A batch of proposals

[IvanGBi]

1] Of course, the first issue is what to do with the 49% of supply the DAO will end up with. I honestly don't know what is best here. I don't think burning all is correct, but maybe the majority of them? See twitter post by the account.

2] Also, wanna see a DAO proposal for X number of NFTs for the following: a) best recaps of solana-avalanche-fantom-polygon-xdai discussions why yes/no b) recap of the topic on regulations and how to approach token-security (non-legal advice) c) recap on malicious<>hack<>arbitrage<>theft semantic debate

3] And an issue for those who were late or didn't know. The database didn't keep records of who did or did not claim, it's an anonymized set of addresses. So you can't trust someone saying if they did or did not claim, unless we ask the bot developer to look into it. But a few founders forgot to claim, and that's sad. What could be done is the following, imho: a] ask bot developer to add more registrants and then give those people only 1 even if they had 5 before, as a fee. b] collect only founders who can be trusted and just distribute to them, without asking the bot dev to check for sybil c] ?

More incoming!

[alexflorence]

1 ) In my opinion the main issue here is that 49% of the supply are in danger of being controlled by a minority. In an ideal governance case we would have 51% of the supply voting for what happens with the 49% but the reality of governance looks different. It may very well be that in practical terms we end up with a very small share of the supply voting on what happens with almost half of the supply. So we have to get the 49% share down somehow.

I can think of 3 solutions to resolve this:

A) Burn the DAO treasury down to a reasonable share of the total supply. Not all people are happy with this since burning the art seems destructive.

B) Instead of burning the treasury down to a reasonable share the excess NFTs could be distributed proportionally to existing holders or the initial minters.

C) Only allow governance decisions to affect as many NFTs from the treasury has have been used to vote on the proposal. (This is the most simplified version of this model. It might be that changing it to 200%, or some other value, of the amount of NFTs have been voted with makes more sense.)

---

2 ) Do you mean retroactively for existing messages in the LobsterDAO or would this be some sort of content creation contest with the winners being awarded by the DAO?

---

3 )

A) Personally I think this is reasonable. B) has the heavily subjective component of "founders who can be trusted" (no offense to anyone. I am taking a devils advocate POV here.) C) The Telegram bot still responds to me saying that my Telegram ID is not on the claimers list. The question is whether it says that for any Telegram ID now because the list was deleted - or because the data is still available. If the data is still available I am in favor of resolving the issue based on that because its the least subjective solution.

[IvanGBi]

Ah and one more - this was my bad! The user didn't have tooooo many messages, but was valuable. I believe the number this would qualify for is 1. The DAO should gib the 1 piece, this is fairly trivial. Screenshot as proof.

[CJ1976]

I think that holding LobsterDao should represent something rare and elite. So burning does have an attraction. But also I am for selling and using funds as a charity donation. Either one is an acceptable option imo.

[msirinotis]

For #3.. 3a) helps to solve #1 right? Diversify governance with existing eligible users/addresses and brings the 49% of the DAO down (and closer to the initial 83% community allocation). If people miss the second claim round then I think it's somewhat safe to assume they are not currently following the community and then can look at burn/distribute beyond that.

[quiveringsphinx]

I'd love to see some quadratic voting plugin for snapshot so you encourage governance voting by plurality rather than just number of tokens held. Could offer a bounty in some of the excess NFTs for the plugin. Basic math is to count the square of number of votes for each wallet that has claimed. Can choose snapshot time to align with community principles. It'd be a neat contribution to the wider community using snapshot too

[23ouh423]

re 3a, what if dao keeps 888 NFTs, and remainder go into second claim round where the original qualifying user list is up again for registration, where those who register, even if they claimed in first round already, get allocation of remaining NFTs with equal distribution per user? this way those who were aware and early are rewarded while also including those who missed first round but get in second round?

[amplice]

I don't have strong feelings about what to do for people who missed it.

I think with regards to what to do with big amount of DAO owned ones, we should do something like 1 lobster to every gitcoin donator (try to remove sybil somehow). Or donate a big chunk for public goods funding of some kind.

LobsterDAO should be trying to encourage prosocial, non zero sum behavior in the community by rewarding those who have demonstrated this behavior in the past.

Maybe something like, rewarding this comp users who gave comp tokens back, rewarding previous white hat hackers who returned funds (esp if they did so immediately) - things like this.

