Things are starting to get exciting and truly heat up now with Commonwealth. They have finally created the world’s first ever Free Venture Fund with zero royalties for the 99% of us that have struggled to gain access to very early stage deal flow for new crypto projects.

The Common Wealth VC Fund will have approximately around $2.4 million worth of early-stage allocation in 15 yet to launch projects. There looks to be some great gems of projects within these projects that Commonwealth have selected to be a part of their first fund. I have to give a shout out to Cookie3, Asymmetry Finance, Fairside Network and Mavryk in particularly.

Remember for this fund there is going to be no fund managers, no general partners, and no management fees. This fund will also be fully non-custodial and always liquid.

The Commonwealth App is currently in beta mode and has undergone rigorous testing from its community. The app will go live on the zKSync ERA mainnet before 8th April 2024 and TGE of the project’s $WLTH token will be on the week commencing 8th April 2024.

A lot to look forward to coming up very soon with this project! My eyes are certainly peeled.

All Street, Not Wall Street. Once reserved for the rich - welcome to the Genesis of Access. We are the 99%. A powerful, all-in-one platform that makes investing in Web 3 simple.

Common Wealth

Things are starting to get exciting and truly heat up now with Commonwealth. They have finally created the world’s first ever Free Venture Fund with zero royalties for the 99% of us that have struggled to gain access to very early stage deal flow for new crypto projects. 

The Common Wealth VC Fund will have approximately around $2.4 million worth of early-stage allocation in 15 yet to launch projects. There looks to be some great gems of projects within these projects that Commonwealth have selected to be a part of their first fund. I have to give a shout out to Cookie3, Asymmetry Finance, Fairside Network and Mavryk in particularly. 

Remember for this fund there is going to be no fund managers, no general partners, and no management fees. This fund will also be fully non-custodial and always liquid.

The Commonwealth App is currently in beta mode and has undergone rigorous testing from its community. The app will go live on the zKSync ERA mainnet before 8th April 2024 and TGE of the project’s $WLTH token will be on the week commencing 8th April 2024.

A lot to look forward to coming up very soon with this project! My eyes are certainly peeled.

Jeppopo

It's tough to say how good this platform will be without seeing some performance numbers. But the idea is great.

The real money in crypto nowadays really is in early stage investing. So if they can deliver solid early stage deals, then this could be a great platform. On top of that, investors can fractionalize their investment and sell part of it at any time. This is fantastic because many times in early stage deals, investors are not allowed to sell during an initial lock-up period.

On the downside, this could lead to over speculation.

My biggest doubt about this project is if they will actually be providing early stage deals, or if this will be a platform for project insiders to cash out quickly. I have a feeling that it will be the latter. But I hope I'm wrong.

A couple of funny things that I noticed...

They say that they are building a secure system, but they are on Ethereum, an open, public blockchain.
They are apparently a community of graffiti artists (see picture). Probably not the best marketing image.

But seriously, this could be one to watch.

It's tough to say how good this platform will be without seeing some performance numbers. But the idea is great. 

The real money in crypto nowadays really is in early stage investing. So if they can deliver solid early stage deals, then this could be a great platform. On top of that, investors can fractionalize their investment and sell part of it at any time. This is fantastic because many times in early stage deals, investors are not allowed to sell during an initial lock-up period. 

On the downside, this could lead to over speculation. 

My biggest doubt about this project is if they will actually be providing early stage deals, or if this will be a platform for project insiders to cash out quickly. I have a feeling that it will be the latter. But I hope I'm wrong. 

A couple of funny things that I noticed...

1. They say that they are building a secure system, but they are on Ethereum, an open, public blockchain. 
2. They are apparently a community of graffiti artists (see picture). Probably not the best marketing image. 

But seriously, this could be one to watch.

Tartarian

Common Wealth offers a distinctive investment platform that empowers retail investors to take control of their financial future. Through the utilization of Web3 principles and technology, the platform disrupts, scales, and optimizes the traditional venture capital investment model.

The platform introduces a unique approach where investors' funds are represented by non-fungible tokens. These NFTs can be sold in whole or in part on the platform or external NFT marketplaces, granting investors the flexibility to fractionalize their investments. This enables them to sell a portion of their Fund NFTs while retaining ownership of the remaining shares.

While the concept appears promising, there are valid concerns regarding Common Wealth's ability to ensure consistent liquidity within the platform. The claim of "ensuring liquidity at all times" may not be entirely accurate, and it remains unclear how the company plans to achieve this crucial aspect.

Moreover, the option for investors to split their Fund NFTs into multiple parts raises a notable concern.

Crypto Gad

Investing in this project is as intriguing as the project, but it might seem a bit complex. Let me simplify it for you.

First, let me emphasize that I find this project a 5-star investment. In fact, I've already invested in it since November 2022.

Please be aware that this is not financial advice (NFA), and you should do your research (DYOR) to comprehend the risks involved. My sharing of this information is not financially motivated. The project is currently in its PreSale phase, with all NFTs minted and available for purchase on OpenSea.

Before delving into the investment approach for this project, allow me to clarify that I won't be addressing the "WHY" you should be investing in Common Wealth. I've written numerous reviews on this remarkable project and its tokenomics, which you can read to form your own opinion.

Now, let's discuss how you can become involved in this project.

First, let's consider the two mintings of the Genesis NFTs:

First mint there were 2,000 of the highly coveted Genesis NFT Series 1 ($500 ea.)
These more or less sold out when this project was just a whisper between Degens… It was in full stealth mode, no website, no white paper, no deck, no nada! I remember when my buddy told me about it all there was a short video from Kyle ranting about how this will be a gamechanger and I remember thinking to myself… Do I want to drop $500 on some stealth mode NFT in the middle of this bear market?

