1. Been asking the channel’s chat to be private for the NFT council members only since day 1. I think its important to keep the chat clear and be able to exchange ideas fast and comfortably. Any public information can be posted in SOLANA NFTS channel or in the weekly subDAO report.
2. Need a representative that will handle a weekly call and prepare the agenda and the report of each meeting. My vote goes to @easymoneyding.chachang who has shown interest and organizational skills. TIER 3 (highest) 3. TIER 2 will be responsible for the task of our NFT treasury inventory. Members will only be responsible for the task of monitoring the evergrowing GRAPE NFT treasury and proposing sales of existing NFT’s to the NFT council. 4. TIER 1 (lowest) Members will be for voting and being able to propose potential projects outside of the existing treasury worth of purchasing.
The tiers will have a x1 x2 x3 emissions rewarded.
If anyone has ideas about the strucutre of the subDAO pls share them, we need you!
Someone on the council needs to create a process for buying/selling/minting NFTs. This process needs to include a way to:
Confirm that the decision has been voted/approved by the council.
Have a standardized way to convey this decision to a team member (me, whales, billy)
This process should be able to address three scenarios: Listing our NFTs, selling to community members (the situation with Tata), and minting NFTs (previously failed with Alex recommendation, I was able to do one for Cryptograf)
The council only needs one person receiving an emission. The person who handles the process of confirming the actions would be that person. Everyone else can share their opinions, but it should only be one person imo that is voted on a quarterly basis. With a group of 5 – we’ve seen that the work drops on the floor with no one taking the responsibility. With 1 person, we know exactly who is handling it
3)I will remove myself from the council. If there is a process, I wont need to be as involved except for the action execution. I can devote 30 minutes every day to this.
Selling: Tier 2 members propose > Council votes > Added to the weekly report > You execute uppon the report
Buying: Members propose > Council Votes > Added to weekly report > You execute uppon the report.
If anything is Timesensitive we will ping you dont worry
I dont understand what do you mean that council needs one person receiving emission? Then you dont have incetivized ppl within the council and that might lead to poor performance? Group of 5 worked with no structure and managed to makes good sales and making a first step towards a structured council. Having multiple ppl in the chat did not help, 5 ppl would keep it clean and tidy.
The issue has been no process. Maybe with a process those 5 will be more effective
This is a role that benefits all Grape members so i dont think it needs to be super incentivized, but thats not an issue for me. Making sure we know who is accountable is more important
Would also like to see a process for a member to mint on behalf of Grape – that would be a big gamechanger
Thank you Bloodbath for bringing more attention to the NFT Council and possibly giving it more love in terms of emissions.
I’ve appreciated my time as part of the NFT Council, as we’ve been able to sell a decent amount of the Grape Wallet without a clear structure. However, besides selling off unwanted NFTs in the wallet, I’m not sure what else the NFT Council does. I do remember when Dean bought the SMB, that he said there was 60 SOL in the wallet and possibly more available. However, I have since learned that SOL went to another wallet for staking. Which I understand, but is that SOL available for future plans for NFTs? I’m not clear on that topic.
If the NFT Council is there to only manage the NFT wallet in terms of selling, then I agree with Dean that only one person should be receiving an emission and keep it at that. I am bit leery on proposing myself to take that role due to the unknown nature of the commitment as I currently have an IRL full-time job.
In terms of minting, and creating a more active wallet, with the NFT council helping to make decisions, then that is a completely different animal altogether and would require a lot more resources. I do have a higher ambition and potential plan along these lines, but I’m not going to propose it unless I’m able to deliver on it.
By the way, I’ve never gotten to know who is on the NFT Council. Do they actively trade NFTs? Do they hold big portfolios? Do they regularly mint and keep track of new projects?
Hi I know I’m not part of the NFT council but I just wanted to throw my two grapes/thoughts in
“I do remember … he said there was 60 SOL in the wallet and possibly more available. … is that SOL available for future plans for NFTs?”
That to me would be some crital info for the council to know, additionally if that or a portion of that is available how much sould go towards any 1 project? Any specific aims to keep X% availble for special proposals, Y% for trading nfts, Z% for minting. Important questions that I realise may already have been discussed and also appreciate ridgid rules may make managing things difficult.
Also is there an NFT inventory beyond checking the wallet? I’ve seen discussion of lets sell this, no wait that’s a honorary NFT from here or there, is that documented so its readily lookupable or is it in peoples heads? Does it warrant seperation between the actively managed NFT’s and honory NFT’s gifted by partnered projects?
I agree with the restructure proposal. I’m not included? I’m happy to stand down, if not required.
I’ve regularly posted clear lists of potential sales; the only duty The NFT Council has been assigned.
Since it’s inception, I’ve twice suggested The NFT Council write a proposal for The DAO that details it’s NFT thesis and strategy. I’ve also mentioned the idea of burning for $ASH a few times.
There’s been no responses to either idea, so I’ve assumed no interest and not pursued.
Ofc u r included I just didnt see your name in the emissions for some reason tahts why i didnt mention you. If you still have the role in discord you are in the council. We need to bring ideas forward on how this will work better. Callling all members to propose.
All members have prooven accountable here suggesting and researching stuff constantly. I beleive that if there is a structure here this will get more and more efficient. Lets first manage to structure the existing operations and then we go for mints sure we love mints! Are you ok with making sales 1/week after our report? We cant have 1 person working here, we need rotations and eyes.
I think perhaps this standardised format (or one similar) should be pinned in the channel and adopted.
PROPOSED MARKET SALE
NFT Name and #:
MoonRank: of X supply.
ME Floor Price:
Proposed listing price:
X thumbs-up within 24h = proceed. Dean is tagged in an EXECUTE message with details.
PROPOSED COMMUNITY SALE
NFT Name and #
ME Floor Price:
Proposed sale price:
X thumbs-up within 24h = proceed. Dean is tagged in an EXECUTE message with details.
PROPOSED MINT / BUY:
Project Name:
Twitter:
Website:
Mint / Buy Price:
Why? A few sentences.
X thumbs-up within 24h = proceed. Dean is tagged in an EXECUTE message with details.
IMO NFT mints / buys should be very few until NFT Council proposes it’s plans to DAO.
In the long-run, I’m in favour of trusting individuals and forfeiting some decentralisation. I’d like a few people (say Alex and BloodBath) to be allocated X SOL and just let them get on with it, without any need for votes on a purchase. This role coould rotate within the Council.
Re. Grape NFT market. Might it be an idea to ask some partners if they’d be interested in producing a 1/1 NFT (Solana / Grape themed optional) for the launch of the market? Funds raised could be for DAOs and include a charity (DFA?) donation, or even all for charity. This would be a little micro-collection that wouldn’t disrupt the projects’ own collections and could be great promo for all involved. Maybe projects that join could also be offered places in poker game or even emissions.
This could provide an interesting job for NFT Council and the ambassadors already attached to projects.
I’m not concerned about receiving an emission. I’d like to propose that we just use the funds to buy NFTs. It’s currently worth about 7 SOL. Anyone who who wants or needs their emission share must have it, but the rest of us could degen and try to grow the stack. It’d be a quick way to test the buying proposal process and our NFT alpha. Hopefully we can show the DAO some successes.
We have a call setup for 12:00 PM UTC Thursday 10/02/2022. Anyone intreasted on the NFT council is welcome to join and bring his ideas! Hope to see more than the council members.
I’d like us to speak about these ideas on Thursday.
If Grape’s policy is to simply mint every WL offered to it, then it isn’t taking advantage of NFT Council. I think our purpose is to use our knowledge and discernment to try and benefit Grape. Anyone can mint every WL available and as Grape grows so will the number of WL offers.
IMO with the current system we risk buying into projects without a decent understanding of them and without high conviction. If we mint a WL “opportunity” today for 2 SOL, in 1 month it’s worth 0.2 and we ask ourselves “How did we get here?”, everyone it likely to shrug. Simply saying yes in Discord is perhaps too easy and unstructured. If each member were limited to just 1 buy or X SOL per Y time-frame I think it could solve many problems we’re already facing. The individual would be responsible for researching, securing the WL (if it’s available), minting and managing the NFT re. staking, SPL token drops, proposal to sell and all the stuff that goes with many NFTs now. Even with such strict limitations Council could be spending quite a bit. I think it’s important to remember that the Treasury is in low-risk staking with it’s SOL and any NFT buys are really high-risk gambles.
The idea of voting on calls doesn’t appeal to me, trusting the knowledge and expertise of the assembled degens does appeal. I’d favour buying as little as possible, (especially at mint), and having high conviction when we do buy. Doing nothing may often be a good move. I am more than happy to fully trust anyone on NFT Council and knowing that this month, these are the few plays that they have greatest conviction in, seems attractive.
Example:
Every member is allocated 1 SOL per week. If they want to mint a project for 2.5 SOL they must “save”. A buy is handled by the member with their own public Grape wallet and must be fully detailed in a spreadsheet. This can include a few lines of thesis and what category of buy it falls into eg; Short term flip, Metaverse / Game with potential benefit to Grape community, an NFT partner that cementing a relationship with may be beneficial etc.
1 SOL per week to 5 or 6 people is already 20 or 24 SOL in 1 month. 50 SOL could be spent in little more than 2 months. These figures are just my examples, but they illustrate how quickly the funds can be spent and why I don’t like the current unstructured approach with little responsibility. Ideally we might make some SOL, but there’s really no guarantee. If we had 4 categories of buys we could even rotate responsibility for buying into each and DAO could say which they favour and we adjust.
Inevitably we may bend and change the rules, but I think we really need to set out as much structure of this kind as possible. There must be discipline. It should make things easier for us and more importantly we can (hopefully) show clear thesis and strategy to the DAO and they may cast judgment upon us
Just to clarify, Grape’s policy is not to be minting every WL coming our way. It is the NFT council that determines that strategy.
I have reached out in the past couple of days with WL opportunities that fell in our lap (or members of our community actively sought out).
In my point of view, I present these opportunities and ask whether the council wants them (not necessarily meaning they will mint).
It is up to the council to research and evaluate the projects where the WLs come from and respond in a timely manner so that no good opportunity is missed (that may very well prove to be ashes).
The time sensitive factor here is that if the council does not need the WLs, they will go to the community.
Additionally another welcome perk would be that if the council (through its research & expertise) deems the WLs/project are not worth our time & SOL (or are suspicious) they should inform us as well, so we -as much as possible- do not expose our community members in scammy projects (NFA I know, but it will not reflect good if we keep giving out unfiltered WLs to the community for project(s) that rug(s) or similar).
It was being considered that Council minted every WL. I understand it has been rejected now, but this issue and the current situation with all the WL so far, illustrate my points above.
I think the Council really appreciates your work with the WL offers. I understand they’re time-sensitive and comms needs to be improved. You shouldn’t have to be chasing a response and adding to your workload. I think the decision is that Council would like all WL places available please.
I personally, would not be comfortable judging a project unworthy of offering to members. I can say if I myself would mint, and I wouldn’t recommend Treasury mints anything I wouldn’t, as I think it should be more risk adverse than I am. If i knew something to be an outright scam, of course I’d say.
It has been clear that the council should be WL for every project possible. That does not mean we will be minting everything. Having that option thought gives as the choice to be able to mint if we decide we will. So please WL the treasury with everything and then the council decides what to mint and what not.
