search

lobster-dao / overview

Description-FAQ of the process
MIT License
116 stars 24 forks source link

LIP 1: Retroactive and Burn #13

Closed IvanGBi closed 3 years ago

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

This Lobster Improvement Proposal is based on extensive Telegram, Twitter, and Github discussions from previous issue. This is just my imho, as I am not in control of the multisig or the minting or the deployment. If the DAO decides the same or differently, the execution would need to hit quorum. I rest my case.

There were two objectives which had to be addressed:

  1. If there should be any drop to those who missed the bot, and if so - how.
  2. If there should be burn, extra distribution, or other actions pre-reveal.

Retroactive late airdrop is not possible, unfortunately!

If you read this, please make sure you follow the context from the link quoted in the first sentence. You need to have context to be able to argue. Basically, it's physically-technically impossible to bend the ruled in such a way as to allow members to get their drop as they could have without distorting the flow too much.

The issue is that the reveal gets delayed (which goes against the collection rules - and that is not okay). And post-reveal, it would be extremely unfair to the lootbox design because people will see what they can claim, and then they will get fucked by MEV (see the bottom of the post). Overall, please read the arguments in the previous issue on why extending bot or doing post-reveal is just bad and unfair. Therefore, unfortunately, as much as I personally like the idea of having everyone in - there doesn't seem to be a fair & just way to have the late joiners in. Yet. Those members who missed might get their NFT on some new distribution cycle, without any expectations. Because if you were active before but missed - but you are smart - you can be active again and somehow get in the club! Simple, right? And also simple from the tech perspective.

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.

Proposal 1.1: no changes to be made. It goes as is. No tech works extra required.

No burn or changes to the DAO portion

I personally don't think the DAO should have 49% as it's against what NFTs have had today - but maybe this is new? That was not the objective to keep so many, but that was how devs made the contract. And those are the rules = remaining go to DAO. Not anyone's fault that happened. So, artist value and other comments aside - doing NOTHING is the correct way, because it prompts the least intervention from anyone inside or outside. And one more argument... to burn, DAO first needs to claim (if I understand contracts correctly?) That means spending 300K USD in ETH gas fees to be able to burn. That's not something feasible. So DAO can't burn (?)

What happens then? Nothing. DAO has a right to the pieces but does not mint them. Everyone knows what outstanding pieces are, but DAO can decide to NEVER mint them. Or never use them. The point is: let people decide later. These can be used for anything or nothing. In 1 year or 100 years or never. I have no control of this, you have no control of this.

Proposal 1.2: no changes to be made. DAO decides later or never. Nobody will touch the collection.

PS IMPORTANT: I am not in control of this anymore. I don't control the collection, the multisig, the snapshot page, or anything. There are multiple admins and owners. I rest my case here, I have my own project(s) I am busy with. No work, feedback, or anything should be expected from me personally - or from admins. Do whatever you want. Enjoy art and piss off <3 The objective of this LIP is to also prove that the original members made something and shipped it away, retaining no decision-making powers or control: anon devs deployed it, and it works as such. That's all.

KEY MEV NOTICE

If you know how MEV works, and if you have NFT claims outstanding - you can technically frontrun DAO claims later on to get the NFT that you want, because on how tokenID<>ipfs path get matched. This is just a heads up that if you already claimed - you will just get your path, so never mind. But those trying to claim later post-reveal can either get super lucky or super unlucky. At the time of writing, about 80% of people claimed, so this is more of a notification to the DAO if the DAO decides to ever mint. The DAO needs to be careful of MEV if it ever comes across to the rare pieces mint block.

I rest my case. Have people decide what they want. I will just watch from the sidelines after creating LIP 1.

kkkrackpot commented 3 years ago

Cant the DAO simply transfer an nft from its stack to the approved "late"? Just to pick a minted nft up and send it to the approved address, with ordinary tx fees? The late are late, nft is not their "right" anymore, so be happy with what you're given.

Also, if nfts must be "burnt", I support that the excess nfts must not be minted at all, at least in the near future. However, I'm against the whole "burn" idea.

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago
  1. Fees to mint
  2. Fees to send
  3. Coordination to get addresses
  4. Filtering addresses for sybil who already claimed
  5. ... more work, more effort

Up to someone to do the work. I don't do any work. Just banning people in the chats xx

kkkrackpot commented 3 years ago

1-2. Well, if all unclaimed nfts are to be minted -- the DAO will pay the mint fees anyway? Let's make "the late" compensate it to the DAO first, to pay the late tax.