Second mint was over 9 days and a total of 3, 414 Genesis NFT Series 2 ($99 ea.) were minted.

All minting is complete, and if you desire an NFT, you can acquire one on OpenSea. Here's how the values break down:

Genesis NFT Series 1 shares 8.80% (88,000,000 $WLTH), translating to 44,000 $WLTH per NFT. This yields a token price of approximately ($500/44K) $0.011363. 💰 💰 💰

Genesis NFT Series 2 shares 2.20% (22,000,000 $WLTH), equating to 6,444 $WLTH per NFT. This corresponds to a token price of roughly ($99/6.4K) $0.015363. 💰 💰

Additionally, a bonus of 4,400 $WLTH will be awarded to every wallet holding both Gen 1 and Gen 2. 💰
Considering these values, if you own one of each ($500 + $99) / (44K + 6.4K + 4.4K), your price is approaching $0.01.

But wait, that's not all!

Both NFTs can be staked, earning you tokens every 24 hours until the TGE (Token Generation Event):
Genesis NFT Series 1 earns 27 $WLTH per day per NFT. 🤑 🤑
Genesis NFT Series 2 earns 5 $WLTH per day per NFT. 🤑

Personally, I've gained around 2,700 $WLTH in 90 days and anticipate this to double or triple by TGE, likely driving my token price below $0.01.

And the final piece of this beautiful offer:

Both NFTs offer lifetime revenue sharing:
Genesis NFT Series 1 shares 12% of platform profits (divided among 2,000 holders). 💵 💵
Genesis NFT Series 2 shares 3% of platform profits (divided among 3,414 holders). 💵

Here are the current prices based on recent sales:
Genesis NFT Series 1: 0.39 ETH (~$724)
Genesis NFT Series 2: 0.15 ETH (~$278)

Series 1 costs just over 2x more than Series 2, but with Series 1, you get:
6.8x more tokens (44K vs. 6.4K)
5.4x higher staking rewards (27 vs. 5 per day)
Significantly higher lifetime earnings.

In conclusion:

The best strategy is to own one of each.
The second-best option is to invest in Series 1.
The third-best play is to invest in Series 2.
Avoid purchasing more than two Series 2 without considering a Series 1 investment, as current prices don't make sense.
Feel free to ask any questions by posting a comment.

Investing in this project is as intriguing as the project, but it might seem a bit complex. Let me simplify it for you.

First, let me emphasize that I find this project a 5-star investment. In fact, I've already invested in it since November 2022.

Please be aware that this is not financial advice (NFA), and you should do your research (DYOR) to comprehend the risks involved. My sharing of this information is not financially motivated. The project is currently in its PreSale phase, with all NFTs minted and available for purchase on OpenSea.

Before delving into the investment approach for this project, allow me to clarify that I won't be addressing the "WHY" you should be investing in Common Wealth. I've written numerous reviews on this remarkable project and its tokenomics, which you can read to form your own opinion.

Now, let's discuss how you can become involved in this project.

First, let's consider the two mintings of the Genesis NFTs:

+ First mint there were 2,000 of the highly coveted Genesis NFT Series 1 ($500 ea.)
These more or less sold out when this project was just a whisper between Degens… It was in full stealth mode, no website, no white paper, no deck, no nada! I remember when my buddy told me about it all there was a short video from Kyle ranting about how this will be a gamechanger and I remember thinking to myself… Do I want to drop $500 on some stealth mode NFT in the middle of this bear market?

+ Second mint was over 9 days and a total of 3, 414 Genesis NFT Series 2 ($99 ea.) were minted.

All minting is complete, and if you desire an NFT, you can acquire one on OpenSea. Here's how the values break down:

+ Genesis NFT Series 1 shares 8.80% (88,000,000 $WLTH), translating to 44,000 $WLTH per NFT. This yields a token price of approximately ($500/44K) $0.011363. 💰 💰 💰

+ Genesis NFT Series 2 shares 2.20% (22,000,000 $WLTH), equating to 6,444 $WLTH per NFT. This corresponds to a token price of roughly ($99/6.4K) $0.015363. 💰 💰

+ Additionally, a bonus of 4,400 $WLTH will be awarded to every wallet holding both Gen 1 and Gen 2. 💰
Considering these values, if you own one of each ($500 + $99) / (44K + 6.4K + 4.4K), your price is approaching $0.01.

But wait, that's not all!

Both NFTs can be staked, earning you tokens every 24 hours until the TGE (Token Generation Event):
+ Genesis NFT Series 1 earns 27 $WLTH per day per NFT. 🤑 🤑
+ Genesis NFT Series 2 earns 5 $WLTH per day per NFT. 🤑

Personally, I've gained around 2,700 $WLTH in 90 days and anticipate this to double or triple by TGE, likely driving my token price below $0.01.

And the final piece of this beautiful offer:

Both NFTs offer lifetime revenue sharing:
+ Genesis NFT Series 1 shares 12% of platform profits (divided among 2,000 holders). 💵 💵
+ Genesis NFT Series 2 shares 3% of platform profits (divided among 3,414 holders). 💵

Here are the current prices based on recent sales:
+ Genesis NFT Series 1: 0.39 ETH (~$724)
+ Genesis NFT Series 2: 0.15 ETH (~$278)

Series 1 costs just over 2x more than Series 2, but with Series 1, you get:
+ 6.8x more tokens (44K vs. 6.4K)
+ 5.4x higher staking rewards (27 vs. 5 per day)
+ Significantly higher lifetime earnings.

In conclusion:

The best strategy is to own one of each.
The second-best option is to invest in Series 1.
The third-best play is to invest in Series 2.
Avoid purchasing more than two Series 2 without considering a Series 1 investment, as current prices don't make sense.
Feel free to ask any questions by posting a comment.

