I would also propose we introduce staking and locking of $Grape for months or even years. Individuals who do this also get a decrease on charges incurred during transactions in the marketplace.
1 Like
While I love this idea, I still think that people in Solana would not care about this much because they’re spending as low as a dollar in fees regarding transactions. I still think giving out nft dex a launch pad feature is what our market place needs at this time. If you wish to get into any mint of your choice, you’d be expected to lock an X amount of grape with us. No other market place I’ve seen around have this feature and in doing this, we’d be the first
1 Like
In today’s DAO Call we again talked about our constantly evolving NFT Dex and the way we could go on from here. Kirk walked us through the latest development news and casually dropped that the Grape NFT Dex is able to interact not only with personal wallets but also with wallets managed by contracts via realms. Awesome, right?
It might not be apparent at first but this is huge, especially in terms of Grape Tooling. It means that DAOs will be able to e.g. manage their NFT Collections through realms and may vote on which NFT should be listed for sale and for what price.
But first things first. The next step for the Grape NFT Dex will be Collections and the ability for projects to list them.
Our decision now needs to be a discussion regarding a way to position us and the Grape NFT Dex in the Solana ecosystem. Do we want to be yet another NFT Dex in the space, with a similar fee structure and the constant need to keep pace with projects that exclusively focus on being an NFT Dex, or do we want to do things differently?
Sorry for the suggestive wording 
It doesn’t mean though, that those symbolic fees couldn’t be used to buy $GRAPE on the open market.
#1
During the DAO Call we entertained the idea of introducing some form of symbolic fees for the Marketplace and continue to focus on the utility aspect and the DAO Tooling. These symbolic fees could be used as a metric for further evaluations and would be in $SOL.
Start with symbolic fees?
- No
- Yes
- Yes, but different implementation (please comment)
- Abstain
0
voters
If you voted YES in #1, please select a corresponding fee.
- up to 0.1%
- up to 0.2%
- up to 0.3%
- up to 0.5%
- up to 0.75%
- up to 1%
- up to 1.5% (not really symbolic though)
0
voters
#2
Our NFT Marketplace also supports the liking and flagging of NFTs. Flagged NFTs could then in turn show a warning/notification. In order to curb abuse, reporting/flagging could also be subject to prerequisites or fees, e.g. 0.1 $SOL or X amount of $GRAPE.
Introduce requirements/prerequisites for flagging NFTs?
- No
- Yes, fees (please comment)
- Yes, but different implementation (please comment)
- Abstain
0
voters
Depending on the outcome of polls #1 and #2, corresponding on-chain votes will be created.
3 Likes
I like the idea here a lot and also to provide a barrier to curb abuse of it. One suggestion is to limit the feature to being available only to members of the community. Such that, only legit members can flag an NFT and the public users are encouraged to join to be able to “comment” in this way.
2 Likes
Until we have decided the fee structure, as a temporary measure given that the NFT DEX is live for any NFT and most importantly to avoid abuse of this functionality; Reporting an NFT will require a 100Grape donation to the treasury, I think we can consider this also as a model that benefits the treasury and minimize bad actors, in the end grape holders should be a deciding voice and this is the grape token put in good use, and provides a weight towards the reporting strength.
TX going towards the treasury via reporting also use a distinct memo so you can see which mint has been reported on chain in the TX history of the treasury
7 Likes
I think it is possible to implement the charging strategy in stages, such as setting a roadmap for NFT DEX. At the beginning, we need more people to know Grape NFT DEX and understand what makes it different. Minting grape nft I think it is a good choice to promote and give certain benefits to Grape nft holders. Put grape NFTs on ME launchpad (hope this doesn’t make them uncomfortable). The second phase will introduce the benefits of grape token holders. I think such a phased approach is more conducive to the promotion of NFT DEX, and it can also attract initial users to become grape holders
1 Like
disagree with this. we have been giving free services far too long and as a thumb of rule in pricing:
It is harder to raise your products price than lower it. start in the 5% range imo. reducing it from there it will do the same advertisment.
On symbolic fees I do somewhat agree that if fees start very low it may be hard to raise them, although I’d consider if its stated very clearly that the Grape NFT DEX market is in an early launch phase in which to encourage onboarding transaction fee’s are set at say 1/4 of what Fees will be when it comes to full luanch/ feature implemenatation it would be good. So 0.5% early market phase fee if the full market fee we’re working toward is 2%.
2% would be my prefered market fee at full feature launch, with 3% as the upper end of market fees as I strongly feely that if fees are any higher we wont have much in the way of adoption despite the large benifit of the decentralised non-custodial listings, for the simple reason that the traditional centralised exchanges will be cheaper.
On flagging NFT’s the current 100 $Grape, ~0.02 SOL seems fine, but I’d look to lower it futher in future to 0.01 or 0.005 SOL if we want to really see it used. I understand the current fee is so the feature isn’t being abused by dynite flagging Kirks NFT’s (I’m completely inconnent your honor, i sware)
If in future the flagging fee could be lowered in conjuction with other constraints on the ability to flag NFT’s to prevent abuse it might be better, such as timeouts for a certain amount of flags in short period.
1 Like
I also think the 100 $GRAPE is too much. Reporting is usually a “value-add” option for great users. If we charge them too much, they simply wont use it.
Personally my game theory understanding is weak here – its cool that we have the option to gate functions with token fees.
In the short-term, id prefer to focus on the repercussions of reporting/liking – map out how that affects the user experience, and then we can all have a better discussion on the exact price
Regarding fees – we have a decentralized product – centralized user experience will be tough to beat. Lower fees and a model that inspires other communities to adopt our marketplace should be the strategy
3 Likes
Regarding fees – we have a decentralized product – centralized user experience will be tough to beat. Lower fees and a model that inspires other communities to adopt our marketplace should be the strategy
Yeah strong case to have the ultimate market fee in sub 2%, perhaps in 1% to 1.5% range, for that reason
If our main proposition is being a non-custodial DEX then we should not worry about pricing. Fees at a slight discount to the market leader will be a non-issue for most NFT traders in my opinion. I think lowering the fees will not necessarily encourage users from switching from existing marketplace of choice. For big ticket items where a small marketplace fee is significant amount of SOL, we already have escrow services and project’s own marketplaces with lowered fees; we aren’t going to capture that audience right away in any case.
I would go for fees as high as 1.5%, not below 1% because that would be leaving money on the table.
On flagging NFTs, one way could be that only holders of a particular collection can flag an NFT from that collection. Don’t think we should charge for flagging which in itself is a community contribution imo. For 1/1s - if/when we have those - we can set a small token amount or think of another way.
4 Likes
That is an interesting take, holders of an NFT collection have the right to report, I too agree that the 100 Grape fee is high, I would propose reducing the report fee to 10 Grape, and then see how we can gate reporting towards holders of that NFT collection
2 Likes
I agree with reducing the Flagging Fee to make it easier to accumulate more, whilst also, adding a statistical weight + gate to number of flags or loves across a time frame.
In a prior DAO Call, we had briefly raised the idea of Gates / Weights introduced for relevance, albeit adds a significant level of complexity:
1. Flag: If User implementing a flag is a holder of Token or NFT within the NFT/Collection/Project they are flagging. Holders would be less likely to report falsely, and more inclined to know if the flag were valid being closer to that community.
2. Love: If User implementing a like/love is not a holder of Token or NFT within the NFT/Collection/Project they are liking. Holders would be more likely to report bias, and more inclined not to like/love other projects outside of their holdings.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.