🧑‍🚀What problem is Astronaut solving?

The current BSC “IFO” or “IDO” model is too controlled, and manipulated. What more, it requires a very hefty KYC and a selection process that only the top projects can even dream of getting listed on a IFO “launch”. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it surely has a huge catch to it.

Current launches on DeFi platforms require LP raises that are usually paired as half BNB and half the native token of the platform. For projects launching on these DeFi’s this means that only half of the “hard cap” is the new projects raise. Let us break this down for you so its a bit easier to understand.

We will use the "Ditto" IFO which launched on Pancakeswap as an example:

Notice that the (USD) raise is $630,000, and Cake to burn (USD) is $315,000 this is because of the LP pair of BNB-CAKE that goes into the pool to stake for the IFO. DItto receives the BNB portion of the IFO $315k and Pancakeswap receives the CAKE portion $315k; this is the first thing we will cover. More so notice Total raised (% of target) is at 632.45%, this is what we will cover as well.

What does the raise mean and where does it go? The IDO model raised $630,000 in liquidity but only $315,000 went to the project that people are actually putting thier hard earned money into entering. The other $315,000 was taken by Pancakeswap and burned. Meaning they benefitted 50% of the amount by just burning some of their tokens as if they "team sold tokens". Astronaut believes this is a unfair model for projects as they work hard and deserve a much higher amount of the funding. We ask a simple question, why not just charge the projects a fee to use your launchpad? Its more fair, less manipulative and allows new projects to actually get a real kickstart.

The second issue concerns investors more than projects. If "you" were an investor in Ditto during their IFO and you staked $1000 to receive x amount of tokens. You would receive 1/6.3 amount of the tokens you actually wanted to receive. This is because the total target raised was oversubscribed. Some projects oversubscribe in the multiple thousands of %'s.

This becomes a very large issue for both investors and projects when liqduity is pumped into the market during the first couple of days or hours. "Whales" are willing to pay very high slippage fees to grab tokens at large amounts before the smaller players can. They then allow the token to 2x-3x and dump the token sending the project into chaos and having to figure out how to rework up the liqduity since they profited it all. This landscape makes for an unfair advantage during your typical IFO for a small player. Question is how do we stop this? Should it be stopped?

Astronaut will solve this problem with a simple system and both potential to enter the "IDO" model of a launch which will be public and the Astronaut - Rocket Protocol model which will allow NAUT native token holders to both have governance on new projects potentially being launched and have a reserved pool spot for the new launches coming through our platform.

Furthermore, why would projects want to use Astronaut to go to the moon? This is because we will not be taking 50% of the raised amount. The projects launching on our platform will have a fixed fee paid according to the amount of raise reached. We will also have third party locks on the new projects liquidity to keep our community and enviorement rug pull free and safe.

Learn more through tiered pool launch section.