t have this issue)
  2. A fundamental misunderstanding of blockchains
  3. A fundamental misunderstanding of what this project is
  4. A fundamental misunderstanding of what is “fair”

I will attempt to rectify issue #1 by expaining #s 2-4 below. This, as with all things, is an open conversation, so of course don’t hesitate to push back or ask further questions.

Disclaimer: I’m answering your concern based on my understanding of it, which necessarily includes some assumptions on my part. Please correct/redirect what I get wrong about your intent.

2. What is a blockchain?

I know most of you know what blockchains are. But as with the vast majority of web3 participants/observants, these concerns fail to recognize the true utility of blockchains on a social scale, a utility that has not been achieved yet.

Blockchains are cities. A McDonalds in LA does not detract from the business of a McDonalds in New York, even though there are plenty of McDonalds customers who travel between them.

It seems you’re assessing the project based on other GameFi and DAO models you see in the market. That won’t yield an accurate assessment, because we’re building something that doesn’t exist yet.

As original Martian landowners on the Harmony blockchain, you are future DAO members building this specific community. You are not the congress of the United States. You are the councilmembers of LA. This is your city. You do not own the entire Mars ecosystem, you are participants governing your own locality.

As such, tourism and use will appeal to both residents of the Harmony blockchain, and those who are just visiting but are native to other chains. Your Mars colony which you collectively govern on the Harmony Chain will be guided by your decisions as a DAO, and thus will look very differnet over time from other colonies on other chains.

As for colonizing other blockchains being a cash-grab, I understand your fear. This space (as well as every other market in existence thanks to the cesspool that is late-stage capitalism) is filled with greedy scammers disguised as builders. However, two things to note:

  1. 100% of CLNY is dedicated to the project, the distribution of which is explained in the whitepaper. We don’t have a premine that pays the core team a stash. Upon joining the project, I was not given CLNY, nor were any of the others. We do not make money from launching on other blockchains, so the only way for us to make money is to take the risk of buying land, which is exactly the same as you. The only difference between the core team and the community at the moment, while the DAO has not yet been implemented, is that we have the final say on development decisions, and some get paid a salary from the treasury to build, just like the DAO will allocate payment to builders when that gets implemented.

  2. The fear that Harmony will be left behind is more representative of greed than the core team’s decision to colonize other blockchains, since your fear is that your investment will go down or you won’t make as much money, which leads me to issue 3:

3. What is this project?

Mars Colony is GameFi. Profit-seeking is not wrong and your desire as early investors to protect your investment is logical and fine. But at the end of the day, we do not make all decisions based on what will be profitable.

We’re building a Game-DAO-DeFi model that can be replicated to create new localities on any number of blockchains. Each community will look different but will share a DEX and game which links them. Similar to the 50 states in the US, though not governed with such a discriminatory framework.

These “states” will be autonomous and independent, but share some parts of their infrastructure to achieve a more efficient and effective method of cross-chain transportation. For example: Each colony only needs to maintain liquidity for the most popular pair or two of their respective blockchains, and then each colony can trade for non-native assets by trading with the colony on the chain that has liquidity for that asset.

On Harmony, it’s easiest to maintain massive liquidity for CLNY<>ONE. Instead of asking Harmony colonists to also supply liquidity for ETH that has been wrapped on Harmony, we’ll use CLNY from the Harmony colony to trade against ETH in a pair on the (still-unfounded) Ethereum colony.

Economically, this is more efficient, more sustainable, and thus better for everyone.

And that’s just the beginning. The “Fi” part of the Game-DAO-Fi is what we’re building first, but it’s just the foundation for a game.

In order to allow everyone, no matter their native blockchain, equal access to Mars Colony, the cross-chain colonization model is essential.

I couldn’t care less about the profitability of it. That said, when you make good things that people want with a desire to make people happy, it’s profitable (according the free-market ideology I assume you hold, anyway).

If you don’t think it will be profitable, sell now. There’s no shame in that, quite the opposite actually. Investing is a vote of support in the ideology of a project. This is our ideology, and if you don’t support it, I don’t want you to compromise your values. That said, we won’t be compromising our values in the name of profit. (This is one of those sections not aimed at the person who posted the question)

4. What is fair?

This probably will come across harshly, but know that I’m not saying you’re wrong to be concerned about what’s fair. Your heart is in the right place, but you’re forgetting that not everyone is you.