Basically rewarding 'good' behavior across the board of all kinds + public goods funding in whatever way we can. This not only increase distribution, but also distributes to good actors.

[IvanGBi]

There was a heated discussion on what to do with those who did not claim, which is about 50%. https://t.me/lobsters_chat/281419. Facts are that the call for registration was pinned 2-3 times in the chat, broadcasted on twitter, the list was discussed, the channel had it spoken of on multiple accounts, and the bot was extended twice. There was literally SO MANY TIMES ONE COULD CHECK AND REGISTER. The total period for when the discussions were happening was almost a month. It's really weird you don't make it in time... But! We are not here to bash that.

The objective was never to cap it by time, or exclude anyone. This is a retroactive airdrop, so everyone who missed should potentially get it hypothetically. People could be on a retreat or busy with their launches, it's not unusual. Or they could have been a bit mia. I don't agree with "oef if you were not online for 2 weeks screw you" - it might be factually correct, but this is a genuine community, so let's not argue this way. See message of Chris which resonates with me too: https://t.me/lobsters_chat/281519. So, I am all for allowing every lobster who contributed get theirs.

I just personally don't see HOW it can be done... Just technically don't see how :(

Currently, the reveal has not happened yet. The bot can still be open. And this would be TOTALLY OKAY because this is not inflating - it's the supply which was always communicated, all within the boundaries. So the arguments "oh it is already out there, you cannot do it anymore" is not correct because 83% was expected to be in the hands of community. But there is an issue - the reveal should not be delayed for more than a few days, because it's just not cool to the original people and those who already got these valueless jpegs on secondary. The reveal should happen within a week, that's what the intent of the collection was. And while the DAO can change anything (even this reveal) it would go against the announced rules which were pre-defined in T&C. And that I personally don't see okay changing past rules.

Even if the bot is open for 3 more days, how many people will make it to the list? I got 7 DMs and like 10 people in public chat who did not register. They are all valuable members, all of them are, but I am not sure if that justifies structural changes like the one being proposed here. I don't believe that those who were mia would make it their way into the list (like what 50 people out of 1000 who did not register? hardly doubt). So then it would be like fighting windmills. That would be bad + more work + image tainted a bit.

So what's the issue with giving later? That is because after reveal it would be really unfair to do the bot again, because people can see they got some rare traits and opt in to redeem. So I strongly believe this either has to happen now or never again - at least based on the initial list. And we see why not "now" - because many simply won't see it again. Then they will ask again. Then there will be more discussions. No bueno.

I suggest the following:

1. DAO asks for the list of those who did not claim (have to ask bot developer, still anonymized data, just give a batch)
2. DAO checks based on history who they really consider to be value add (everyone is, but the focus here should be on founders and truly active members) fully allowing to be subjective on their end. And they can forget, it's up to them.
3. Those are all tagged in the chat to give their address within 24 hours.
4. If they miss it, done, that's all. This can all be fixed pre-reveal then. We will sleep a few hours less tonight, but it should be worth it. And not many extra pieces will be done this way. All the weights will be reduced to 1 maximum. Because if you miss and make DAO work more, you should "pay a fine".

Again, only about a couple hundred extra pieces, not the full supply as intended initially. So the secondary market participants will not feel cheated on. This is then within the rules, and also within the ethical boundaries. Imho.

<>

As for the DAO holdings, I would suggest the following.

First of all, it is NOT healthy to keep 49% of the supply. In utility tokens it's fine, but NFT DAOs should have much less. Because constant-constant distributions don't make sense as these are not liquid tokens and so on. But some reserves should be kept. So I believe the ratio of burning-keeping should be like 80% burned and 20% kept for future things. Or 70-30 idk.

The question is how to not destroy the art value. I believe the collection has some rare traits and some common ones. Therefore, it can happen that burning will make rare ones VERY rare even, which maybe is not as cool (or maybe yes). In any case, the DAO can just decide to keep a few cool pieces to give to biiiiig founders who contribute value, for instance, and a few common ones. And burn just based on the ratio. Or even random-burn!

What the DAO can do with those in the future is giving to core devs as a badge, to project DAOs to vote for something, doesn't matter. DON'T FORGET THIS IS JUST ART COLLECTION AND IT HAS NO INHERENT VALUE, IS JUST ART. So make sure you argue within community & art objectives, and forget about anything monetary. Monetary is air.