  1. The applicant can post his address in the chat, elsewhere.

4-5. Agreed, it's quite a handjob... Probably, each applicant will need a separate proposal, investigation and voting. But now it's his problem to arrange that somehow. E.g. to ask someone to create a proposal, etc. Otherwise, the late are rekt.

tartakovsky commented 3 years ago

It seems that we are currently voting for options that can't be done then. If burn is too expensive to execute, then there won't be a burn. DAO doesn't have 300k even if it wanted to spend them burning (if what Ivan says is correct, idk)

Does anyone see any options except doing nothing as Ivan proposes? Is there anything to vote for?

kkkrackpot commented 3 years ago

It seems that we are currently voting for options that can't be done then. If burn is too expensive to execute, then there won't be a burn. DAO doesn't have 300k even if it wanted to spend them burning.

Does anyone see any options except doing nothing as Ivan proposes?

To mint it gradually, one by one, for years. :)

tartakovsky commented 3 years ago

Sure, but that's == doing nothing on LIP1. Future distributions will be voted on in the future.

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

@tartakovsky gets it ser. Yup. Imho.

kkkrackpot commented 3 years ago

Btw, someone's already voting

https://snapshot.org/#/10b57e6da0.eth/proposal/QmNsfWz7iYBhU28so49oCjVRv2FiDmn1LWykh1cNsB7pMa

tartakovsky commented 3 years ago

Yeah, me included and it's cute, since no other option except No burn seems to be possible to execute 😄 Much governance.

Datascience-Blockchain commented 3 years ago

allow initial minters to mint one more NFT each?

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

Btw, someone's already voting

https://snapshot.org/#/10b57e6da0.eth/proposal/QmNsfWz7iYBhU28so49oCjVRv2FiDmn1LWykh1cNsB7pMa

Correct way for governance is to discuss something before making something vote-able. Create LIP2 (now) please on github and write out the positions more clearly. Or respond to LIP 1.

ncerovac commented 3 years ago

Yeah, me included and it's cute, since no other option except No burn seems to be possible to execute 😄 Much governance.

yeah, a lot of us jumped to conclusions before thinking it out lol. anyhow, this will get better, gg everyone XD

ekius commented 3 years ago

I pro "No burn" or "Burn the rare only" and "reward projects", the NFT left in treasury will be reward for each project do airdrop or claimable mint for LOBs holder. A nice touch like AB did, they celebrate an event with a minted squiggle .

kkkrackpot commented 3 years ago

Btw, someone's already voting https://snapshot.org/#/10b57e6da0.eth/proposal/QmNsfWz7iYBhU28so49oCjVRv2FiDmn1LWykh1cNsB7pMa

Correct way for governance is to discuss something before making something vote-able. Create LIP2 (now) please on github and write out the positions more clearly. Or respond to LIP 1.

It's not my proposal, no idea who launched it...

defidummy commented 3 years ago

Wait for royalty to kick-in when enough, use that to burn keep it simple and stupid blz

most holders are already too rich they didn't even claim their nft why would there be participation in governance

Distribution is done. Let it pamp 1 lob > 1 punk

DaveRodman commented 3 years ago

This Lobster Improvement Proposal is based on extensive Telegram, Twitter, and Github discussions from previous issue. This is just my imho, as I am not in control of the multisig or the minting or the deployment. If the DAO decides the same or differently, the execution would need to hit quorum. I rest my case.

There were two objectives which had to be addressed:

  1. If there should be any drop to those who missed the bot, and if so - how.
  2. If there should be burn, extra distribution, or other actions pre-reveal.

Retroactive late airdrop is not possible, unfortunately!

If you read this, please make sure you follow the context from the link quoted in the first sentence. You need to have context to be able to argue. Basically, it's physically-technically impossible to bend the ruled in such a way as to allow members to get their drop as they could have without distorting the flow too much.

