Cancel Bluebonnet Round Airdrop

brennanmulligan

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.

realitycrafter

brennanmulligan

Yes, that is also viable. Just a bit more costly as we would need to airdrop instead of claim.

realitycrafter

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.

512mace

realitycrafter Here's my document I used to do analysis on the wallets. We'd probably want to run a more thorough analysis before we execute on anything but it's good to look at.

Methodology was just downloading a .csv of each proposal and uploading it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ORB-omN9uaXM1_lTDOTmi_JQty9XQxJlZPybWgrphHc/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=109041404457614047357

brennanmulligan

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

JacobHomanics

According to my conversation with @clifton (feel free to express your thoughts here as well!):

CAN DO:
Mint new tokens with new metadata on existing smart contract.

CANNOT DO:
Upgrade existing smart contract.
Change currently minted NFT metadata.

clifton

The new proxy contract will necessarily need to be the owner of the existing NFT contract. On this proxy contract we can handle the authorization/verification of ETH addresses, payment and ensuring they get the NFT they created through minero. This would be done via merkle proof (we've used this for previous rounds but it would be a little more complicated since it would need to also verify the nft metadata).

If we wanted, we could offer a trade-in mechanism for burning an old nft in exchange for a new one. Therefore there would basically be two public functions: mint(...) and tradeIn(...).

512mace

Proposal is live!

https://snapshot.org/#/atxdao.eth/proposal/0x3abf935a3e0692cc8a3c0644b7e46b8ef23ce358a6864aa272b1c6355f6a8a32

realitycrafter

This vote ends in a couple hours. It really seems like a vote for the identity of the DAO.

Are we a pyramid structure based on seniority or a relatively flat organization with a couple founding members slightly elevated?

I've been thinking about this issue for a while and I've come to the conclusion that extra NFTs / voting power based on tenure is a pretty crude method of distributing voting power. If we were to really lean into REP as a way of tracking involvment in the org, we could use it as a multiplier on voting power. This would give new members a way of building additional voting power through their contributions.

With this in mind, I am changing my vote to burn exchange instead of airdrop.

« Previous Page