Initial supporters matter, and we’re glad you’re here, but Mars Colony needs to have space for everyone. To that end, there will be opportunities that will seem less profitable for landowners that we’ll take, not only in the name of true fairness, but in order to make the best Game-DAO-Fi we can.

Hope that clarifies it a bit, if you still have questions or concerns reply with them here.


— brother



I thank you for the thorough response. In response to your statements and I speak solely for myself, as I do not know the mindsets of all participants in the game. Your counter discussion points bring up some valid points as well.

I don’t want to come across as confrontational, I’m just stating facts and the reality of what is as I see it and what I think will continue to occur. I’m also not implying that your sole focus should be the investor. The dream and original goal should be, and I will say I’m in full support of that goal and mission. I would be lying if I said I don’t want to make a profit on my investment but I also understand that this is not the focus of the team. Nor should it be. The focus should be on the product, the game play, the experience, etc. I do think that the team is focused on the right things and I support that 100%.

However, I will start with your example of the McDonald’s.
Although each business in itself is run independently of each other, they all have the “Brand” in common. For the benefit of comparison, we will assume the use of Brand, is synonymous with the term “Intellectual Property” or " Source code in development". This “Brand”, the McDonalds franchise, created the menu, created the processes, developed supply chains, refined the processes and markets the brand.

For comparison, this equates to the development of the interface and the contracts, the logic used to interact with the UI and backend (blockchain) [which is summarized as the “source code in development”], the introduction and development of new ideas, and the advertising that goes into twitter, discord, and other social media platforms that all the team and supporters have and continue to put into the recognition of the hard work that the development team is doing, which in turn, brought the initial set of investors into the project, bought up the land plots which then allowed for the minting of tokens, which in turn is used to back the development treasury, which in turn pays the developers to continue their work on the backend.

Now with that out of the way, let’s dive back into the McDonald’s scenario. The original investors of the franchise started out with a single McDonald’s and did all of the above. They then replicated those processes into another store in a different location (other blockchains), and did the same thing. At some point, they realized that the franchise could be sold to independent investors for an annual fee and an initial setup and support fee, hence the franchise brand fee.

The independent investors, in your scenario in LA and NY shops still were required to pay the Franchise owners some set fee for the brand recognition and proven processes to work profitably, the stockholders receive a cut of the profits in the forms of dividends and stocks (CLNY token). The localized investors in return receive all the benefits of improved processes and marketing as well as additional secret sauces that come with the new promotions (advancement and improvements made in the code).

Again, not saying this is the model to use, but I’m just bringing in the full scope of the benefits received by the franchisees you mentioned in the example provided.

What your scenario doesn’t cover, and which I believe the point to the discussion is that the initial investment into the franchise was done by very early investors, likely family members, localized venture capitalists, and friends. These folks started with a vision that had its own set of challenges in front of it, until the processes were refined enough and supply chains were put in place, that allowed for the model to be reproduced, those same set of investors had stake in the development of those processes and refinements with hopes of gaining a return on their investment and did not necessarily have any direct involvement in the day to day operations of the business, they only supplied the financial means to get them there.

Same concept is true for Play-to-earn games in the blockchain. The early investors in the project, i.e. Harmonauts and BSC investors are doing the same for the Marscolony project. It’s not in the form of a store or fast food joint, but in the source code development with the refined processes and UI that will be used to build across to other chains. Although they will operate independently, it doesn’t change the fact that the underlying code was/is being developed and refined with the support of the Harmonauts and BSC investors backing the development team.

To say that there is no need to consider the monetary aspects of this project is just an incorrect statement. I go back to my original statement. I do not believe it should be the focus and nor do I believe that the team should make the original investors the sole gainers of future colonization projects, but a small token and recognition to those that got the development team there through monetary support should be a consideration. If the product is great, which I think it will be. The demand will come and bring more future colonists to the ecosystem of Game-Fi and metaverse. Trailblazing isn’t easy, and failures will happen, i.e. BSC launch, the first time around. Not sure what that entailed, but I think lessons were learned and brought to the Harmony chain with a new set of challenges and focus. I’m excited to see what else comes from the team, I think you have gained a loyal following, please don’t forget them in your future explorations is all I’m saying. I’m not pushing for a resolution today, but only for an open discussion and honest consideration for any future success that these seeds will bring.

Sorry for my tangent. I just wanted to convey that you and the team have my support. I’m not pushing for profits, I’m simply pushing for consideration in remembering those who helped bring success to the team and the project.