[arbitary]

Randomly distribute the rest to existing lobster holders. Let RNG decides...

[IvanGBi]

@arbitary you want to defeat the exact purpose of the convo: to appreciate ALL members who missed, not to enrich the current. Totally 180. Imho: bad.

[arbitary]

DON'T FORGET THIS IS JUST ART COLLECTION AND IT HAS NO INHERENT VALUE, IS JUST ART.

[IvanGBi]

@arbitary touche. haha.

[akashspl]

There was a heated discussion on what to do with those who did not claim, which is about 50%. https://t.me/lobsters_chat/281419. Facts are that the call for registration was pinned 2-3 times in the chat, broadcasted on twitter, the list was discussed, the channel had it spoken of on multiple accounts, and the bot was extended twice. There was literally SO MANY TIMES ONE COULD CHECK AND REGISTER. The total period for when the discussions were happening was almost a month. It's really weird you don't make it in time... But! We are not here to bash that.

The objective was never to cap it by time, or exclude anyone. This is a retroactive airdrop, so everyone who missed should potentially get it hypothetically. People could be on a retreat or busy with their launches, it's not unusual. Or they could have been a bit mia. I don't agree with "oef if you were not online for 2 weeks screw you" - it might be factually correct, but this is a genuine community, so let's not argue this way. See message of Chris which resonates with me too: https://t.me/lobsters_chat/281519. So, I am all for allowing every lobster who contributed get theirs.

I just personally don't see HOW it can be done... Just technically don't see how :(

Currently, the reveal has not happened yet. The bot can still be open. And this would be TOTALLY OKAY because this is not inflating - it's the supply which was always communicated, all within the boundaries. So the arguments "oh it is already out there, you cannot do it anymore" is not correct because 83% was expected to be in the hands of community. But there is an issue - the reveal should not be delayed for more than a few days, because it's just not cool to the original people and those who already got these valueless jpegs on secondary. The reveal should happen within a week, that's what the intent of the collection was. And while the DAO can change anything (even this reveal) it would go against the announced rules which were pre-defined in T&C. And that I personally don't see okay changing past rules.

Even if the bot is open for 3 more days, how many people will make it to the list? I got 7 DMs and like 10 people in public chat who did not register. They are all valuable members, all of them are, but I am not sure if that justifies structural changes like the one being proposed here. I don't believe that those who were mia would make it their way into the list (like what 50 people out of 1000 who did not register? hardly doubt). So then it would be like fighting windmills. That would be bad + more work + image tainted a bit.

So what's the issue with giving later? That is because after reveal it would be really unfair to do the bot again, because people can see they got some rare traits and opt in to redeem. So I strongly believe this either has to happen now or never again - at least based on the initial list. And we see why not "now" - because many simply won't see it again. Then they will ask again. Then there will be more discussions. No bueno.

I suggest the following:

1. DAO asks for the list of those who did not claim (have to ask bot developer, still anonymized data, just give a batch)
2. DAO checks based on history who they really consider to be value add (everyone is, but the focus here should be on founders and truly active members) fully allowing to be subjective on their end. And they can forget, it's up to them.
3. Those are all tagged in the chat to give their address within 24 hours.
4. If they miss it, done, that's all. This can all be fixed pre-reveal then. We will sleep a few hours less tonight, but it should be worth it. And not many extra pieces will be done this way. All the weights will be reduced to 1 maximum. Because if you miss and make DAO work more, you should "pay a fine".

Again, only about a couple hundred extra pieces, not the full supply as intended initially. So the secondary market participants will not feel cheated on. This is then within the rules, and also within the ethical boundaries. Imho.

<>

As for the DAO holdings, I would suggest the following.

First of all, it is NOT healthy to keep 49% of the supply. In utility tokens it's fine, but NFT DAOs should have much less. Because constant-constant distributions don't make sense as these are not liquid tokens and so on. But some reserves should be kept. So I believe the ratio of burning-keeping should be like 80% burned and 20% kept for future things. Or 70-30 idk.

