As mentioned a few times in the Discord, I noticed a fair few projects on NFTX with low liquidity, but lots of trades on other platforms. This got me thinking, could we prove we are a market maker for NFTX?
The intention of this post is not to circumvent the current project selection process. This proposal is additive of that.
Approve 30 eth for a market-making experiment that lasts 3 months. If approved, we would then take 15eth to sweep 1 selected project and pair it with the other 15eth as a liquidity position.
We would then do a 1 off special vote to select a project, with research reports required as a pre-requisite for the vote.
At the end of the 3 months, we would provide a summary of the yield and total position changes and the DAO would vote to either exit the position, leave it, or formalize this market-making vote mechanism for future use.
We know this project was spun out of NFTX, and our market-making provides a lot of value to NFTX. Therefore I also propose we use this experiment to start talks with NFTX for a more formal partnership in regards of this market making. We would be seeking to gain some value from NFTX in the form of their token for the DAO services.
I compiled a list of projects on NFTX with low liquidity and a less than 1eth floor. Then pulled in the trading data from NFTGo where I could. Here is my proposed list, but open to add others if they meet the following requirements:
- Existing NFTX Pool - for simplicity
- Low liquidity
- Less the 1 eth floor - we only have 15 eth to spend.
- They have at least 200 eth of 90-day volume.
Proposed Extended List of Projects
Suggested projects in green
Thanks for the proposal Maggy. I think if these ideas can be turned into scalable concepts with low operational overhead they can get through governance more easily.
To give some perspective, right now there are only two people on payroll for Floor. One of them is a protocol developer and the other leads community and executes day-to-day ops.
I think for a proposal like this it needs to have a lead contributor that is paid to work on behalf of the DAO, otherwise there’s simply no one to lead it and be accountable/report back.
The goal currently is to work towards building scalable products that can function as autonomously as possible. Floor V2 is a step towards that and let’s token holders vote on specific onchain activities.
But my personal opinion is that if a strategy like this gets approved, then we will find ourselves with countless other requests for non-uniform strategies that spend treasury ETH. Hence the need for V2 to really tightly align the DAO’s operations (onchain, low overhead) to increase scale and profit margins that enable larger and larger sweeps.
Hi Maggy, happy to see this proposal as you mentioned something of this sort some time ago - here are my thoughts. . .
With Floor’s V2 on the horizon (nearly complete audits/code review) and the front–end build starting soon, I’m hesitant to support one-off votes in this manner, specifically experimental collections additions like this.
V2’s weekly votes will provide a minimum of 10 ETH for new collection additions or Sweep Wars for existing collections in the treasury, which will provide for a more active environment for treasury rebalances and the removal of overweight/addition of underweight collections per gFLOOR holder votes.
As for the suggested collections, I think that most of the collections listed are cooked, for lack of a better word, and a Floor sweep would be a net negative for the treasury; while I think Lil Pudgys would be a great addition to the Floor Treasury, I’d like to see them added in V2’s Collection Addition rather than a one off experiment.
Once V2 is released, I think that a great addition. to the Collections Addition process would be to unlock certain strategies as a mandate from the treasury: Loans via Astaria or another lending platform, a vote for NFTPerp addition, etc.
Love the suggest here - and it would be cool to see Floor become a market maker again. Overall, I’m in support of treasury experimentation and think that governance supersedes everything. Running an experiment like this once would be interesting if its the way the community wanted to go!
Not sure about the NFTX token swap because I’m very aware of conflicts of interest but I like the idea of adding a collection like Pudgys.
Adding a poll.
Should we move forward with this proposal?
While this initial idea ended in a “No” to move forward on it, I wanted to provide one bit of clarity, specifically for the MoonCatRescue pool on NFTX:
There are actually two pools on NFTX for the MoonCatRescue project. The pool with token MOONCAT is the one that is generic, and assets in that pool are valued at less than 1 ETH (about 0.3 ETH currently). The pool that’s in your screenshot (MCAT17) is a limited pool that is only for MoonCats that were “rescued” (minted onto the blockchain) in the calendar year 2017. Those are generally much more valued assets in the collection (currently valued at right about 1.0 ETH). If this does become an option in the future, just wanted to make sure there was clarity on what the overall “floor price” is for that collection versus the “floor price” for that specific NFTX pool.