I agree with you that starting with a simple PoC is better.
I agree with you that starting with a simple PoC is better.
But I have a question: how many people are interested in doing this?
I very much appreciate and understand the desire for individuals to show-off the collection.
In fact, I’d go even further and say we should find ways for all of the membership to showcase the collection. Perhaps all of us change our PfPs to a FP autoglyph for a week? Tweet this out. Change our bios, etc.
But, does this really need a blockchain solution?
How is the end result different than just downloading the image and putting it on a screen at home or as a PfP / header?
If a lot of people are interested in doing this. I’d love to hear it so that we better understand the risks/rewards.
Also, trying this out on Twitter as an example https://twitter.com/agreenberg/status/1569030123466231808?s=20&t=20ffIAjufmKR70Zwkj7m3g
I’m not sure, but I have heard of several cases in which people wanted to make this happen somehow. A more complete study can be done but I think it’s cost is almost as big as developing the concept itself.
The idea here is not to raise the awareness of the FP collection, although I think it’s also important
I think we def need a blockchain solution. think it’s way more valuable when you have a NFT that’s backed by the original piece than just copy the image. TBH I think it’s completely different as it preserves the vast majority of the original NFT value compared to zero value in image copying process.
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m still not convinced.
This feels like a solution in search of a problem.
I’d like to hear from members or potential members who would be interested in this.
I’d also like to hear an assesment of if this presents any risk to our assets (even if it’s a very small risk).
What does wrapping an NFT to hold in one’s own wallet allow one to do past the act itself of holding a wrapped version?
Interested in hearing from people that actually want to hold a wrapped version and if so, what it allows them to do (to echo Ari’s point).
This seems like something that would come out of a Fingerprints “research department” for the benefit of the greater NFT community (which would be cool), rather than something that would have too many financial benefits for the DAO.
Nice idea @renatoshira, definitely thought provoking.
Once upon time I attended an educational institution that allowed you to borrow works from its art collection to decorate your living quarters. Was quite a popular service. This brings me somwhat similar vibes. However, I do think @agreenberg is right to be skeptical – our works aren’t locked away in a basement archive, they’re freely viewable by all. So is this really a desired product?
I’m 50/50. One one hand, it would be cool to have the wrapped version in my wallet, on my digital frame etc. – I mean, it’s a form of ‘ownership’, right? And this form would be quite innovative.
On the other, I wonder if the novelty wears off pretty quickly. And it’s a complicated solution to build.
Thought – wonder if this could be wrapped into the conversation around introducing an ERC721 version of Fingerprints membership. There’s been discussion there on whether we could make the NFT membership cards more interesting to holders. Perahps they could cycle through displaying our collected works (a-la SALT V4), or we could periodically update to show works in a more curated way (a-la Proof of Beauty’s “Public Piano”)?
This is great and I fully support it.
One thing that I think would be positive at the start is to only allow a subset of the Fingerprints collection to be available in this system, i.e. limiting supply, that way there will be more competition for staking.
Something like having 1/4th of each collection available to be “lent” might be a simple way to implement this.
Ya this is a fun idea. I could see the mechanics of this becoming a huge point for people to explore FP’s collection and even join as a member. I think we should be pursuing initiatives like this as frequently as possible, as long as it does not cost too much. Thanks to @renatoshira for bringing this forward.
I support this.
After some further reflection, I think this would definitely be interesting as a public utility if open-sourced as suggested in the initial post. Other DAOs and communities could use it as they saw fit (and for whatever purposes they saw fit) — having the greater NFT community tinkering with it may unlock use cases that we may not have considered as well. Would be an interesting product for Fingerprints to release.
Sounds reasonable. That’s the reason why there should be an “add/edit” features to include and exclude NFTs from the available list
They aren’t locked but the members don’t feel entitled to use them as if they are their own pieces, and they really shouldn’t because they’re FP’s. So we could argue that the pieces are now somehow “locked in a basement”
It seems complicated, but if you look this from cost perspective it’s around 6ETH. Not “complicated” at all. A simple institucional website could cost much more.
I believe this is a different use case, a very interesting one as well
I would be interested in staking some PRINTS to try this out. I would assume @renatoshira as well
Overall, I see 3 main benefits of this proposal
Agree it would be cool – I haven’t seen a ‘library borrowing’ feature like this anywhere before.
More controversial version would be a requirement to stake PRINTS and also pay a small number PRINTS to ‘borrow’, e.g. an autoglyph is 5k PRINTS staked + 30 PRINTS per month fee (numbers purely illustrative). Fee PRINTS go to the treasury.
ohh I like this idea
Brilliant idea @renatoshira , I fully support this!
We frequently get asked about the relationship of owning PRINTS and actually owning the artworks in Fingerprints collection.
This is a direct link from PRINTS to a sense of ownership and entitlement to the artworks in our collection.
I read the messages here and am delighted with the questions and feedback. I want to give my 2 cents too. I’ll try to resume it.
Once we build this tool, we can allow any system/contract to check the wrapped NFTs ownership. E.g., allowing tools like discord auth bot to check the current holder of a wrapped NFT and give the holder role(or similar) on discord.
Another example: FP can partner with collections, which may give WL for autoglyph holders and ask to give it to the autoglyph-wrapped holders.
IMHO, it can allow the NFTs utility that collections have and, unfortunately, are lost when they are in the vault of the DAOs. People inside the DAO can enjoy the utility of the NFTs and their communities when wrapping it.
Imagine how many DAOs can benefit their community and collections from this, and they will connect more with the DAOs. It also can increase the enthusiasm to have the wrapped NFT to receive its benefits.
To clarify, what I wrote above are ideas for the future of this experiment. They are not part of this proposal. They are things that anyone or DAO can build if the experiment works.
I think this could become a very popular implementation for all collector DAOs, and provide very direct utility to membership.
I like the fee idea as well, but would rather keep it small or zero at the start to incentivize usage of the system at launch.
Really cool idea folks! still going thru all the comments, but a few things come to mind:
I fully support this idea as is. Curious to see what @arod comes up with.
For future iterations, I’d question the assumption that our collection is 100% under “never sell” status (our Meebits, for example)… and think about enabling whitelisted NFTs to be actually borrowed by stakers. The more complex the mechanism, the weaker the link between FP’s NAV and token value. PRINTs would benefit if stakers could indeed get some pieces in our collection, even if at absurdly high “loan-to-stake” ratios.
This is an interesting discussion we should probably go back to in the future