The question is how to not destroy the art value. I believe the collection has some rare traits and some common ones. Therefore, it can happen that burning will make rare ones VERY rare even, which maybe is not as cool (or maybe yes). In any case, the DAO can just decide to keep a few cool pieces to give to biiiiig founders who contribute value, for instance, and a few common ones. And burn just based on the ratio. Or even random-burn!

What the DAO can do with those in the future is giving to core devs as a badge, to project DAOs to vote for something, doesn't matter. DON'T FORGET THIS IS JUST ART COLLECTION AND IT HAS NO INHERENT VALUE, IS JUST ART. So make sure you argue within community & art objectives, and forget about anything monetary. Monetary is air.

you can't satisfy to everyone even if you see dydx airdrop also given month time for doing trade for claiming token still thousands of users missed now they calling dydx cheater in discord if you even make bot live again only 5% will register anf after ended date they will start complaing again

[IvanGBi]

Yes but this is about community :( So want to give the last open chance. To make everyone happier

[0xkingm0nke]

I would love for the following to happen:

1) donation of few select pieces for historical and cultural preservation to established art institutions for display in virtual form.

2) form a prize pool for significant community contribution in future, e.g. significant white hat discovery preventing loss of funds . i.e. badge of honour for keeping to the ethos of the community

[Fortuno89]

I am against further distributions, the rules were clear from the start.

Burning most of the unclaimed ones is the right path imo. On the issue of burning very rare nfts, it is possible as mentioned that burning might delete very rare ones, I suggest the DAO could to keep the (say) 50 statistically rarer unclaimed jpegs out of the burning % equation.

[IvanGBi]

@Apestuff fully agree. Reserves must be there. But not the full 49%, wdyt?

[MrTancred]

I think a good way to "make everyone's happier" as Ivan wrote above would be this suggestion from Alex in the tg chat:

Allowing everyone on the list to mint another one should fix the issue of the treasury being too big and people who slacked get a second chance.

So those who have not claimed yet will get their jpg, and those who have followed the rules and claimed on time won't feel shortchanged.

PS: maybe exclude those who claimed and dumped right away, that does not display great community spirit. But probably too much work to implement.

[IvanGBi]

You miss the point about reveal and timing.

I think a good way to "make everyone's happier" as Ivan wrote above would be this suggestion from Alex in the tg chat:

Allowing everyone on the list to mint another one should fix the issue of the treasury being too big and people who slacked get a second chance.

So those who have not claimed yet will get their jpg, and those who have followed the rules and claimed on time won't feel shortchanged.

Ser, you miss the part about reveal and timing. This won't amass enough new people. Re-read my pot please.

[arbitary]

I also support the idea of giving those who missed the drop another chance - e.g. asking them to fill out a simple form then randomly distribute the rest (- the ones reserved) to the participants. The "randomization" is to simplify the process and to avoid complaints like "I joined channel x years ago but I was on a trip .... how come ...".

[MrTancred]

Ser, you miss the part about reveal and timing. This won't amass enough new people. Re-read my pot please.

I did not miss it ser, it's part of the suggestion: I would envision this extra +1 NFT to be randomly assigned pre-reveal and then available for minting indefinitely. Yes, many will mint the bonus after the reveal, but it is one NFT only. And everyone is on the same boat, because also rule-abiding lobsters get the bonus.

[IvanGBi]

Please re-read why after reveal it's really not fair + technically harder to do. Can't work imho.

[friouz]

I don't support giving out to those who missed the drop. The rules were clear, announced multiple times and even if you are a founder or else, you had 1 month to keep up with the news. My problem here is that it will be given only to some people, supposedly "better" than the other who missed it. Either give it to everyone who missed the drop, either don't and let it like that. I'm not comfortable with the idea to give it to some "elite founder" and not to the other who also missed.

[uniswalpha]

I agree with what has been said here about DAO holding 49% of supply. Given the reality of governance it is extremely likely that to gain control of 49% supply would need a few actors with high % to collaborate (summing up to > 25.5% votes). Several ideas (probably need to be done before reveal):

• Reduce DAO to 4.9% or 9.8% and airdrop the rest to existing holders proportional to holding in the excel sheet. I believe DAO has royalty of sales and therefore dont need to hold that much % of the supply. This would bring us closer to the design of the excel sheet where we debated on "voting power" and "fairness" and "concentration of supply".
• Timelock 49% and release 10% of the amount over 10 years as an extra source of "income/incentive" for DAO to use in case of bear market, on top of royalties.
• Burning is not that bad since Satoshi also "burn" his btc to help bootstrap the network. This has the same effect as the excel sheet in terms of initial supply distribution.

As for the people who missed, I agree that founders/members may have been busy with work so we should allow them a second chance. To make it fair for the members who lurk the tg all the time, we can slash 50% or as Ivan said give them 1 NFT. Giving one is nice since they are incentivized not to sell, else wont be a LobsterDAO member anymore.

[Genysys]

I think we should seize this opportunity and use the extra jpegs to incentivise good rich content in the lobster dao chat.

Here is my proposal:

• People that missed out: Give everyone that missed out 1 random NFT. tbh I think there should always have been a time decay on how much you get and people that had been dormant for so long shouldn't retroactively get the lion's share.
• Content Curation: Every year , X amount of people (X to be decided by governance) will get Y (also decided by governance) amount tokens based on their contribution. The same filtering algorithm can be applied.

I think this strengthens incentives and is aligned with long term thinking .

[DarkGhost7]

3 b is definitely a no go, imo, as @friouz said either give it to all who missed or none. The msgs in the chat were clear: claim or you won't get any. If people couldn't be bothered to claim, or follow along, then they don't deserve them now.

[IvanGBi]

Totally fair actually, you ate right. Either all or none. No subjectivity.

[tartakovsky]

So the big decision comes down to burn or not to burn and how much?

I don't see any problems with giving founders a short second chance.

We can also give something to foundations and reward contributions.

But that's all a very small part of supply, and the ideas are reasonable enough not to argue about them imo.

The real big question is where the majority of supply goes.

I'm personally for burning most of it, e.g. 70/30 seems fine.

I would certainly like to agree with a proposal to distribute to the current holders, as it incentivizes people who actually want the lobster and is good for me personally, but no. I think Ivan is correct here and the only fair way to distribute is: a) to the people who earned it in the first place b) before the reveal

Satisfying both of this conditions without moving the reveal date away while distributing a significant part of unclaimed tokens seems impossible.

So imo we try what we can distribute like today or tomorrow and then we burn.

[ghost]

Strongly agree with the latest 2 comments from @uniswalpha and @Genysys:

1. Give everyone who missed the chance to mint 1 random LOBS independent of contribution
2. Vest the current 49% of LOBS in the DAO and release it on a monthly schedule to worthy TG users.

This worthy users should be voted monthly using Snapshot and everyone can submit his preference based on contributions. Hypothetically every user could post in a spreadsheet their monthly work (as posts or medium article shared with the chat) and let LOBS owner decide on the allocation for their work. This will probably incentivise a bit of spamming but after the first or second ban everything should be fine and will probably incentivise alpha sharing behavior from TG users.

[IvanGBi]

This is all so much extra work, that nobody wants to do. This is not an FNT project. Art is distributed, and done.

[IvanGBi]

From the start, this was intended as a fun art thing. No economic purpose, no complex stuff. Btw, the activity suggestions completely ignore the retroactive part -> they might just induce more flood in chats. A DAO in the name is just for fun. Now it's becoming a project with vesting contracts, governance decisions, etc. And all of that needs to be coordinated. I don't have time for it, this was never the intention. If you want to build it out, and set up all - please do, I have no control.

Forcing into more decisions seems too complex. This is a community of devs and researchers, and degens, not an NFT DAO project. YES, a few pieces were supposed to be kept back to reward new members, so the community can reward members who really add value, but that doesn't mean some vestings or new supplies and so on. A few hundred pieces is enough.

No new bot. No subjective things. Rules are rules. If we allow for subjectivity, this will go forever and just piss people off. DAO keeps about 5% as intended and burns the rest. Done. Don't force me to work more :D

I will be voting for that.

[ghost]

A monthly vote doesn't seem too much of a work in my opinion and the spreadsheet is not to be maintained by a single person, everyone can add their contribution just as a spotlight on their work (their contribution should have already been seen by everyone interested in the chat), it does not force anyone to do extra work (as you are not forced to vote) and the eventual "payout" could be arranged by simple DM to admins of whatever without the need of a bot. Moreover, the winning contributions can be organized in a sort of "the best content in the DAO" for easy fruition and ctrl+f. Even if this seems to be much it doesn't need to happen in the short term but burning the supply will eventually force this to possiblity to never happen.

[ghost]

@IvanGBi Just saw your comment, fair. Under your point of view it does all make sense. Didn't want to force anymore work on anyone

[mikeinweb]

My small brain ideas:

• You don't change rules after announcing them. It makes project look bad, people will never be happy, people will never say - it was fair. There are always hundreds of very angry and upset people after EVERY sale, airdrop or event. Discussion of how to make up to those who missed opportunity window never looks good and never satisfy everyone. More people will come and say they deserve it as well. It is a never ending cycle

• Burning DAO art is fine, art can be lost forever - it doesn't make art worse, it makes it better. No one will be upset if you dramatically reduce DAO holdings by burning. Any other choice will create hundreds angry people who will say they want this art to be airdropped/gifted/sold/redistributed etc. You will never please everyone and angry discussion don't make project look good.

In my insignificant opinion, you should always choose simple and fair solution, not make systems more complicated.

[James0000007]

My insignificant opinion:

Open up the bot for non claimers (1 Max only sry sers) and give a +1 to all those who claimed and did not sell. This rewards those that were on a retreat/work/ family/ etc that deserve to be part of the community as they have helped build it. At the same time the +1 for all claimers who have not sold keeps the same holders list in place and rewards those that did not try flipping/selling /poor. And randomly distribute the rest like arbitary suggested amongst holders until we reach a reasonable quote for the DAO to keep ( 888 - 333 - etc) .

That way we keep all the Art and reward those who claimed and NOT sold with a larger vote share. And we get a cool lottery that also benefits those that acquired the NFT and not minted originally. We also keep the voting share similarly structured giving a bit more weight to those with few NFTs

Distribuition will also help the DAO earn further royalties . I reckon those who claimed and not sold will hold the NFTs forever

[kirbyong]

Randomly distribute the rest to existing lobster holders. Let RNG decides...

Of course if this was included, i'm sure existing lobster holders would be more than willing to vote this way (duh)

[h3ku]

I don't think that sending NFTs to a burn address is destroying the art. That's the beauty of NFTs you can make them untradable forever while the art can still be enjoyed by anyone.

It's like donating them to a museum so people can enjoy them but with the conditions that the piece can't be sold for the rest of history.

[storming0x]

Im biased since i was on the list that missed out, i was planned to get 2-3 lobsters based on chat contributions.

So getting 1 at least for that in option a) would seem fair at this point.

[MrBearP]

Dumb idea but,

What if Lobster holders contribute eth to the DAO and DAO burns nfts for (contribution / floor_price) value. That way art doesn't go in vain and DAO has funds for doing cool community stuff.

[tickleux]

many constructive ideas. One thing to bear in mind is it should require minimum/no additional work.

[storming0x]

I just personally don't see HOW it can be done... Just technically don't see how :(

One idea is to have a diff of initial set compared against final merkle snapshot to see who was supposed to claim but didnt registered for the bot or missed out. Although i would understand that implies more work to make it fair for those who missed out.

But the 24 hour call for action idea seems to be pragmatic too, open the bot again for a specific amount of time.

Also against burning, seems like a good idea from holders perspective, but against the initial plan.

[boqiboy]

Here is a numb, no tech background, bad investor, but always try to read and understand and ask dumb questions on what you guys discussing in the lobster TG for 2 years. I was defending to follow the rules in github and saying "+1".
It would be a hard and sad decision to burn the arts, seeing someone is mentioning lock the NFTs. not sure if it is feasible. but I think it would be a good way to keep the art.

[tickleux]

burning/destroying the art will reduce earnings from the 7.5% royalty fee...

[Jecherio1]

I suggest airdropping the rest to the inital minters. That way all the art survives and the price does not get to crazy.

I don't think opening op the contract for additional minting by people who missed is the way to go. Anyone who has been active in lobster would have not missed, anyone who just know drops in most likely is in it for the money. I also agree with @mikeinweb opening up to people who missed it opens up a can of worms from my viewpoint.

At the same point i do feel with ivan and maybe they just simply be burned.

[drnicka]

Regarding issue (1) the reserve NFTs are future voice (votes) in the DAO. It might be desirable to pluralise the discourse in the future and a reserve allocation allows you do that. Think of them as groupthink insurance and / or future DAO collateral. There may be a magic future DeFi primitive that the DAO wishes it had a large chunk of the token supply for.

I suggest the DAO should keep them all (leave them un-minted, if possible), with assurances that it will only inflate the secondary market supply with DAO consent.

This can be done in two ways:

(a) distribute them for productive work for the DAO. It’s clear there’s a desire for that already as demonstrated in issue (2) using the NFTs as incentives for research. This is a great idea and a good activity for the DAO. Lobsters are known for their alpha and this provides incentive to curate more of it (can be done with quadratic voting for filtering of quality). This approach is essentially a proactive rather than retroactive airdropping. 3k new members over a multi-year period of time isn’t a huge amount if you think about it.

(b) periodic auctions. Issuance NFTs using a price discovery mechanism (not direct listing on opensea). In batches or individually.

The latter is more contentious since muh scarcity meme, but it could be a healthy process for building a secondary market and also further capitalises the DAO if required. If no one wants to sell and instead hold their lobsters (and receive juicy airdrops) then secondary market volume will seize up and will limit price discovery, you need new supply to drive that. If people are nervous about the potential for future market issuance a simple emission schedule or a step wise tranche opening could be agree fairly easily. I don’t think concerns about reserve assets being used as voting power are relevant if the NFTs remain un-minted and not useable as voting IDs. Even if minted they can be blacklisted from the voting tools.

The more immediate problem (issue 3) of people missing the mint is harder to provide standard process for since there’s diverse reasons for it. Yes it sucks for people that were on holiday or whatever, but it is clearly within the character of the DAO to be cancelled for not paying attention. It also ramps mystique of original distro.

Signed up, but not minted is more of an issue. Is it possible for minters to mint post reveal? If so, not a problem they can mint whenever. If not a reasonable warning period should as good a signalling as reasonably practical should take place.

Most of the above suggestions fall in the no effort category as far as I can see.

[DaveRodman]

Yes but this is about community :( So want to give the last open chance. To make everyone happier

I would ask the community and the dev team to please consider those of us who were idiots and made a mistake in claiming. I should have been able to claim 5 of these but due to an incredibly stupid copy/paste mistake in the Claim list my address is missing the last character so I am locked out. I’m sure that my 5 are in that list of unclaimed lobsters. I’ve got to imagine at least some other people are in the same boat.

Was really looking forward to this. I know you have to own your own mistakes in crypto, and I do, I’m simply asking for mercy for the idiots.

[DaveRodman]

Yes but this is about community :( So want to give the last open chance. To make everyone happier

I would ask the community and the dev team to please consider those of us who were idiots and made a mistake in claiming. I should have been able to claim 5 of these but due to an incredibly stupid copy/paste mistake in the Claim list my address is missing the last character so I am locked out. I’m sure that my 5 are in that list of unclaimed lobsters. I’ve got to imagine at least some other people are in the same boat.

Was really looking forward to this. I know you have to own your own mistakes in crypto, and I do, I’m simply asking for mercy for the idiots.

I should add that I believe people who made mistakes can prove they didn’t claim and show why.

[likepeas]

Those who missed had enough time. Should just keep the remainder and give it out to new people or even partnerships with projects.

[OffcierCia]

I suggest burning 1/2 of art, and then DAO will have only 20-25% of emission. In future unclaimed NFT can be used for sponsorship (for example on GitCoin).

[Jecherio1]

Yes but this is about community :( So want to give the last open chance. To make everyone happier

I would ask the community and the dev team to please consider those of us who were idiots and made a mistake in claiming. I should have been able to claim 5 of these but due to an incredibly stupid copy/paste mistake in the Claim list my address is missing the last character so I am locked out. I’m sure that my 5 are in that list of unclaimed lobsters. I’ve got to imagine at least some other people are in the same boat. Was really looking forward to this. I know you have to own your own mistakes in crypto, and I do, I’m simply asking for mercy for the idiots.

I should add that I believe people who made mistakes can prove they didn’t claim and show why.

And that would mean a lot of work for people involved, ignoring there would be a need for guidelines and so on. What would be fair, what would be needed for a claim to be decided to be justable. And who is the judge? unfortunately your Idea is very much specific to your situation, but not that useful to the general situation