Traces — FP collection usage permission through PRINTS staking

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.


GM! I’m Arod - doxxed profile here, who will help the @renatoshira build this project.

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.

1 Like

Really cool idea folks! still going thru all the comments, but a few things come to mind:

  • careful with erc998, its kinda complex and a bit outdated, there are some newer implementations worth considering.
  • before building this from scratch, have you looked into some protocols in the space that does this kind of thing (or very similar) already? One clear example that comes to mind is Revest, i know the founder from another community and happy to connect you guys, could be a win win situations for both parties.
1 Like

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