Alert Icon

ATX DAO has migrated to a new forum

We could adjust the voting strategy on our Snapshot such that any number of NFTs would only give an address one vote. This would allow us to distribute the new NFTs as described in the original proposal while moving in the direction of decentralization.

As long as the NFTs are transferrable, there's the potential for an individual to build greater voting power than other individuals in the organization if they have the funds to pull listed NFTs off the open market and perform a sybil attack across several addresses. It would however, be pretty straightforward to see someone doing this with the airdropped NFTs.

I would suggest that we continue with the original proposal, but we require the following

  1. Eligible members must claim their Bluebonnet NFT within a certain time period - say a month. This will further reinforce that we're distributing these as a way to reward ongoing active members.
  2. We pass a Snapshot proposal to move to a "one member, one vote" governance model along with serious penalties for those caught performing a Sybil attack. (We can keep track of all the addresses for members to check this)

Perhaps it would also be possible to open this claim after new members have joined? Just to offset the distribution from the announcements and reduce the number of eyes on the market listings.

If we go down this route, we might need to open up vote delegation and provide some education around that. Many of our snapshot proposals have narrowly passed quorum due to the extra voting power of active members. It really depends on how many of the new folks stay actively involved in governance.

Just a security note for the air drop. If that's the route. The team has probably already handled this, but just in case.

I MAY have voted from different wallets across multiple proposals. (Just to test out the robustness of the security since I new there was an airdrop previously. ) So you can't just pull the active addresses from snapshot in order to determine unique token holders. The airdrop needs to identify each active token and drop to the last active wallet address for that token.

    bobwith2bees

    @RobertoTalamas and I have been working with Clifton on the technicals of the process and it may reduce some concerns overall.

    In order to claim the airdrop, existing members will have to submit their preferred NFT design between July 3rd and July 20th. If they fail to do this, they will not be given an extra NFT. When they submit their design they will have to list their name, email, and wallet address.

        Super awesome to see all the engagement in this governance decision. Shoutout specially to @512mace for putting so much thought into this and bringing this up for discussion.
        I know I am late to the party, but wanted to drop a few thoughts here:

        I see the two sides of the argument and see the pros and cons for each. If we airdrop the NFTs to current members, this will effectively dilute their voting power compared with more "senior" members. If we don't, current members (from Zilker I onwards) will miss out on a sick ass NFT, and feel that the work they put into the DAO over the last year does not reflect in higher voting power the same way it did for the Genesis round.

        More so than whether to airdrop Bluebonnet to current members or not, I think the underlying crux of the discussion here is why do some people even have 2x voting power as others.

        We are effectively implementing Seniority into our organization but acting as if it isn't there. We either truly implement the 1 person (not NFT) 1 vote approach (through any technical approach - more on this later), or we make it clear to new incoming members that they will have less voting power compared to more senior members.

        I would like to believe that most of us would chose the former, and here are a few ways in which this could be implemented (in order of personal preference, little account for the underlying engineering lift):

        1. Airdrop Bluebonnet to all unique 153 holders, and render Genesis and Zilker NFTs useless.

        Genesis and Zilker would only be a cool memorabilia, they would not give you access to the discord nor have voting power.

        2. Implement some way of tracking wallet ownership and enabling only one vote per wallet.

        This is similar to what @realitycrafter proposed. A way in which we track who owns what wallet and the NFTs associated with it.

        3. Don't airdrop bluebonnet to current members and make Genesis NFTs vote-less.

        May be unfeasible as I think not all Genesis members received Zilker.

        All in all, regardless of the option we pursue, we need to remove the 2 votes some people have (or may have in the future). This seems essential for the future of the org that is aligned with what we preached and equitable regardless of seniority.

          SamPadilla what @realitycrafter was referring to was exploring a "voting strategy" that made # of NFTs irrelevant to voting power. https://docs.snapshot.org/user-guides/strategies/voting-strategies

          1. @JacobHomanics brought up this exact idea and I think it's solid, but we would have to explore it via Snapshot voting strategies, not by creating an entirely new collection because that's too ugly and confusing on chain / on opensea etc.

          2. We struggle even keeping track of who is a member, so I don't think this is a feasible option admin-wise.

          3. 12 of 24 Genesis Members received the airdrop, and it's the same contract as Zilker (just with a different image IPFS) so this would be similar as 1.

            Bluebonnet is also using the same contract as Zilker, so yeah - if we want to flatten out the votes we just have to do a Snapshot voting strategy, which is fine.

            Also - for what it's worth re: Senority @SamPadilla. I did tell some of the prospective members that some founders had 2x NFTs and they understood. I think it's the sheer volume that could happen with the Bluebonnet airdrop that is potentially destabilizing.

            I guess the question I want to know the answer to right now is: do we put a proposal on Snapshot about whether or not to proceed with the airdrop or do we put a proposal on Snapshot about flattening the votes?

            It's also important to note that if we implement a Nouns style membership like we are hoping to do, having incumbent members that worked on the organization with extra voting power would be beneficial for the organization since someone could accumulate as many ATX Nouns as they want.

