If passed via Snapshot, the top selected collection would be eligible for inclusion in the Treasury and for future bond sweeps.
Motivation
This shortlist was curated based on quantiative metrics, qualitative attributes, and Discord community discussion. Collections were included or not included for a variety of reasons, for example:
CloneX — not included due to them being relatively new (< 3 months) and questions about “fractionalization” legality
Squiggle — included to add diversity to PFP heavy list
The polling process begins now and will end at 18:00 UTC on 04/03/2022 (March 4). After this, a Snapshot vote will be put up at 18:05 UTC on 04/03/2022 (March 4).
EDIT: Fixed poll end time to correct times (24h from post)
I’ve heard there are a lot of woke people hanging around world of women. i’m concerned because these people most of the time pressure others to act in the interest of their inclusion fight
My concern here would be to see lot of positive / inclusive people coming to the discord and push us to fill the treasury with all the world of women derivatives like made by women founders to show we support women in web3.
I’m not against having them per se, but i’d rather wait we solidify the community / metrics / decision sequence to bring new projects to the treasury
majin if randizuckerberg.eth and her crew land in there and see floor-dao as an opportunity to hype that list … i’m not against inclusion at all, i’m all for equality of chance etc … the thing i’m against is having people you can’t argue with because if you disagree for objective reason they go mad for subjective reasons
also i believe we should vote the project we add to the treasury one by one. here people are just going to validate your list so things move on no matter if they agree with all or just with one.
if it was on a project per project basis we would have discussions around the metrics and fundamentals of the projects (can’t discuss 5projects at the same time)
that would be imo more healthy for the protocols and also allow us to learn from each other view on collections
I would remove Cool Cats. The team has been shown to be highly incompetent with the game. There is no reason to invest in this collection beyond past performance. Future performance is very murky
like honestly i’d love to have discussions on wizard and learn from each person take on it and have a discussions around their metrics, roadmaps etc … there is the volume market making but there is also the risk / exposure to price fluctuation and we def don’t want to buy tops
we have a broad community that probably each person has knowledge about different projects and it would be a shame not to leverage that in the sake of moving fast
Highly agree with Azuki. Most buys in the collection are well above the floor. The team is executing and proving that they can keep the interest of its community. Would replace cool cats
Squiggles, Mutant Apes, Wizards, Doodles, Azuki, Sandbox - all very different communities in NFTs that when combined together would make a great coaltition re: awareness. All also great long-term projects that people will want to trade over time
world of women is a bit off for me. i would like to concentrate in art first, and the beauty of it, when its too much evident (inclusion etc.) its not visionary, its repetitive and annoying. valuable art write the future, and there are way better artist than world of woman (world of uman i would choose as example). the only way that world of woman had success is some weird connection in background. im against investing in that
I agree, I think each project should have a full write-up and discussion here before moving to snapshot. I’d like to see a standard format for a proposed addition, covering quantitative metrics and dune dashboards, and then qualitative analysis from several people who are intimately familiar with the project. It will give everyone an opportunity to make an informed decision, even if they’re learning about a particular project for the first time.
At some point in the future, we may need to reevaluate a project for inclusion or for rebalancing. Having the record here of that analysis and discussion can help us make decisions as each of our individual project holdings continue to evolve over time.
Thanks everyone for voting, and all of the thoughtful comments.
@nicovrg@Waver 100% agree that we should have a more formal system for inclusion going forward. will start to organize now. For this first one, since we want to move relatively quickly to demonstrate the bond flywheel on a second collection, we can proceed as listed, and make a note to re-review after a “Collections Committee” is set up