D3Young

Commonwealth is an investment platform using web3 technology to open early-stage crypto deals to retail investors. Funds are represented by fractionalized NFTs that investors can sell parts of while retaining the rest. This provides liquidity and accessibility.

However, reviewers question whether Commonwealth can guarantee liquidity, and if churning shareholders challenges long-term alignment. They argue fundraising is equally about strategic vision, not just funds. Commonwealth must prove it can match top VCs in community building and guidance.

On the positive side, Commonwealth's closed loop tokenomics keep value within the economy via fees, carry, buybacks, and incentives. The vesting schedules signal long-term thinking. While doubts exist on delivering its ambitious vision, Commonwealth's fractionalized fund NFTs are innovative. But significant execution risks remain to become a disruptive VC platform. Commonwealth must address concerns to realize its potential.

RayRay

Jeppopo has gone into great detail on some of the more notable team members of Common Wealth (Tony, Alan, Kyle and Tim), but I would also like to take a look into the rest of the team that are equally important and covers the Marketing leads and Investment Professionals across both TradFi and Crypto industries, which is strongly in line with the product and platform that they are offering.

Apart from being an ex-professional Counter Strike Player, Ian McKie has experience in HR suite as well as digital compliance, and also has had experience in starting up organisations, launching the Queensland Gamers League in the early 2000s.

Connor Ball is currently involved in Social and Operations for CommonWealth, and was previously a research assistant and advisor with MetaVest Cpaital, which invested in notable projects such as Star Atlas, DeRace and CoinWeb. On top of having Investment/advisory experience, he is also entrepreneurial, being a business owner of Half Hearted this year. Interestingly, he also has experience in competitive gaming, just like Ian McKie.

Ankit Jaiswal is extremely well-known for his content on LinkedIn, being listed among the top 50 web3 content creators, and also has strong experience in smart contract and engineering, previously working on Calyptus as Head of Developer Relations, and Tokn Music as the Lead Smart Contract Developer. It seems like from his background, Ankit is currently working on the developer aspect of CommonWealth as an Engineer, and is possibly also involved in content creation.

Adam Bates looks to be involved in Marketing, due to his strong crypto background as currently the CMO of Priority Crypto, a consulting firm, as well as previously being the Chief Marketing Officer for IoHK, the parent company of Cardano. He has also had strong marketing experience with traditional companies such as Madison Creative and this is FARM.

James and Jonathan Wooley are siblings and co-founders of Metavest Capital, where Connor was also previously from. They have strong experience in investing in Crypto startups, and Jonathan comes from a trading background since 2016. James is more entrepreneurial in nature, having founded 2 other companies (Balance New Media & CometoCapeTown)

Josh Meier seems to be more involved in strategy, as he is currently a Managing Partner of Andromeda Capital, a Senior Partner with Latitude Blockchain Services as well as being Strategic Advisors for over 11 projects (possibly portfolio companies of Andromeda). As such, he has extremely strong experience in post-launch strategies of projects as well as building projects up.

Lastly, Nitin Gaur focuses on Technical Advisory, currently also being the Global Head of Digital Asset & Technology Design, and covering Technical Advisory for Portal Asset Management. He has also had experiences in Research with IBM on Digital Assets, even founding IBM's Digital Asset Labs Team.

The team looks extremely strong and with vast backgrounds, they are able to cover for each other as well, and everyone brings on a different aspect of investment/operations to the table.

Jeppopo has gone into great detail on some of the more notable team members of Common Wealth (Tony, Alan, Kyle and Tim), but I would also like to take a look into the rest of the team that are equally important and covers the Marketing leads and Investment Professionals across both TradFi and Crypto industries, which is strongly in line with the product and platform that they are offering. 

Apart from being an ex-professional Counter Strike Player, Ian McKie has experience in HR suite as well as digital compliance, and also has had experience in starting up organisations, launching the Queensland Gamers League in the early 2000s.

Connor Ball is currently involved in Social and Operations for CommonWealth, and was previously a research assistant and advisor with MetaVest Cpaital, which invested in notable projects such as Star Atlas, DeRace and CoinWeb. On top of having Investment/advisory experience, he is also entrepreneurial, being a business owner of Half Hearted this year. Interestingly, he also has experience in competitive gaming, just like Ian McKie.

Ankit Jaiswal is extremely well-known for his content on LinkedIn, being listed among the top 50 web3 content creators, and also has strong experience in smart contract and engineering, previously working on Calyptus as Head of Developer Relations, and Tokn Music as the Lead Smart Contract Developer. It seems like from his background, Ankit is currently working on the developer aspect of CommonWealth as an Engineer, and is possibly also involved in content creation. 

Adam Bates looks to be involved in Marketing, due to his strong crypto background as currently the CMO of Priority Crypto, a consulting firm, as well as previously being the Chief Marketing Officer for IoHK, the parent company of Cardano. He has also had strong marketing experience with traditional companies such as Madison Creative and this is FARM.

James and Jonathan Wooley are siblings and co-founders of Metavest Capital, where Connor was also previously from. They have strong experience in investing in Crypto startups, and Jonathan comes from a trading background since 2016. James is more entrepreneurial in nature, having founded 2 other companies (Balance New Media & CometoCapeTown)

Josh Meier seems to be more involved in strategy, as he is currently a Managing Partner of Andromeda Capital, a Senior Partner with Latitude Blockchain Services as well as being Strategic Advisors for over 11 projects (possibly portfolio companies of Andromeda). As such, he has extremely strong experience in post-launch strategies of projects as well as building projects up.

