Considering that we will follow up with a proposal, I wanted to explore it further and advocate for a specific kind of NFT, that could be attached to existing digital identities.
It would not be a pfp, nor art. It’d be a symbol, like the nouns glasses, that could be attached to existing pfps.
FPs pfps would not have enough recognition power to substitute current high end pfps (punks, bayc or nouns) and FP NFTs as art would not help with digital identities.
We could brainstorm about this, but I’m quite sure we would maximize the FP brand exposure if the NFTs are part of existing digital identities.
My suggestion would be something like a virtual tattoo (maybe FP’s logo) that could me attached to pfps (and maybe a visual tool to build the images for social
media)
I love the concept. Using the FP brand to ‘mark’ existing pieces - allows users to retain their preferred pfps but also injects FP’s presence into it.
How would it work in practice? Build a contract where you can submit an NFT to mint a “new” version of it with the FP ‘tattoo’ on top of it?
From the creative perspective we might be best served by putting this concept out to artists and letting them try to come up with their own takes on how this could be done.
I really like the idea of a symbol – great (and easy) starting point. Would love to see the more technical version of the NFT owner being able to choose the ‘background’ NFT for their membership symol to sit over. Perhaps tie to only NFTs in their wallet, too, otherwise it’s a bif weird around sale/transfer? But agree in the first instance it doesn’t need to be this technical/complicated.
For an initial version I’d prefer keeping the nft membership tied to a simple 5k points only – it’s the easiest way to represent membership and avoids confusion. Also simpler for a newcomer to understand (1 NFT = 1 memerbship = 5k PRINTS) which should aid liquidity. Can branch out later if the need is there.
FYI SquiggleDAO is currently voting on a one-way conversion from ERC-20 to NFT for membership. Personally I think our proposed dual-track approach is better, but it will be interesting to see how theirs plays our as it looks likely to be approved.
Bringing this conversation back to PFPs. I suggest that we implement a SoulBound Token which represents membership in the community. There are a couple of no-code protocols that allow communities to issue these credentials.
Some functions of SBTs include:
Non-transferable
Non-purchasable
Revokable.
One bonus is that traits are updatable, meaning you can have a badge with 1000+ traits, some examples include Fungigble/Non-fungible tokens held, Membership Tier, AMAs joined etc.
I think this will be vital when it comes to governance, as members will be able to discuss/delegate/vote depending on the traits attached to the Badge. Voting power can be customized depending one what traits are/are not attached.
I’m part of a project called Metopia- which has created what I’ve stated above- it’s a concept called Reputation Governance. Would love for the community to explore this and let me know. I’d be super happy to hop onto a call with the community etc.
being able to list your membership NFT on Opensea (thus improving liquidity);
observe past trades and use existing tools made for trading NFTs;
ease of commercialization in IRL transactions, very important for IRL events in which we might wish to sell memberships (and ERC-20 sales are disallowed for being more contentious);
opportunity to upgrade our SC to allow for governance functions like on-chain voting, delegation and automatic transaction execution, which is also something we really want to do to increase the DAOs standard of governance and security.
with a few problems to be solved:
transition from existing ERC-20 to the new standard would require members to willingly trade their existing $PRINTS tokens for the NFTs, however, I assume this could only be done in multiples of 5k $PRINTS, thus raising the question of what to do with leftover $PRINTS;
very unlikely that we’d see all members bothering to convert, thus increasing the complexity of governance by having two different valid tokens at the same time;
an airdrop wouldn’t work as people would have doubled voting power and could generate confusion and fear of a scam;
a minimal UI would have to be spun up to allow members to trade one NFT for the other (+development work);
people would lose the ability to acquire fractions of a membership and fine-tune their exposure to FP;
we’d lose the ability of creating lower membership tiers (in case we’d like to, in the future).
I might be wrong in assuming the desired scenario is a complete transition from one token standard to another, and even burning the old token. It might be possible to have both going at the same time without critical issues, but I really dislike the increased complexity, even if only for marketing purposes on a thing that is already complicated as is.
If we can solve or minimize these issues, we should do this asap.
A proper campaign rallying/assisting members to convert might do the trick.
As for the art on the NFT itself, as much as I like @renatoshira 's idea of having it be a mask (tattoo) to leverage digital identities, I think the added complexity (and development work) associated with this wouldn’t be worth the squeeze. I think a simple, cool collection designed by one of our partner artists should suffice.
Nice summary. Agree with the benefits, as for problems I don’t think it’s that difficult to overcome most of these if we keep things simple – and I actually think it makes it clearer for marketing.
Run both ERC-20 and NFT alongside each other
Memberhisp NFT is just a wrapper around 5k ERC-20 $PRINTS (not a variable amount, this is very confusing)
Want to be a fingerprints member? Buy the membership NFT. Simple message. We can also have a more complicated page that explains the ability to buy PRINTS instead, but the headline is a lot simpler.
Can still acquire fractions of membership at anytime (and also use any amount of PRINTS as compensation)
Simple interface for wrapping and unwrapping anytime is apparently not expensive / technically difficult to build
Agree there is some complexity in running dual-standard membership for things like voting, but it’s been handled elsewhere for ages and my understanding that mapping 1 NFT = 5000 votes is already built in to snapshot (e.g. the Proof of Beauty ecosystem is managed using $LONDON tokens and also NFTs with different voting powers – actually a lot more complicated than we’re proposing)
wrapping / unwrapping will also be incentivised if any arbitrage betwen the ERC20 and ERC721 prices occurs so we can leave the price to the market
If we keep it simple, it’s pretty easy IMO.