            Give me and @JacobHomanics a couple days to dig into the Snapshot Voting Strategies and then I'll write up a proposal!

            Thanks for all the rigorous discussion!

            512mace

            Great to see security continues to be a priority.

            This is why I love ATX DAO - I'm not the smartest person in the room! *

            • Please do not use for promotional purposes as it is a bit self-incriminating. :-)

              I am putting Brennan's solution here as I improperly explained it on the weekly meeting.

              1. Axe the airdrop entirely
              2. Upgrade the current smart contract to allow for genesis/zilker NFTs to optionally upgrade to BlueBonnet artwork/metadata.
              3. Remove voting power from genesis (doesn't solve entirely, but helps to flatten voting weight).

              This potential solution solves the voting weight problem in the short term (In order to solve it entirely would require something gitcoin passport). It also keeps things clean by still only dealing with 1 NFT Collection. It also removes the concerns around flooding the market with more (unneccesary) NFTs, thus helping out the treasury in the long run. Along with the concerns surrounding the airdrop being a legal issue if someone sells.

              I don't think this is that "perfect answer", but at least one to add to the pool of options for the proposal.

                JacobHomanics Thanks for communicating this to the group!

                My main intent with the contract upgrade and meta data updates is to address a problem that was communicated to me roughly along these lines, "As an existing DAO member, I want to be able to customize my art using the minero tool and have the reflected on (one of) my membership NFT(s)".

                The solution that had been communicated to me about this was to include zilker and genesis members in an airdrop of the bluebonnet round tokens - leaving genesis members with 3 tokens, zilker members with 2 tokens, and bluebonnet members with 1 token. This conflates the "I want to customize my art" user need with "As an incumbent, I want increased governance weight".

                By introducing the possibility of upgrading the contract to allow for token URI updates (which would facilitate minero generated metadata being associated with a member's existing token) we fully decouple the desire to have the new customizable art from the more controversial distribution of governance weight and dilution of token supply.

                I see it as an optimal comprimise between "only bluebonnet members get an NFT" (no new art, no additional governance weight for incumbents) and "everyone should get a bluebonnet NFT" (everyone gets to customize / get new art, everyone gets additional transferable governance token).

                I believe that while this slightly increases the encapsulated complexity required for implementation (engineering lift to facilitate contract upgrade and process for updating token URIs for existing members), it significantly reduces systemic complexity associated with the "airdrop + 1 address 1 vote snapshot strategy" approach (no sybil attacks, no need for long term commitments to external software like gitcoin passport, no potential dilution of secondary market).

                Assuming the implementation for contract upgrades that @JacobHomanics and I discussed can be feasibly implemented by next Monday, I think we will end up with significantly fewer headaches over all by simply giving people the option to update artwork on existing NFTs rather then minting everyone a new one. However, this will mean that in order to get an NFT with the new artwork, a member will need to forfeit their original zilker art as the primary image linked within the metadata. That said, I believe we could still include the link to the original image in the token URI's metadata so that it is not lost for ever - it just wouldnt be displayable on applications such as opensea.

                A note on the snapshot strategy that @JacobHomanics mentioned. The intent of this is to achieve a "one member, one vote" system given the CURRENT unequal distribution of vote power. This snapshot strategy would NOT allocate voting power to wallets based on their ownership of a genesis NFT (token ids 1 through 25). This means that only Zilker and Bluebonnet NFTs would be used for governance and genesis members would not receive double voting power.

                Due to the increased manual work required on the engineering side, I believe that any proposal to go forward with this should allow for compensation of the contributor who prepares the contract upgrade and establishes a token URI update process for existing members - if they so desire.

                  I should note, another option may be to airdrop bluebonnet to all members and then implement a voting strategy that ignores token ids 1 - 165 (genesis and zilker) for the purpose of calculating voting power

                  It seems far simpler to just stay the course of the original Bluebonnet proposal and introduce a snapshot proposal to flatten the voting strategy.

                  In that case, I would argue that a snapshot strategy which nullifies genesis and zilker token ids would be more aligned with the goal of having the new token airdrop not result in uneven governance weight than a snapshot strategy which implements "one address with atleast one token, one vote"

                  However, it would remove the possibility of existing members sending their NFT to friends as a way of bypassing the application / purchase process to attain membership - which may or may not be desirable.

                    I guess the biggest concern with that would be an excess of NFTs that could flood the market? Idk, I personally have no interest in dropping any of mine. Gotta have that cred. We also didn't have Genesis members selling after the last airdrop.

                    I'd be curious to know the number of unique NFTs that were used to vote proposals. If we check each of the wallets that voted for an NFT, I expect we would see a lower number of potential airdrops.

                      realitycrafter Ah yeah I see what you mean. That way its impossible for people who did not set their artwork and claim token to be left behind.

                      If they do not claim can we autogenerate the metadata and airdrop? This may be non-trivial depending on the minero process

                        Powered by: FreeFlarum.
                        (remove this footer)