Lastly, Nitin Gaur focuses on Technical Advisory, currently also being the Global Head of Digital Asset & Technology Design, and covering Technical Advisory for Portal Asset Management. He has also had experiences in Research with IBM on Digital Assets, even founding IBM's Digital Asset Labs Team. 

The team looks extremely strong and with vast backgrounds, they are able to cover for each other as well, and everyone brings on a different aspect of investment/operations to the table.

Adrian

The multi-faceted utility of the WLTH token, as outlined in their litepaper, offers various ways for value accrual. The wide range of token utilities provides an interesting value proposition for token holders.

However, one aspect that I find slightly concerning is the token allocation. A significant portion of the token supply, 21.85%, will be used for public sale without any vesting period. This could result in short-term selling pressure as participants mostly focus solely on immediate gains rather than contributing to the platform's long-term growth. Instead, I would prefer allocating a portion of that supply to enhance Rewards & Incentives or Exchanges & Liquidity, fostering a more sustainable ecosystem.

The use of WLTH as a method of payment also raises some questions imo. Since the token is relatively new, its value is likely to be highly volatile, making it less suitable as a means of payment. Users generally prefer price stability when transacting, which may discourage adoption if the token's value fluctuates significantly.

Lastly, the token's ability to reduce platform carry fees on investment returns is an intriguing aspect of its design. This utility holds great potential, as it can significantly decrease fees from 50% to as low as 10%. However, it's important to consider that carry fees are only applied when the investment is sold or reaches maturity. During unfavorable market conditions or in the early stages of an investment, where no carry has been realized, the token's value in reducing carry becomes negligible. This factor diminishes the attractiveness of staking, especially for short to mid-term investors in a bear market environment.

Big_Ed

Most of the time we see tokenomics that run on either a single, or dual-token model with one for utility and one for governance. However, Common Wealth's Tokenomics interestingly plays around with an NFT and a utility token for value accrual. The utility token, $WLTH is used as typical utiloity token functions - payment of transaction fees, earning of rewards as well as passive income generated. However what's interesting is how the NFT comes into play. Their NFTs, representing stakes in the fund, can be transacted on their marketplace either fully or in parts (I am impressed), and stakers of their NFTs also get rewarded with $WLTH tokens (similar to how stakers of KaijuKingz get rewarded with $SCALE). In the current era of utility-governance tokenomics, it is rare to see a project that utilises the NFT-utility concepts especially in a fund.

It is also interesting to see that their token economics and revenue flow is extremely circular, and it is quite clear how value is flowed into the economy and flowed out of the economy to holders, and every holder of the NFT is able to accrue value via buy-back and burn mechanisms, investment return payouts and also rewards for staking.

The token distribution of their 1billion $WLTH also seems healthy, and although I had initial concerns with the team having 14%, team tokens having a 4 year linear unlock shows confidence in the project instead of providing dumping pressure.

I would only wonder how the specifics of fund governance works in regards
to investments in projects - such as due dilligence, allocation/ticket size, and if either $WLTH or the NFT has to be staked for a certain number of days before having voting power.

Most of the time we see tokenomics that run on either a single, or dual-token model with one for utility and one for governance. However, Common Wealth's Tokenomics interestingly plays around with an NFT and a utility token for value accrual. The utility token, $WLTH is used as typical utiloity token functions - payment of transaction fees, earning of rewards as well as passive income generated. However what's interesting is how the NFT comes into play. Their NFTs, representing stakes in the fund, can be transacted on their marketplace either fully or in parts (I am impressed), and stakers of their NFTs also get rewarded with $WLTH tokens (similar to how stakers of KaijuKingz get rewarded with $SCALE). In the current era of utility-governance tokenomics, it is rare to see a project that utilises the NFT-utility concepts especially in a fund.

It is also interesting to see that their token economics and revenue flow is extremely circular, and it is quite clear how value is flowed into the economy and flowed out of the economy to holders, and every holder of the NFT is able to accrue value via buy-back and burn mechanisms, investment return payouts and also rewards for staking. 

The token distribution of their 1billion $WLTH also seems healthy, and although I had initial concerns with the team having 14%, team tokens having a 4 year linear unlock shows confidence in the project instead of providing dumping pressure. 

I would only wonder how the specifics of fund governance works in regards 
to investments in projects - such as due dilligence, allocation/ticket size, and if either $WLTH or the NFT has to be staked for a certain number of days before having voting power.

Normally, in a VC fund, the fund often have a 2% management fee per year on the amount of capital, which is the case here, although it is capped to 5 years. However, you then have a carry that is split between the LP (investor that are passive) and the GP (people who run the fund). Typically, most of the returns goes to the LP, and a 20% in most cases goes to GP to compensate them for doing a good job... in this case there is no carry, and based on reply below, every LP is also a GP... however if the team has a % of token allocation, then that's similar to a carry except it's not based on financial performance... not ideal. I'll skip the other details, but the point is, in this particular case the team allocated 14% of the token supply to themselves which has nothing to do with financial performance of having picked the right investment targets...

Why are there advisors (even though a reply is below as to why, I'd prefer if these advisors would buy tokens instead of getting them... it's like giving money to Bill Gates for being an advisor, I'm not saying his advice would be worthless, but why would he not just invest, it's not like giving him pennies would matter to him!

GPs typically have to contribute their own money 1% or 2% of the total fund capital (is this the case here?). LP in any investment funds own essentially 98% of the capital and obtain 80% on the growth of the capital (simple math to make things easier to understand). In this case, the LP's (or GPs) own only a small 21.85%, so the question is when investors invest in a project, does the ROI of that investment goes back in the token economy, or it goes directly to the investors based on their investment? (if it's the later, then everything is ok, if it's the first then it's a lot worse than a carry fee).

