$FWB tokens will still exist, not as a membership, but will play a critical role in FWB membership expansion, fundamental governance, and community currency
$FWB will unlock boosted governance rights when paired with the NFT membership for additional influence over the FWB treasury and to enable the formation of Squads, a new premium tier within FWB that grants those individuals or groups access to mint new membership NFTs outside of the seasonal window, becoming their own distribution channel
Holders of 75 $FWB or more can (since Jan/15) mint a temporary non-transferable membership NFT that will grant access to the FWB App. In April, members will be able to activate the final membership NFT by burning 75 $FWB
Here are the main listed reasons for the adoption of a membership NFT:
Onboard the FWB community to the FWB APP
Establish a sustainable revenue model for the community treasury: Starting on February 1, 2023, membership in FWB will shift from rolling applications to cohort-based applications that occur quarterly. Upon approval, new members will buy the membership NFT from the DAO. They can also obtain a membership pass on a secondary NFT marketplace (10% royalty) to enter the community outside of the cohort-based seasonal application window.
Expand engagement with the FWB ecosystem by creating more open-access channels: differentiation between holders of membership NFT (members) vs. holders of $FWB only (guests). Members receive full access to all FWB experiences, participate in the fundamental co-creation of FWB, and govern the FWB DAO through proposals and voting. Holding varying amounts of $FWB will become a way to gain access to events, digital experiences, and the FWB app (read-only).
Introduce membership entry mechanics that are accessible and sustainable over time: the membership will have a fixed price ($750) and be stable for the primary entry-point (cohort-based applications).
Establish a more egalitarian governance model through a dual NFT + $FWB token voting system: An active membership NFT is required to participate in voting and the membership NFT will be equal to one vote. Each member can only use one membership NFT to vote, but can increase its voting power through $FWB tokens (quadratic)
Our case is much simpler. We won’t have different utilities for the ERC-20 and ERC-721 tokens. We won’t have different membership tiers. We don’t expect to generate revenue by selling memberships. We won’t change how our governance and vote work.
I’m convinced that our simple concept of allowing members to exchange 5,000 $RPINTS for a membership NFT and vice-versa at any time is the best option.
One point that we should discuss is the royalty fee. Considering the holders will always have the option to convert the NFT into $PRINTS and then sell the $PRINTS with no royalties, I suggest we set a base royalty fee, but optional. For reference, the royalty fee of FWB, gmDAO, Admit One and Poolsuite is 10%, PROOF is 7.5%.
I’m not familiar with FWB, but there are definitely some concepts with their nft rollout that I take issue with. Fortunately, your final paragraph cleared most of those points up. One question though - can you explain further a “base royalty fee, but optional”? How would that optional component be done/managed? The point you made regarding the nft → prints then selling the prints is valid. Although the case can be made that the price difference from selling 5000 prints on a swap vs selling one membership nft on secondary will already have the royalty fee spread baked in. ie - the nft will sell roughly the same percent (whatever the fee is) higher on secondary to compensate for the fee.
There really are a lot of nuances to consider with implementing this membership nft.
When adding a collection to a marketplace, artists can set a fixed royalty fee or leave it to the buyer/seller to choose the amount. When the royalty fee is optional, the artists choose the maximum fee, and the minimum is zero.
Because there are always people looking to make a few bucks in arbitrage, the price premium of the membership NFT will probably be equal to the amount of gas required to exchange the NFT into $PRINTS and back again into NFT.
In our case, the royalty fee should be optional IMO, letting people choose if and how much they want to contribute to the DAO.
Thanks, really interesting to see what FWB are doing. Completely agree that our case is simpler though.
Personally I’d leave royalties off but not fussed if they’re on but optional.
Love the physicals idea. However, it does seem to me like we’re forgetting to MVP stuff in Fingerprints… there’s a really simple core idea here that dates back now to August 2022 and seems to have reasonable support. Can we not just get the simple stuff done then come back later to play aorund with interesting virtual and/or physical manifestations, different NFT membership levels etc. etc.?
I’m happy to work with someone to clear up the basics and turn into an actual proposal if there are any volunteers.
I’m in complete agreement. Maybe physicals can be introduced at a future time. Would be open to helping with a proposal if you’re trying to get a group together
I have been talking to some devs about creating a simple smart contract to exchange $PRINTS <> membership NFT. I’m not sure we need the $PRINTS wrapping mechanics.
The missing part of this project is the art representing the membership, which we have yet to reach a consensus on. But we might have relevant updates on that side to share with the DAO in the next couple of weeks!
sounds great! when you say “wrapping technique” what exactly do you mean? as in we don’t technically need the $PRINTS to ‘exist inside’ the NFT? Would agree with that – assuming the alternative is that they’re just held in the NFT contract?
@Klamt.eth and @scottbc27 I’m happy to help write into a simple proposal for voting, scott I can’t friend request you on Discord but if you add me I’ll set up a chat