The issue is that the reveal gets delayed (which goes against the collection rules - and that is not okay). And post-reveal, it would be extremely unfair to the lootbox design because people will see what they can claim, and then they will get fucked by MEV (see the bottom of the post). Overall, please read the arguments in the previous issue on why extending bot or doing post-reveal is just bad and unfair. Therefore, unfortunately, as much as I personally like the idea of having everyone in - there doesn't seem to be a fair & just way to have the late joiners in. Yet. Those members who missed might get their NFT on some new distribution cycle, without any expectations. Because if you were active before but missed - but you are smart - you can be active again and somehow get in the club! Simple, right? And also simple from the tech perspective.

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.

Proposal 1.1: no changes to be made. It goes as is. No tech works extra required.

No burn or changes to the DAO portion

I personally don't think the DAO should have 49% as it's against what NFTs have had today - but maybe this is new? That was not the objective to keep so many, but that was how devs made the contract. And those are the rules = remaining go to DAO. Not anyone's fault that happened. So, artist value and other comments aside - doing NOTHING is the correct way, because it prompts the least intervention from anyone inside or outside. And one more argument... to burn, DAO first needs to claim (if I understand contracts correctly?) That means spending 300K USD in ETH gas fees to be able to burn. That's not something feasible. So DAO can't burn (?)

What happens then? Nothing. DAO has a right to the pieces but does not mint them. Everyone knows what outstanding pieces are, but DAO can decide to NEVER mint them. Or never use them. The point is: let people decide later. These can be used for anything or nothing. In 1 year or 100 years or never. I have no control of this, you have no control of this.

Proposal 1.2: no changes to be made. DAO decides later or never. Nobody will touch the collection.

PS IMPORTANT: I am not in control of this anymore. I don't control the collection, the multisig, the snapshot page, or anything. There are multiple admins and owners. I rest my case here, I have my own project(s) I am busy with. No work, feedback, or anything should be expected from me personally - or from admins. Do whatever you want. Enjoy art and piss off <3 The objective of this LIP is to also prove that the original members made something and shipped it away, retaining no decision-making powers or control: anon devs deployed it, and it works as such. That's all.

KEY MEV NOTICE

If you know how MEV works, and if you have NFT claims outstanding - you can technically frontrun DAO claims later on to get the NFT that you want, because on how tokenID<>ipfs path get matched. This is just a heads up that if you already claimed - you will just get your path, so never mind. But those trying to claim later post-reveal can either get super lucky or super unlucky. At the time of writing, about 80% of people claimed, so this is more of a notification to the DAO if the DAO decides to ever mint. The DAO needs to be careful of MEV if it ever comes across to the rare pieces mint block.

I rest my case. Have people decide what they want. I will just watch from the sidelines after creating LIP 1.

Curious if you have an opinion on those of us who didn’t “miss” anything but rather made a mistake. I would argue (with complete self interest) that those of us who made a mistake are in a slightly different category. just trying to see if those in control view these issues as different or not? (Hoping there is mercy for us)

saszer commented 3 years ago

How about putting some of them in a timelock or a vesting (using team.finance? ) , where after the timelock it gets listed on opensea for a lower price(one by one over the years) or can just be made available to claim for some terms.

James0000007 commented 3 years ago

Given that this should theoretically be a council where all opinions are equal. Someone already made a proposal albeit without a better case/proposal to burn it all and it almost passed or at least had enough individual holders attention. I agree burning is not in the best interest of the DAO and personally voted no.

However there certainly was an increased interest in the DAO community to do something similar to a burn (100+ votes) so I reckon that perhaps without incurring on a fee that affects the DAOs treasury it would have more traction.

I propose that we offer two solutions:

a) Any newly minted NFT and/or set of NFTs has to have a snap of over >9*% which is effectively a burn unless there is an extreme case presented like example cases VB or perhaps Jae Kwon or any major L1 innovator who is not part yet of Lobster and or has contributed a project or a protocol that rewards Lobsters NFT holders.

That also allows the DAO to give NFT to special Individuals and or to partner with/offer support to various causes both as a possible investment which helps the DAO ( Like a project which brings additional DAO Revenue perpetually) and or a charity reason. But to pass it has to have a very high vote ratio making it very difficult to pass unless it is benefits all DAO holders.

B) Vote no 2 would be the threshold to mint. That can also be decided via vote afterwards if it passes. Ie: 90-95-100.

That way we keep the art living. If there is a valuable addition to the community I'm sure the DAO will vote accordingly. And we keep the collection and its ability to be used for a good cause and at the same time make it very difficult for an NFT to be minted ( As it has to have passed a very high threshold of voting %) to make it rare to be a lobster

Lemme know what the other Lobsters think.