Crypto funds sometimes generate massive returns compared to non-crypto investments, and becomes liquid much faster (average returns for tech is 25% per year). The question comes back, are the returns distributed through token buyback or something similar, or the returns goes straight to token holders that have made an investment (in which case the token is not directly related).

If I give my money to be managed by an investment fund to manage it on my behalf, I will not be giving it to them so they spend it on marketing and giving out free rewards and incentives to all kinds of people. I want the money to go into generating returns, not chasing after more investors. It's like giving money to red cross and finding out they spend 50% of it on marketing and paying out huge salaries to their executives. (reply below mention that 100% of the invested capital goes into the project, but once I get clarification over where the return of the investment fund is given back to investors I'll have more peace of mind).

If I invest $10,000 how much of that $10,000 actually goes to be invested in a project?? How much of the return of that investment goes back to me? 100%, or it goes back into the token economy through buyback? I suspect this information might be there in the whitepaper and I didn't notice it.

* updated - added 1 star *
Based on the reply below, many of my concerns above have been clarified and resolved. However, to get to 5 stars, I'd like to see the team token to be based on financial performance... similar to a carry structure.

Normally, in a VC fund, the fund often have a 2% management fee per year on the amount of capital, which is the case here, although it is capped to 5 years. However, you then have a carry that is split between the LP (investor that are passive) and the GP (people who run the fund). Typically, most of the returns goes to the LP, and a 20% in most cases goes to GP to compensate them for doing a good job... in this case there is no carry, and based on reply below, every LP is also a GP... however if the team has a % of token allocation, then that's similar to a carry except it's not based on financial performance... not ideal. I'll skip the other details, but the point is, in this particular case the team allocated 14% of the token supply to themselves which has nothing to do with financial performance of having picked the right investment targets... 

Why are there advisors (even though a reply is below as to why, I'd prefer if these advisors would buy tokens instead of getting them... it's like giving money to Bill Gates for being an advisor, I'm not saying his advice would be worthless, but why would he not just invest, it's not like giving him pennies would matter to him! 

GPs typically have to contribute their own money 1% or 2% of the total fund capital (is this the case here?). LP in any investment funds own essentially 98% of the capital and obtain 80% on the growth of the capital (simple math to make things easier to understand). In this case, the LP's (or GPs) own only a small 21.85%, so the question is when investors invest in a project, does the ROI of that investment goes back in the token economy, or it goes directly to the investors based on their investment? (if it's the later, then everything is ok, if it's the first then it's a lot worse than a carry fee).

Crypto funds sometimes generate massive returns compared to non-crypto investments, and becomes liquid much faster (average returns for tech is 25% per year). The question comes back, are the returns distributed through token buyback or something similar, or the returns goes straight to token holders that have made an investment (in which case the token is not directly related).

If I give my money to be managed by an investment fund to manage it on my behalf, I will not be giving it to them so they spend it on marketing and giving out free rewards and incentives to all kinds of people. I want the money to go into generating returns, not chasing after more investors. It's like giving money to red cross and finding out they spend 50% of it on marketing and paying out huge salaries to their executives. (reply below mention that 100% of the invested capital goes into the project, but once I get clarification over where the return of the investment fund is given back to investors I'll have more peace of mind).

If I invest $10,000 how much of that $10,000 actually goes to be invested in a project?? How much of the return of that investment goes back to me? 100%, or it goes back into the token economy through buyback? I suspect this information might be there in the whitepaper and I didn't notice it.

** updated - added 1 star **
Based on the reply below, many of my concerns above have been clarified and resolved. However, to get to 5 stars, I'd like to see the team token to be based on financial performance... similar to a carry structure.

Crypto Rookies

Common Wealth is a unique investment platform that provides retail investors with an opportunity to take control of their financial future. The platform leverages Web3 principles and technology to disrupt, scale, and optimize the traditional venture capital investment model.

Investors' funds are represented by a non-fungible token (NFT), which they can choose to sell in whole or in part on the platform or on external NFT marketplaces. The ability to fractionalize investments allows investors to sell one or more parts of their Fund NFTs while retaining the remainder for themselves.

While the idea seems promising, there are some concerns regarding the platform's ability to ensure liquidity at all times.

The claim of "ensuring liquidity at all times" may not be entirely accurate, and it remains unclear how Common Wealth plans to achieve this.

It is not good for a company if investors can split their Fund NFTs into multiple parts. This raises the red flag that the changing shareholder may not share the same vision. Common Wealth compares with A16Z, Sequoia Capital, and Fenbushi Capital but if a project is funded by these VCs, they shall have the benefit not only the fund but also the vision or their ecosystem. Here is very important. I used to be a founder of a startup funded by Sequoia and they train us to raise the next round, they share the same vision and support during the tough time. I don't see it here.

It is essential to note that fundraising is not just about the funds; it is also about the vision and ecosystem. Based on my experience, I can attest that having a shared vision and support during tough times is crucial, even more than the funds. And if the project is not successful, the investment shall not be as expected.

Fundraising is similar to when you chose your husband/wife. You need to choose the right person instead of handsome, rich or talented one.

Until these concerns are addressed, I would remove 3 stars.

Common Wealth is a unique investment platform that provides retail investors with an opportunity to take control of their financial future. The platform leverages Web3 principles and technology to disrupt, scale, and optimize the traditional venture capital investment model. 

Investors' funds are represented by a non-fungible token (NFT), which they can choose to sell in whole or in part on the platform or on external NFT marketplaces. The ability to fractionalize investments allows investors to sell one or more parts of their Fund NFTs while retaining the remainder for themselves. 

While the idea seems promising, there are some concerns regarding the platform's ability to ensure liquidity at all times. 