Leave the complicated artwork until later. And leave different membership tiers until later too (we have no agrement on those anyway!). As a draft example answer there we could have “full member” NFTs which wrap 5k PRINTS and “associate member” or something NFTs wrapping 1k PRINTS. Similar to how other memberships have Gold and Standard tiers.
I got a quote from a couple of devs we have worked with in the past to develop a simple smart contract that will allow the exchange of 5,000 $PRINTS into a membership NFT and vice-versa. The price range is 5-7k USDC, which seems to be fair.
Hello everyone, this is basically 2 parts. Throwing out ideas, so feel free to shoot them down :
1. I’ve been thinking about a good format for the $PRINTS<->NFT exchange. Obviously, we want to establish value/benefits for people who have a large stake in $PRINTS in some way. Ultimately, the goal is to build demand for $PRINTS (which will inherently add that value).
A concern - the potential to “flood” the market with multiple fingerprints NFTs per member
An option/solution to this is one NFT per member at any given time. Why? This would provide exclusivity (rarity). We’ve all seen it done and it works in this space. It just does.
Two paths to obtain the NFT - If someone who isn’t a fp member wants to be a holder of the Fingerprints NFT, they can swap ETH for 5000 $PRINTS, then stake the $PRINTS into the membership NFT (It’s not that difficult of a process via a uniswap link.) Or buy a fingerprints NFT on a secondary marketplace, BUT this removes the selling member’s single membership NFT they own. They then have to go stake another 5000 $PRINTS to get another. Why? This paces things so that a large $PRINTS holder doesn’t “dump” on the nft set. It’s a form of protection imo. The main advantage I see to this is that it keeps the set number down to a low number that doesn’t have wild fluctuation with a roughly 1:1 ratio of member to nft.
I’m just putting this out there as we don’t want outside people (potential investors) thinking they’re going to get rugged with an endless supply of potential NFTs within a set. Especially given the fact that these will not be cheap NFTs and will subsequently attract higher end holders with more sophistication in the space.
2. What’s on the NFT?
This is really the key. If we get this right, demand for $PRINTS will be there whether via the NFT or uniswap.
Fingerprints is “the hub for blockchain art”, the DAO champions and supports blockchain artists. Imagine the Fingerprints NFT as an art gallery in itself.
The Fingerprints NFT could be a way to offer artists an “exhibition” for a piece of art to be showcased.
For continuity of membership, the art displayed would need to be the same artist and piece among all holders.
Perhaps at the bottom of each token there could be a small fingerprints glitch watermark that would remain no matter what piece of art was on “exhibition”.
Given the DAOs reputation, I believe high caliber artists would want this exposure. Being a featured fingerprints NFT artist would carry some gravitas as it were for both, the artist and the artwork.
This can be expanded on at greater length if there is interest in the idea. Perhaps a quarterly rotation for the artwork displayed? Maybe 6 months to a year? It cannot be too frequent, as it would lose its importance to the artist/piece. Also, perhaps after the “exhibition” window is over, each fp member is airdropped a numbered edition 1/265 → 265/265 w/ fp watermark (this could provide the value to holders that we’ve been looking for) while the original 1/1 is auctioned off for the artist’s benefit.
Just some ideas. Would love to hear yalls thoughts. Thanks for reading.
The idea of a rotating gallery that’s “always on display” is actually very cool. I don’t know anything about the development/contract side of things - how easy/difficult is that to do?
Rotating is nice. PoB did this with Public Piano – guest artists updating the token data – but it ran out of steam (they got distracted). Would love for us to use this.
On NFT limiting, I think it’s probably impractical to enforce and likely unncessary. Given PRINTS are freely traded + wallets easily created there’s little protection possible. It is worth making clear on the collection description that supply can go up and down, though.
Thanks for your comments, here’s my take on the suggestions:
Capping the membership NFT to one per member: I understand the motivation behind it but I don’t see how this could work once we move to on-chain governance (which will only be possible through the membership NFT, not the old ERC20). The only way for people with lots of $PRINTS to wield their voting power would be through holding many NFTs.
Making the NFT itself a gallery: I’m not sure this added complexity would be worth it (we’d have to come up with a system to elect which artwork would be displayed and constantly maintain it/manually update it). I also worry that this might make outsiders a bit confused, specially if it’s basically the same image as another NFT from an existing collection, and also constantly changing.
——————
As an alternative, what we could do is use @davidlisser 's renderings of rocks with Autoglyphs markings on them as the art in the membership NFT.
We could make many variations of these (different rock shapes, different glyphs markings) and use that as a simple membership NFT image.
I know an artist who can manufacture these out of solid brass, so we could have members order their membership rocks if they wanted and have this little sculpture on display. We could even pair this with the staking features currently in development.
Here’s an example of her work (photograph of real object, not a rendering):
This would be cool, simple, fast and would greatly expedite launching of the NFT membership.
We could manufacture some rocks and take them to IRL exhibitions/fairs that we eventually participate in, and sell them tied to Fingerprints memberships. It would make the offer a lot more interesting/sellable to the non-initiated.
I guess I’ve lost the thread here. So this is to say that the traces project will not just be for a wrapped version of a FP NFT any longer and will be a standalone membership NFT which everyone will have the same version of?
If that’s the case, why not borrow from SALT and have each member NFT cycle between Fingerprint holdings? (Assuming the collection allows such uses in its terms) Allows the marketplace for the prospective member to be a cross section of the DAOs holdings and eliminates the need to create something entirely new.
This is unrelated to the traces project; this is a ERC-721 focused on being a membership NFT for the DAO and replacing $PRINTS ERC-20 with a more modern contract with on-chain governance features.
Got it. I guess I had always thought that traces was to be used as the means to the membership NFT. I.e. stake 5K prints get membership token / wrapped NFT. Unit explained the differences. Ignore me!
:
