Cancel Bluebonnet Round Airdrop

512mace

BTW - sorry if this sounds insanely dramatic, it's just how I needed to write out my thoughts / speak from the heart.

If there is some type of middle ground I am open to it, but we cannot continue with the airdrop as it is currently stated in the membership proposal IMO.

And to emphasize, the airdrop clause was written by me and I take full responsibility for what I believe now to be a bad idea!

Ruwan

Small correction. The previous round, Zilker II, had a 95% mint rate of accepted applicants.

JacobHomanics

I agree with the sentiments above.

I think a burn of the Zilker into minting a Bluebonnet could be a possible solution. Although I do feel sad about having to ditch my Zilker. I don't want more voting power unless I feel I deserve it or have bought it. The sadness comes from losing a piece of me. It's more of a sentimental thing I guess.

Another solution, which may be way too much work at this stage, is to have a "special" collection minted for current members. They are crafted, minted, and act the same way as the BlueBonnet Collection, however they have no voting power or extra advantages. They are purely aesthetic.

These are my quick thoughts after reading the post. Will provide more input as it comes to me.

512mace

JacobHomanics

I was actually chatting about the idea of a "special" collection with Ruwan. My concern there is that it could dilute the value of the voting Bluebonnet NFT since the artwork would be the same.

Perhaps the "special" collection could work if it was soulbound?

JacobHomanics

512mace Would value become diluted? The "special" collection would be purely aesthetic, therefore the price should be correct for the BlueBonnet Collection.

Is it possible to have the special collection have a voting weight of 0.3 ATX OR have BlueBonnet Collection have 2 ATX? That way we don't completely ruin the value of the collections?

512mace

Went to the NFT Wranglers meetup today and chatted with some future members about this topic. They think that doing an airdrop of voting NFTs isn't fair, but think that doing an airdrop of NFTs with the same look but no voting power is a solid move.

If we were to do that we wouldn't need to pass a new proposal because the Bluebonnet Membership Round proposal reads as this: "Upon the approval of this proposal, a snapshot will be taken of all unique wallet addresses that have participated in voting on any proposal since February 2022. Each eligible wallet will be airdropped a Bluebonnet round NFT as a token of appreciation and recognition for their involvement in ATX DAO's decision-making processes."

I'd argue that whether or not it includes voting power is irrelevant to the above statement.

This might not be possible though... I'll ask.

512mace

Spoke with Clifton. Seems like the only way forward for old members to access the new NFT without giving them extra voting power would be the burn mechanism. If a member wants to burn for the Bluebonnet NFT but is attached to their Zilker NFT, they can Right Click Save and there's a full copy of all the originals by ID on the website's github repo.

CrystalGravy

512mace i'd consider burning my zilker for a bluebonnet, as long as it's not too much extra engineering work. Definitely not essential, though. I wonder how many zilker/genesis folks would also be interested in doing that. If it's just a few, probably not worth creating the burn mechanism if it's a lot of effort.

JacobHomanics

512mace I hope to hear his reasoning behind it. The solution mentioned here doesn't work for me. Following this solution, then we might as well not have any NFTs. "Aren't NFTs just jpegs that you can right click and save?" Point is, it feels like a lousy reason (no offense) to go through with the burning.

I hope to search for a solution to still hold a fair voting power and use my NFTs wherever. In the case of burning, I lose the ability to have it as a twitter PFP and other integrations that will surely follow in due time.

Obviously open to discussion and of course, ultimately comes down to a snapshot vote. Just giving my 2 cents.

JacobHomanics

POTENTIALLY a solution:

We allow EVERY current member to mint a bluebonnet NFT (and of course the accepted new applicants). Then we remove all voting power from Zilker (and maybe Genesis?). That way, everyone gets to upgrade to the new system and gets to maintain their old NFT.

The inspiration for this solution comes from World of Warcraft. When the game first came out, there is a weapon called "Thunderfury". Its a very rare legendary weapon that was incredibly hard to obtain and incredibly powerful. Having it at the time was a status symbol and showed your dedication and commitment to the game and your character. Once a new expansion was released, all of its strong powers (voting power in our case) were nullified and pointless. However it is still seen as a status symbol for people to flaunt or a memento for them to reminisce on.

Burning the NFT is like burning a piece of history. I seek to avoid doing that.

MeganKay

@512mace I completely agree that we need to reconsider how the airdrop is executed. I had not considered the negative repercussions of flooding the market with a bunch of new NFTs. This could disincentive new members to mint and significantly decrease our floor price on the open market if a bunch of members decide to sell their second NFTs.