- The claim of "ensuring liquidity at all times" may not be entirely accurate, and it remains unclear how Common Wealth plans to achieve this.

- It is not good for a company if investors can split their Fund NFTs into multiple parts. This raises the red flag that the changing shareholder may not share the same vision. Common Wealth compares with A16Z, Sequoia Capital, and Fenbushi Capital but if a project is funded by these VCs, they shall have the benefit not only the fund but also the vision or their ecosystem. Here is very important. I used to be a founder of a startup funded by Sequoia and they train us to raise the next round, they share the same vision and support during the tough time. I don't see it here.

It is essential to note that fundraising is not just about the funds; it is also about the vision and ecosystem. Based on my experience, I can attest that **having a shared vision and support during tough times is crucial, even more than the funds**. And if the project is not successful, the investment shall not be as expected. 

Fundraising is similar to when you chose your husband/wife. You need to choose the right person instead of handsome, rich or talented one.

Until these concerns are addressed, I would remove 3 stars.

Brian Pham

It sounds pretty good idea to democratize the investment into crypto projects. I will focus on concerns only here as other reviewers have talked about the good part of the project. I have a few concerns.

Community Vote for investment decision. It is untested model and chances of failure is high. If majority is not experienced enough in investment decision making, you end up following the herd mentality. I remember node projects in 2021-2022 used to have treasury to invest into projects. People were expecting that bull will last forever and voting for projects that had done very well. But they all end up in bad shape today. All those calls look very stupid in hindsight.

The fee structure. Although 2% on investment and 20%  on profit is hedge fund traditional model. Common Wealth is starting with 50% fee on profit. You can reduce it to 10% by staking 50% worth of WLTH token of your investment for 1 year. Please see attachment. So if I invest $1000, I also have to spend $500 on WLTH token to pay 10% on profit. Which is quite high a tax in my opinion. It will only help early investors who buy WLTH tokens cheap enough.

It sounds pretty good idea to democratize the investment into crypto projects. I will focus on concerns only here as other reviewers have talked about the good part of the project. I have a few concerns.

1. Community Vote for investment decision. It is untested model and chances of failure is high. If majority is not experienced enough in investment decision making, you end up following the herd mentality. I remember node projects in 2021-2022 used to have treasury to invest into projects. People were expecting that bull will last forever and voting for projects that had done very well. But they all end up in bad shape today. All those calls look very stupid in hindsight.
       
2. The fee structure. Although 2% on investment and 20%  on profit is hedge fund traditional model. Common Wealth is starting with 50% fee on profit. You can reduce it to 10% by staking 50% worth of WLTH token of your investment for 1 year. Please see attachment. So if I invest $1000, I also have to spend $500 on WLTH token to pay 10% on profit. Which is quite high a tax in my opinion. It will only help early investors who buy WLTH tokens cheap enough.

CryptoMill

The project seems very impressive and very well-marketed. The website is packed with information, so much so that it took me a while to figure out what the project was trying to achieve. I'm not a fan of being forced to read a whitepaper (which, in this case, is extremely dense). But if you dig into the roadmap, it seems that their plan is unfolding as expected and with 100% success.

The launch video was effective, but it made me cringe a lot. It had that extreme "influencer" feel to it, which would have me running for the hills. But it seems to have engaged perfectly with its intended audience.

There's a generally negative view of NFTs, but I can see why and how this would work in this context perfectly. It seems like a great market fit, and at this point, success seems inevitable.

I'm going to keep an eye on this project. Their marketing so far has been exceptional, and I'm sure it will be used as a benchmark for future endeavors. I gave this project 4 stars because I am not 100% convinced or am convincible by videos and marketing, but as mentioned 5 stars seem inevitable.

P.S. If you're an influencer reading this, I'm not judging. I'm just cringing a little bit.

CryptoBadger

* Rating Has Been Edited *

I will not edit my review content below as I want anyone to see my initial concerns and how the project addressed them. --See Comment Section.

All my concerns were addressed and answered, allowing me to move this from a 3 to a 5 rating.

I particularly like the ideas of...

Standardizing the vesting of the fund to 5 years from TGE regardless of the underlying vesting schedules. This should also help the speculation value of the NFT in the open market.

The potential "liquidity outlook" feature that can give investors an idea of the time required or projected for the revenue returns.


The Original Review --------

When I spotlighted this I was still thrilled to be the analyst covering all the exciting aspects of the project, including tokenomics and the unique features of the NFTs. Unfortunately, things didn't go as planned... lol

One of our fellow analysts, Jeppopo, decided to cover the project, and I think he did a fantastic job.

 As analysts, we try not to duplicate another analyst's perspective as it adds little value to the project. Therefore, I commend Jeppopo for delving so deeply into the project and articulating his reviews so well. If you need a comprehensive understanding of how things work and why we are both excited about this project, I recommend reading his work.

There is only one concern I can think of that hasn't been covered, and it's my only worry. It's a complex issue to explain, so I hope it makes sense to those who are not as familiar with presale and OTC.

While the funds can encompass any type of investment, the primary use case is to provide the 99% (all Streeters) with investment opportunities in early presale rounds, particularly Seed or even Pre-Seed rounds.

This is fantastic, but based on my experience in hundreds of presale rounds, the incubation period from when you fund these rounds to the Token Generation Event (TGE), where the token goes live, can be years (especially in current market conditions). I have investments at much later rounds (private stages) dating back to 2021, and I'm still awaiting their launches.

Furthermore, the earlier the funding round:

The fewer tokens you receive at TGE.

The longer the Cliff (the time from TGE to when vesting starts).

The longer the vesting period (the time it takes to receive all of the tokens).