This is only for the NFTs/mint/DAO use. We can also allocate a small set for the DAO which can be used/minted with regular 50%+ threshold .

All other proposals can continue with a regular snapshot of 50%+.

ethduke commented 3 years ago

Voted 'No burn' on the LIP 1.

What to do with remaining pieces can be decided later by the DAO, just not to touch them for the some time. It can be a charity donation or funding bright mind / communities. No additional work in this case, just art. No need to spend money on fees to mint, and come up with tricky plans where to get it, take care about MEV bots. 'Burn'-thing sounds like 'pump my bags'.

And don't like destroying the art.

oxmah commented 3 years ago

If the intention wasn't to exclude people who unfortunately weren't active in the past few weeks, this is what has be done. It's one thing to say we didn't want to, but it's not changing how things have been done. Fortunately there's a way to allow the late one to claim.

It might work through the bot. Is there a way to set it up so it can ask addresses from people who didn't send it yet and then ask them to send the required fee for minting + sending the NFT ? This seems a bit of work to me but not something impossible.

It would delay the reveal but I fail to see how that's a bigger issue than leaving people aside.

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

I am not against it at all, just "This seems a bit of work to me but not something impossible." is nobody there to really orchestrate it all properly. Because again, this either takes too long (reveal delayed for too long = not cool) or it's done post-reveal (then see the point about MEV, where the arbitrage might just take anything juicy and cool!)

What if I missed?

Does DAO burn?

Does it mean DAO wants to mint?

It's the most sensible way forward? Everything will work as coded, and those who missed - unfortunately - can always get it later if DAO agrees to some new distributions. Which I think, personally, it should. Simple and quick. Imho.

If somebody has more radical plans: code it. Make proposal. Nobody will work "for you". It's not a project, there is no team, and despite us all wanting to retain the same distribution sheet - we physically are unable to put more time into it.

alexflorence commented 3 years ago

Potential problems with having 49% of NFTs in the treasury

The following assumptions are made:

The potential problem / attack scenario I see:

1) 49% of the NFTs being in the treasury means that in the very best case of 100% governance participation 51% of NFTs can vote on a governance proposal. 2) Consequently, even in this ideal scenario, only 25.5% of NFTs are needed to completely decide the outcome of a governance proposal 3) This means, even in an ideal scenario the cost of attacking our treasury and potentially gaining 49% of the supply would be 25.5% of the supply. 4) Of course this can only be estimated but I doubt that we will have a 100% governance participation. At 50% governance participation the attack cost would be 12.75% of the supply, at 25% it would be 6.37% and so on

So basically there could be an issue in which it is attractive for an attacker to capture a share of the supply in order to get access to a much bigger share through a governance proposal they can freely formulate and control the outcome of.

Is this really an issue and what could we do to prevent this?

I am fairly certain that with regular ERC20 tokens this would be a big problem and from a pure numbers perspective it also looks like one. Do the tokens being NFTs change anything in this regard?

If a scenario as above is reasonable we need to reduce the amount of tokens the treasury holds, because its only attractive as long as the attack cost is smaller than the potential gain. Otherwise we need to come up with other safeguards such as 2/3rd majority requirements or something.

(Quite possible that I am overthinking this but I just wanted to put it out there.)

kkkrackpot commented 3 years ago

Potential problems with having 49% of NFTs in the treasury

Is it possible to blacklist the DAO from voting at all?

I'm kinda surprized that the DAO (as an entity) has the right to vote on its own proposals with its own treasury. A catch-22 or similar paradox...

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

Please stop confusing other people if you have no clue how governance works / snapshot. Not it can't and shouldn't. Smh

Potential problems with having 49% of NFTs in the treasury

Is it possible to blacklist the DAO from voting at all?

I'm kinda surprized that the DAO (as an entity) has the right to vote on its own proposals with its own treasury. A catch-22 or similar paradox...

Kingway87 commented 3 years ago

maybe the current stage no burn is the better option since lacking the gas fees , perhaps we can vote for the dao members to create a vault at nftx , slowly batch by batch send to the vault (no matter rare or not rare ) and turning into Liqduity token treasury.

