So the recent proposals of 50% of the outstanding tokens allocated to FP would produce:
7.5m Tokens to RAW treasury
1.25mm tokens to FP treasury
what happens to the 1.25mm remaining tokens? I assume to the funders of the initial piece?
It bothers me that the hearts and minds of this project, aka Luiz/lucapons (and others I am missing) are not correctly incentivized here?
Very very supportive of RawDAO. Love that we are taking this step forward. Will vote accordingly when presented
@luiz and @damico proposal seems reasonable and fair, since at inception, FP community and FP´s core people will have a substantial contribution for the successful launch of RAW. Later on, FP stake will be diluted over time leaving enough room for new members of RAW.
Let´s vote on it!
Can I propose we have a community call to as well to discuss. I had a few assumptions here that I’d like to chat through: What’s the more specific breakdown of the 1.5mm tokens to be airdropped to photographers and others? I think the believe is that this 1 photograph is a bit out of place in fingerprints and this is way to “feather” (like Flamingo) the emerging photography NFTs. It is risk if this will be viewed as a worthy anchor but I think the goal is that with the airdrop and treasury they will be able to be the market-maker in this niche of NFT art. I also want to understand what liquidity if any will there be for any 1 member or Fingerprints in general?
Just voted, but I’m low conviction on actual numbers, so wouldn’t be opposed to what others want
I agree we should have a community call.
My proposal is to do it next Monday or Tuesday 6:30pm EST.
We can record the call for people who won’t be able to attend.
My apologies I’m OOO next week. Very happy to listen to the recording or happy to attend if after 10/4
I will not be able to attend the call so as a not-so-active member of Fingerprints, I’ll leave my opinion here:
As the incubator Fingerprints should probably target an ownership amount lower than the one proposed (750k) to match closely what a seed investor in startups would aim for (10-20% outstanding).
The reasons are multiple:
First, while other projects incubated by Fingerprints all fall within the realm of gen art and FP itself was initially a bet on the most established collection in that NFT vertical, RAW aims to do something completely different. RAW intends to bring a vertical (photography) that has not had much traction in the NFT space and that is in itself a more challenging and complex goal. In my own experience buying NFTs, on-chain such as Autoglyphs just clicked when I learnt about them, while I still have to fully conceptualize NFT photography. I would venture most NFT buyers are on the same boat as I am. Given the difference between these two concepts, I think RAW would probably benefit from a larger separation from Fingerprints.
The question of how much should FP own is a question of who is taking the most risk and who should capture the most upside: incubator, FP members that invest or contributors? While most here agree contributors should be rewarded, I would look at it in terms of risk. IMHO, contributors bear the most risk while the incubator bears the least (with investors in the middle). Hence having FP own 30%, investors 10% and contributors 60% does not feel like the right distribution at least on the FP/investors part.
Out of the last point, we can derive the issue of aligning incentives between FP members. If FP owns 30% of the outstanding supply, that gives existing FP members less of an incentive to invest new money into it, as they already have enough upside in the new DAO through FP. Moreover, there is free rider problem in which FP members might not feel as incentivized to contribute to RAW DAO compared to FP members that have put in fresh capital, since FP would own 30% while investors would only own 10% of the supply.
Hence, my proposal would be to change the distribution to 250k for FingerprintsDAO and 750k for FP members who wish to contribute. Then, if a share of the 750k reserved for FP members is not fully allocated, FP could raise its initial stake (ideally I think the 1M stake for capital is too high, but I understand if that is what @luiz and the other initial backers want to raise).
Ps: I’ve thought about this for a couple days but wrote it in 10 minutes, so forgive any mistakes or ideas not clearly developed.
Hey everyone, this is Spencer Noon from Variant 
— great to see all of the thoughtful dicussion here.
Overall, I am strongly in favor of Fingerprints incubating RAW DAO.
As an early-stage crypto VC who has experience with incubated projects, @luiz’s proposal of allocating 7.5% of the fully diluted token supply to Fingerprints is within the right order of magnitude we typically see with incubations.
Additionally, if Fingerprints is doing a lot of the heavy lifting on operations, then allocating 10% or even up to 20% may be more reasonable.
Importantly, this allocation should preserve strong alignment among Fingerprints, RAW, as well as their respective communities if we want this initiative to thrive long-term. To illustrate the failure modes:
Ultimately it’s on us to find the right balance with allocation, and I’m confident we’ll be able to do that in the coming days.
Finally, on the matter of allowing Fingerprints members to purchase additional RAW DAO tokens, I believe that should only be allowed on the condition that those members will directly contribute to RAW DAO.