They have ingeniously mitigated most of my concerns by offering NFTs representing your contribution to the fund. These NFTs can be sold speculatively on any NFT marketplace. However, based on my extensive experience with presale OTC (Over-The-Counter) transactions, these NFTs will likely lose some value, as potential buyers often pay less than the full price when sellers want to exit their positions. Yes, in some cases, they sell for more than face value, but not in most transactions.

Also, I realize this is not true presale OTC as the NFT is an On-Chain asset, but the principle is the same here.

Let's set that aside for a moment and address the core of my real concern. The money contributed to funds is used to purchase investments, and there is no revenue earned or real return for the Common Wealth community until these projects launch and generate revenue. Adding to this challenge is that they have generously offered to make investors whole before the heavier "carry fee" comes into effect, which is the real value capture in the tokenomics.

I am genuinely concerned that it will take a considerable amount of time to get this amazing project off the ground, and I hope that somehow the revenue from the NFT sales and the sale of the $WLTH token can provide enough runway for lift-off.


Median Time Between Funding Rounds (Source: Carta data)

"Without controlling for right-hand censoring, the naive approach provides estimates that range from 14 to 19 months between funding rounds. Only once we include all data points do we get estimates closer to the two-year timeframe. The data also indicates that CEOs need to plan for a longer runway with later funding rounds, as the time span between rounds increases. The differences between series Seed-to-A, A-to-B, and B-to-C are statistically significant at 5%."

** Rating Has Been Edited **

I will not edit my review content below as I want anyone to see my initial concerns and how the project addressed them. --See Comment Section.

All my concerns were addressed and answered, allowing me to move this from a 3 to a 5 rating.

I particularly like the ideas of...

+ Standardizing the vesting of the fund to 5 years from TGE regardless of the underlying vesting schedules. This should also help the speculation value of the NFT in the open market.

+ The potential "liquidity outlook" feature that can give investors an idea of the time required or projected for the revenue returns.


-------- The Original Review -------- 

When I spotlighted this I was still thrilled to be the analyst covering all the exciting aspects of the project, including tokenomics and the unique features of the NFTs. Unfortunately, things didn't go as planned... lol

One of our fellow analysts, Jeppopo, decided to cover the project, and I think he did a fantastic job.

 As analysts, we try not to duplicate another analyst's perspective as it adds little value to the project. Therefore, I commend Jeppopo for delving so deeply into the project and articulating his reviews so well. If you need a comprehensive understanding of how things work and why we are both excited about this project, I recommend reading his work.

There is only one concern I can think of that hasn't been covered, and it's my only worry. It's a complex issue to explain, so I hope it makes sense to those who are not as familiar with presale and OTC.

While the funds can encompass any type of investment, the primary use case is to provide the 99% (all Streeters) with investment opportunities in early presale rounds, particularly Seed or even Pre-Seed rounds.

This is fantastic, but based on my experience in hundreds of presale rounds, the incubation period from when you fund these rounds to the Token Generation Event (TGE), where the token goes live, can be years (especially in current market conditions). I have investments at much later rounds (private stages) dating back to 2021, and I'm still awaiting their launches.

Furthermore, the earlier the funding round:

+ The fewer tokens you receive at TGE.

+ The longer the Cliff (the time from TGE to when vesting starts).

+ The longer the vesting period (the time it takes to receive all of the tokens).

They have ingeniously mitigated most of my concerns by offering NFTs representing your contribution to the fund. These NFTs can be sold speculatively on any NFT marketplace. However, based on my extensive experience with presale OTC (Over-The-Counter) transactions, these NFTs will likely lose some value, as potential buyers often pay less than the full price when sellers want to exit their positions. Yes, in some cases, they sell for more than face value, but not in most transactions. 

Also, I realize this is not true presale OTC as the NFT is an On-Chain asset, but the principle is the same here.

Let's set that aside for a moment and address the core of my real concern. The money contributed to funds is used to purchase investments, and there is no revenue earned or real return for the Common Wealth community until these projects launch and generate revenue. Adding to this challenge is that they have generously offered to make investors whole before the heavier "carry fee" comes into effect, which is the real value capture in the tokenomics.

I am genuinely concerned that it will take a considerable amount of time to get this amazing project off the ground, and I hope that somehow the revenue from the NFT sales and the sale of the $WLTH token can provide enough runway for lift-off.


Median Time Between Funding Rounds (Source: Carta data)

"Without controlling for right-hand censoring, the naive approach provides estimates that range from 14 to 19 months between funding rounds. Only once we include all data points do we get estimates closer to the two-year timeframe. The data also indicates that CEOs need to plan for a longer runway with later funding rounds, as the time span between rounds increases. The differences between series Seed-to-A, A-to-B, and B-to-C are statistically significant at 5%."

* Rating Has Been Edited *

I will not edit my review content below as I want anyone to see my initial concerns and how the project addressed them. --See Comment Section.

One of my concerns was addressed and answered, allowing me to move this from a 3 to a 4 rating.

The other concern (the bigger issue) is still open, but they have stated that they will be circling back to update me on how this is being addressed in v1 of the staking.

The Original Review --------


As something progresses and becomes more advanced, it is likely to encounter a corresponding increase in complications and difficulties.

Common Wealth has positioned itself at the cutting edge by introducing NFTs representing an investor's contribution to the fund so they can exit the position anytime.

 They are also allowing NFT owners to fractionalize their NFTs. For instance, one can split (fractionalize) their NFT into two NFTs, each NFT representing 50% of the contribution. Selling one NFT could allow them to recoup their initial investment while retaining the other NFT as a free money bonus. This fractionalization practice is likely to become common among investors.

That covers advancement; now, let's discuss the increased complications.

Another crucial aspect of the program is staking WLTH tokens for up to four years to reduce the carry fee from 50% to 10%. The duration of the staking aligns well with the concerns I addressed in my other reviews about the incubation time of the funds.