JacobHomanics I am intrigued by this concept and also see it as a potential solution. Regardless what we do, the actions for original members migrating to a new NFT needs to be easy. I am concerned about losing members who are not currently actively engaged and decide to pop back in a few months and "missed the memo." Air drop to current wallet holders would certainly solve for that. For example, if the disengaged member registers for a token-gated event only accessible to ATX DAO holders, and registers using the same wallet where the original NFT is held, the member could still register.
Thank you for bringing this up as a potential solution, I would love to hear weigh-in from people more tech-proficient than me.

MeganKay

MeganKay to clarify, in this air-drop example we would have to remove access/voting rights from all Zilker/Genisis. It would not be optional, but the NFTs could still be available.
The optional-burn route could also be a solution. But members would have to choose one or the other.

512mace

If we were to do an airdrop of Bluebonnet round NFTs they would have to be randomly generated which is different from what the custom process is going to look like - introducing more complexity.

Another option is to implement a Snapshot voting strategy where no matter how many ATX NFTs you hold, you only get one vote. However, that would flood the market with extra NFTs that don't give you extra votes, so the value of holding on to them would be purely aesthetic and people would probably try to dump them. https://snapshot.org/#/?filter=strategies

I wonder how many current members even want Bluebonnet NFTs.

JacobHomanics

512mace They wouldn't need to be randomly generated. If you want your BlueBonnet, then you need to go through the minting process. If you care enough to have voting power, then surely you'll take the time to mint a BlueBonnet. Yes, it is more complexity, but not too much IMO.

Ncasares

When I compare Zilker to Bluebonnet, it feels like two different NFT projects. Is our NFT artwork core to our brand and member identity? If so, wouldn't we want to be seen as a connected group? Seeing vastly different NFTs on secondary markets will be confusing for people and might even cause trust/credibility issues ("Who is the REAL ATX DAO"?)

That said, invalidating voting power for previous NFTs is challenging b/c it implies that everyone who wants to vote needs to mint a Bluebonnet (or future artwork if we change again.) This also means that the minting portal needs to be available until/unless every Zilker member converts to a Bluebonnet.

As much as I like the Bluebonnet artwork and would love to have one, it seems like we're adding a layer of complication. I favor nuking the airdrop and keeping equal voting power across multiple contracts.

To resolve the identity issue for secondary buyers, we should put up a page on the website that clearly shows artwork for each cohort and contract addresses so people know what they're buying. We could even update the OpenSea banner art to reflect each design/cohort.

JacobHomanics

Ncasares I think care could be taken on OpenSea and ATX DAO Website to clearly display which perks each NFT provides. Since the site is attempting to be central hub for everything then simply having a page like "Want to have voting Power? Click here to buy BlueBonnet on OpenSea. Want a purely aesthetic NFT? Click to here buy Zilker on OpenSea".

As mentioned in my previous comment, is it really a big issue to have someone go through the minting process? It should be simple and straightforward - arguably fun this time around.

EDIT: Maintaining the site so that this is supported shouldn't be a seen as a problem. We ARE here to stay, innovate, and build. We should be willing to do whatever is necessary to be THE crypto capitol of the world.

Ncasares

@JacobHomanics I don’t think it’s a big deal to mint but there are a few things we should keep in mind:

Not every DAO member is fully plugged in to all of the activity around Bluebonnet. If we invalidate voting with Zilker NFTs, we need to have crystal clear communication in multiple places (website, Discord, TG, Snapshot) that directs members on how to mint. We already struggle with keeping people in the loop, so this is a big consideration IMO.
The Bluebonnet mint site will need to be maintained until every Zilker holder mints. What happens if the site goes down and we do t have someone on hand who can fix it?
If we do this again, it could get super messy/confusing for people.

JacobHomanics

Ncasares

Agreed. Luckily the website revamp should help with this. Along with, as you mentioned, clear communication across all platforms.
The way it goes. *shrugs. Its the risk of operations. It is still something to be considered though.
Things can change sure, but AFAIK this is the final membership round that we will be doing.
Of course!

Ncasares

@JacobHomanics whichever direction we go, it should go to vote before we change Snapshot.

512mace

We can't invalidate existing voting power and expect members to go mint. That removes the fundamental value of the ATX DAO NFT. It's unfair to rug people from their voting power and then effectively punish them if they aren't plugged into our info streams. It was never part of the arrangement for ATX DAO members to be required to follow our news.

@Ncasares at the contract level, Bluebonnet is using the existing Zilker contract so it's actually pretty simple - hence the rationale behind nuking the airdrop but adding burn. All the Genesis, Zilker, and Bluebonnet NFTs are the same token with different images. Introducing the airdrop without voting power is going to be too ugly on OpenSea TBH and have implications on the secondary value of our NFT that are hard to predict.

I personally think that perhaps my personal preference for the Bluebonnet NFT is skewing the importance of this issue. We should keep it simple by doing the burn as an option. It's better for the way our organization presents itself.