By George Ward
On Wednesday, a disagreement arose between Camelot and Onchain Trade, two decentralized exchanges (DEXs). This disagreement led to the termination of their agreement for Onchain Trade’s initial fair offering (IFO). Both companies accused the other of acting badly.
Onchain Accuse Camelot Of Making More Demands
Although still a relatively new concept, an IFO typically involves developers making promises without the involvement of presales, venture capitalists, or safelists. Additionally, a significant portion of the income generated through the offering is typically allocated to token holders, in addition to the traditional benefits of an initial coin offering.
According to Onchain, negotiations for an IFO between the developers and Camelot began, and Camelot charged a fee of 2%, a fee neither party objected to. Camelot also stipulated that Onchain exclusively sells tokens on its platform, a condition to which Onchain agreed.
However, Onchain claimed that at some point during the process, Camelot made “more demands and tried to initiate another round of negotiations.” This action made Onchain uncomfortable, and the DEX terminated its deal with Camelot.
Subsequently, Onchain’s core developers of China descent posted a tweet in Chinese. The tweet clarified that the primary point of contention was Camelot’s alleged insistence on a “no-limit” token sale.
Additionally, the tweet acknowledged that the bear market presented numerous opportunities. However, retail investors lacked the necessary valuation and risk management expertise to evaluate projects properly.
On the other hand, Camelot refuted Onchain’s statements as “untrue.” According to Camelot, Onchain never raised any concerns about this offering’s model.
Camelot Refutes Onchain Trade’s Claims
Meanwhile, Camelot said it chose the 2% fee below the market rate to support the ecosystem and ease the protocol’s transition from zk-syncs. According to Camelot, this fee remained unchanged throughout the process.
Furthermore, Camelot talked about exclusivity, stating that implementing a multiple initial DEX offering (IDO) or IFO model was not feasible. Also, the Onchain team was said to have confirmed their understanding of this fact on multiple occasions.
Subsequently, Camelot accused Onchain’s leadership of acting unethically or lacking experience. As a result of these events, Camelot canceled the deal.
In response, Onchain accused Camelot of engaging in deceitful tactics by causing them to cancel deals with other partners. Onchain argued that Camelot believed the platform could not survive without its support.
Onchain also disputed the notion that Camelot had acted in good faith.