However, what happens if I stake the required amount for four years to minimize my carry fee to 10% and then fractionalize and sell 50% of my NFT on the open marketplace?

Does 50% of my staked WLTH tokens transfer with the NFT? Should I factor this into the sale price?

Will I be "over staked” for that fund since I only own 50%? Will I need to wait up to four years to retrieve my excess tokens?

What if I sell the entire NFT? The same questions apply. What happens to my staked tokens?

I'm certain they will devise a solution, but as an investor, I want all my available funds to be actively working for me rather than being needlessly locked away, so a clear answer is needed here.

** Rating Has Been Edited **

I will not edit my review content below as I want anyone to see my initial concerns and how the project addressed them. --See Comment Section.

One of my concerns was addressed and answered, allowing me to move this from a 3 to a 4 rating.

The other concern (the bigger issue) is still open, but they have stated that they will be circling back to update me on how this is being addressed in v1 of the staking.

-------- The Original Review --------


As something progresses and becomes more advanced, it is likely to encounter a corresponding increase in complications and difficulties.

Common Wealth has positioned itself at the cutting edge by introducing NFTs representing an investor's contribution to the fund so they can exit the position anytime.

 They are also allowing NFT owners to fractionalize their NFTs. For instance, one can split (fractionalize) their NFT into two NFTs, each NFT representing 50% of the contribution. Selling one NFT could allow them to recoup their initial investment while retaining the other NFT as a free money bonus. This fractionalization practice is likely to become common among investors.

That covers advancement; now, let's discuss the increased complications.

Another crucial aspect of the program is staking WLTH tokens for up to four years to reduce the carry fee from 50% to 10%. The duration of the staking aligns well with the concerns I addressed in my other reviews about the [incubation time of the funds](https://cyrator.com/post/648788d45395da68035a3745?ref=63d15d651632ffed3dc90484).

However, what happens if I stake the required amount for four years to minimize my carry fee to 10% and then fractionalize and sell 50% of my NFT on the open marketplace?

+ Does 50% of my staked WLTH tokens transfer with the NFT? Should I factor this into the sale price?

+ Will I be "over staked” for that fund since I only own 50%? Will I need to wait up to four years to retrieve my excess tokens?

+ What if I sell the entire NFT? The same questions apply. What happens to my staked tokens?

I'm certain they will devise a solution, but as an investor, I want all my available funds to be actively working for me rather than being needlessly locked away, so a clear answer is needed here.

‘'What if retail investors were invited to the same private, early-stage sale crypto deals as traditional venture capitalists?’’ – Common Wealth

I am very excited about this project as I believe it is an extremely well thought out project which has a true necessity that is currently required in this industry. Common Wealth’s goal and value in one sentence - to give easy investing access to everyone around the world to the best crypto projects at early investment seed stages they would not usually otherwise have access to. This has the potential to be the first web3 technology that actually gets used by the masses and I for sure will be one of those using the platform once it is up and running.

The idea behind Common Wealth is to create a world where everyone has access to the same investment opportunities no matter what country your from, what your background is, how much money you have or who you know.

In a financial world that until now has been unfair and tilted in the favour towards those with lots of money and their own personal industry connections - meaning only a small, very select few have the edge over the other 99% of all others.

Common Wealth is trying their best to change this with their own investment platform that is for literally everyone. This project will provide an ‘all access’’ pass for retail investors to get opportunities they would not normally ever have access to in the traditional world of investing. With this platform they aim to create a great community of like-minded people, where everyone can help provide each other with wisdom and education so the community can increase their knowledge and in turn their overall standards of investments as a whole.

One amazing feature of Common Wealth’s project which really stands out to me is their token economy. This token economy attempts to be revolutionary by forming a truly circular protocol where all value which is accrued to the protocol is redistributed to the community. I have not seen this type of model executed before in the crypto world and I am very eager to see it attempted.

Ultimately if Common Wealth execute their idea as intended by using web3 principles and technology the traditional, I would say out dated, centralised venture capital investment model will be truly disrupted once and for all.

‘'What if retail investors were invited to the same private, early-stage sale crypto deals as traditional venture capitalists?’’ – Common Wealth

I am very excited about this project as I believe it is an extremely well thought out project which has a true necessity that is currently required in this industry. Common Wealth’s goal and value in one sentence - to give easy investing access to everyone around the world to the best crypto projects at early investment seed stages they would not usually otherwise have access to. This has the potential to be the first web3 technology that actually gets used by the masses and I for sure will be one of those using the platform once it is up and running.

The idea behind Common Wealth is to create a world where everyone has access to the same investment opportunities no matter what country your from, what your background is, how much money you have or who you know.

In a financial world that until now has been unfair and tilted in the favour towards those with lots of money and their own personal industry connections - meaning only a small, very select few have the edge over the other 99% of all others. 

Common Wealth is trying their best to change this with their own investment platform that is for literally everyone. This project will provide an ‘all access’’ pass for retail investors to get opportunities they would not normally ever have access to in the traditional world of investing. With this platform they aim to create a great community of like-minded people, where everyone can help provide each other with wisdom and education so the community can increase their knowledge and in turn their overall standards of investments as a whole.

One amazing feature of Common Wealth’s project which really stands out to me is their token economy. This token economy attempts to be revolutionary by forming a truly circular protocol where all value which is accrued to the protocol is redistributed to the community. I have not seen this type of model executed before in the crypto world and I am very eager to see it attempted.

Ultimately if Common Wealth execute their idea as intended by using web3 principles and technology the traditional, I would say out dated, centralised venture capital investment model will be truly disrupted once and for all.

Common Wealth WLTH

All-in-One Investment Platform