Sorry for being late to the party! I’ve just managed to catch up on this thread and the recording of the call yesterday. Here are my initial thoughts:
Fingerprints is exceptionally well run and I think it can make an important contribution to the art world by sharing a ‘playbook’ for how to operate a world-class DAO. Huge credit to @luiz for this, it’s an inspiration.
I agree with @Josebaredes on this - it’s perhaps not a natural extension to move from investing in on-chain art to photography. With that said, I’ve witnessed a huge interest in photography from gen-art lovers, including myself. I can’t quite put my finger on why exactly but for me personally I enjoy experiencing the creation of art through humans interacting with technology whether code or camera. With that said, it will require a lot of new thinking and skills as there are many differences, most significantly that the majority of photographs becoming NFTs were already in existence and this brings with it a more complex web of stakeholders.
It feels like there’s some consensus around lead investor ownership typically falling in the 7.5% - 20% range at seed stage. This rings true with my experiences investing in tech. I have a small VC / incubator in London and we generally look for 10-15% as lead investors and 15% - 30% if we play a more active role in incubation. This stake is of course diluted in future rounds unless we participate pro-rata. I agree that the DAO should have the ability to take its pro-rata in future rounds.
Personally I’d suggest a good balance would be for:
I think that would give a decent amount to the DAO for a fairly active role which would be necessary, at least initially, and also members of the DAO who wish to double-down with ETH and ideally ‘sweat equity’ too by being involved. That for me would also help avoid the free-rider issue @Josebaredes mentioned. Also, whilst it feels at odds with the spirit of DAOs to talk about control or influence, I think in the early stage strong leadership is needed and realistically between the DAO, FP members and DT/Flo there would be a fairly significant majority.
It would also be helpful to understand a little more about how the remaining tokens would be allocated to incentivise new contributors and also reward those who’ve been instrumental in getting us this far. Also around the model itself and how the DAO is rewarded for onboarding photographers and signalling quality by association with them.
Love this. In particualr, I apprecaite the opportunity for Fingerprints members to acquire tokens directly as well as via the DAO. I think this is critical for engendering a real sense of ownership of and commitment to RAW.
Thanks everyone for the input so far. I’m proposing a ranked snapshot vote (each voter may select and rank any number of choices) between the following options:
No incubation
my original proposal on the top range:
750k to FP
250k to members
1,250k to photographers, collectors and the acquirers of the founding piece
Total FP ownership going into Phase 1 would be 7.5% fully diluted (X outstanding)
@Josebaredes’s proposal
250k FP (with option to subscribe allocation not taken by members)
750k FP members
1,250k to photographers, collectors and the acquirers of the founding piece
Total FP ownership going into Phase 1 would be 2.5% fully diluted (10% outstanding)
@137 's proposal (adjusted to 75% of tokens remaining in treasury):
625k to FP
625k to FP members
1,250 to photographers, collectors and the acquirers of the founding piece
Total FP ownership going into Phase 1 would be 6.25% fully diluted (25% outstanding)
@zamba’s proposal (that seems in line with @spencernoon)
1,250k to FP
1,250k to photographers, collectors and the acquirers of the founding piece
250k tokens purchased by Fingerprints at ~2x Phase 0 price (100ETH), in a bridge round for the DAO to become operational between Phase 0 (formation) and Phase 1
Total FP ownership going into Phase 1 would be 15% fully diluted (~54.5% outstanding)
In all choices, Fingerprints members who are not photo collectors would be whitelisted to purchase tokens at Phase 1, with a guaranteed minimum of 1k tokens (1 membership)
My preferred choice, to make things easier and start the DAO asap would be (5). This choice seems to align the incentives of Fingerprints members + give RAW enough ETH to start operations without the hassle of having to do Phase 1 quickly – don’t underestimate the work of onboarding people, setting the price, doing the transactions etc.
Please let me know you feedback on this proposed vote. If there’s no significant opposition to the vote being like this, I’ll put it up in the next few days.
thanks for sharing this looks great. With the new voting mechanism is there a clear way to reach a decision by ranking?
Trying to understand the advantage of doing a ranked snapshot vote vs just have members vote for one option they like best.
Thanks @darkwingduck !
Yes, Snapshot does this automatically, calculated by instant-runoff counting method
I don’t think it will affect the final decision on the preferred choice, but it will be a more informative vote. We can use this info to look back at our decision making process and see where it was correct or flawed.
To clarify, in options 2, 3, and 4 is the FP members allocation (i.e. 250k to members in option 2) for purchasing in Phase 0? And then an additional whitelist for purchasing at Phase 1? Or is that allocation for Phase 1?
Great and thanks DT. I also share your view. Strong preference for option number 5 @leo. Let’s vote, cheers.
Correct, it is a Phase 0 allocation + additional whitelist for purchasing at Phase 1