From there we can decide what to use for the funds , understanding lobsterdao tg full of big brain people and good project founder , so why not use the fund to invest on them and voting by lobsterdao members , future profit or airdrop go to lobster dao members , thru this will also increase the lobsterdao nft value and members being more royalties,more active in the group. or just use the fund slowly burn them all ~

2nd option is, Open WL and sending some remaining lobsterdao NFT to top100-200 blockchain/crypto people those whos contribute a lot in the space (but this will cause a problem on identifying their identity the address n wl them ) .thru this making lobsterdao community much stronger n fun ^^

bitphish commented 3 years ago

I somewhat fall under the made a mistake category. I checked the eligible list and searched my username instead of the name I use for my profile. So I thought I wasn't eligible and didn't do the bot even though I was.

I don't think anyone can assume just because they didn't do the bot that they didn't care. There are a variety of factors on why one might have missed the drop.

I think it would be a good gesture to allow the remaining eligible people claim their NFT(s), if possible as it would open more members to the DAO.

Also wouldn't it benefit the artist as well to have the collection open to more people?

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

While there were good ideas and I was looking to see how to help, it doesn't seem anyone from the non-claimers actually decided to put proper work into MAKING things instead of "giving ideas". After all, this is a DAO and there is no team. So if this issue wasn't taken upon by someone else, I'd presume it's a no-go now granted artist announced reveal in 14 hours.

Would personally vote for "maybe distribute later again to active members" as outlined in my LIP.

Would close this issue in a day post-reveal.

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

Something just crossed my mind. There are two things here.

1) Objectives of an asset-denominated crypto treasury: is to distribute to active members as a "thank you" and as a way to scale-decentralize the collector base. In utility tokens, this is less the case (unless it's PoS networks) because you don't necessarily need too many people: value comes from a handful of devs. BUT in NFT space having many collectors is a must thing. And in lobsterdao case, there is not even fractionalization needed. So i'd say distributing slowly, and in a smart way != inflation as in case of utility tokens. It's positive growth because people can't sell less than 1. Their true badge! Hence I don't see much risk with this (see below why). So the question is which rare pieces if at all shall be distributed.

2) The DAO can be anything or nothing. But one of the cool objectives of lobsterdao I see here is DeFi / user degens. A lot of seasoned testers, farmers, and so on. People have hinted at "lobsterdao = angellist" before but now it really makes sense. But that comes from the long history of the chat. And as it stands, about 30% of active potential testers is at risk of not being included. WHY has been discussed extensively in this LIP... but I feel this needs fixing. However, there should still be punishment for those who missed 3 deadlined, yet they should be included. I suggest the following:

This way, the angellist idea will be completed pre-historic data chat (point 2) and will keep growing further as an effort of continuous small drops to really contributing members (point 1). I believe this makes sure that there is no market inflation for those who consider it as a collectible (it's art, not money) + the angellist idea is whole + future members can get included.

I also believe teams should take NFT holder list at new times when they plan to drop, and not initial list. Why is explained above (will be completed more + will be ever-growing and refreshed). If people lose their badge and jump out, fk em. Many will just keep 1 as a symbol. I also believe the weights of the drops should be respected, but also in a quadratic way. So not 1:1 weights but reduced as a square root maybe. That way people still have incentive to have more than 1.

Anyway, enjoy art, reveal soon. Idk if you will like this idea, but it would be cool to tell other teams to use this model :)

The DAO should also figure out how to quantify and provide quality support to teams who engage in such a thing. It maybe should be a bit more clear as a DAO proposal. There is a chat, a channel, maybe this can be done. But don't turn it into a launchpad, fuck that! Keep it fun, cool, and muh value add.

PairofACEs-crypto commented 3 years ago

Ivan is legend, thank you so much for your works and idea. I reckon its fair and we should put this on the snapshot for members to vote asap. i really want 1as a symbol of being the member of lobster dao whatever the value of it. Thank you guys

electroxts commented 3 years ago

it is a good idea Ivan ✅ if it is possible to increase the chances of rare parts for current participants, thus they will be rewarded with an increased chance 🦞

Voltaireon commented 3 years ago

This is a great idea. Love that it maximises the intrinsic value (engagement quality) of the DAO while also maintaining rarity.

boqiboy commented 3 years ago

I like this idea so much, thanks for all brilliant idea bring though. Ivan.

IvanGBi commented 3 years ago

Discussing in new LIP: https://github.com/lobster-dao/overview/issues/25