Ratify current NFTX Mission Statement

Authors
- Finesseboi
- ChopChop

Glossary
- Litepaper
- DAO
- NFT
- DeFi
- ETH
- Cryptopunk

Summary:

The objective of this proposal is to vote on the mission statement from the litepaper. As a DAO who aims to be a black hole for a variety of NFT assets, having a defining mission statement and vision will provide direction. The mission statement was written by the founder of NFTX Alex Gausman.

Your vote depends on if you believe this mission statement is aligned with what the NFTX DAO should become. If you are against this mission statement and vote no, please provide as much context and criticisms as possible.

Mission & Vision Statement:

NFTX’s mission is to become the primary issuer of NFT index funds, allowing anyone to invest in NFT markets without needing the underlying knowledge and expertise required when investing in individual assets. By doing so, NFTX will function as a black hole for NFT assets.

We will aspire to remain objective about which NFTs we give preferential treatment, focusing above all else on what is best for the long-term appreciation of the NFTX token. That said, we will also place a high value on principles of decentralization and endeavor to work with like-minded organizations.

The only potentially unpopular opinions NFTX will have which community members should be aware of is (A) a bias for ETH and Ethereum, and (B) a bias for PUNK and CryptoPunks. When in doubt, we will store our organization’s wealth in these assets. We will remain rooted on Ethereum unless met with no other option.

We invite anyone and everyone to join us in our mission. Over time, that mission will inevitably change but it’s important that we begin our journey on the same footing and with the same principles in mind, so that we may move forward, not only as a community but as an anti-fragile digital warband

Rationale

We believe that ratifying the mission statement early on will provide an initial organizational structure. This will provide a clear vision for the DAO and allow its contributors to break things down into smaller objectives without worrying that the original vision is being compromised.

A lack of compromise towards our beliefs will show others that we are consistent and have a recognizable brand. If this works out it will improve the brand value and its attractiveness to future users and builders.

(A) Why be biased towards ETH?

As things currently stand, most DeFi projects are built on Ethereum. NFTX is built on Ethereum. Having a bias towards one’s own infrastructure seems logical unless there is inherent risk. The underlying risk of being built on Ethereum and relying on it is the same as having a bias.

Over time the DAO may look towards supporting chain-agnostic NFTs. For the time being, as most builders are currently using Ethereum, being part of that ecosystem is the best thing for NFTX as an organization.

(B) Why be biased towards CryptoPunks?

CryptoPunks are the inspiration behind the ERC-721 standard. They have a fixed supply, predetermined attributes, and a very accessible market history provided by Larvalabs.

Additionally, the CryptoPunks ecosystem is filled with known and well-respected contributors in the NFT space. CryptoPunks have a strong foundation and hold somewhat of a first movers advantage. This is proven by the existing makeup of the participants in the NFTX raise. The DAO has already witnessed a positive relationship between NFTX and the CryptoPunks community.

The DAO, as it evolves and matures, can naturally change bias. But as the founder and early community have shown, CryptoPunks are an NFT “blue chip”. Having a bias towards CryptoPunks follows the same thesis behind the ETH bias.

Why is NFTX a DAO?

We believe a DAO structure with a governance token will enable a community of users and contributors to build and grow efficiently. Having a wide array of contributors will allow us to create value in multiple directions simultaneously. Being a DAO allows for a system where contributors who add value to the ecosystem can be compensated based on what they have provided. Over time this creates a community built off of aligned incentives. This is primordial for NFTX to achieve its objectives efficiently and become a black hole for NFT assets.

Effect

Ratifies current mission statement, confirms early direction of the DAO.

Poll

Vote Yes: Agree with the current mission statement and the future vision of NFTX
Vote No: Reject the current mission statement and future vision of NFTX

4 Likes

Thanks for this @finesseboi.

Issues and possible recommendations from my end:

1. The proposal is over-reaching, based on what it claims to be intended for.

AFAIK the mission/vision statement should be our north star as a community. And not a treasury charter. And mixing the two can lead to a lot of conflict of interest down the road.

So I suggest you break this proposal down into two different proposals based on subject matter:

A) Ratify Mission & Vision Statement

  • Focusing this on the neutrality and objectivity of NFTx towards different NFTs.

B) Treasury Management/Charter (which should be further broken down into two as follows)

and

2. Please document the initial Mission statement you are proposing to ratify.

To “Ratify current NFTX Mission Statement” , you should point towards and indicated the mission statement you are trying to ratify first. The one in the litepaper? some discord channel message by Alex? please refer to what you are trying to “ratify” in the first place so that we have better a view into what this proposal is dealing with.

3. The ratified mission & vision statement is rather misleading, in the sense that we begin with:

However, right in the very next sentence:

we are directly insinuating a subjective bias towards PUNK and cryptopunks. Like I’ve mentioned before this raises a lot of concerns regarding the true purpose of this ratification and possible conflict of interest.

As for the bias towards ETH, I believe that is in the best interest of NFTx and the community at large, as it is the infrastructure NFTx and most of the existing NFT market is built upon. But still, if by being bias we are intending to hold more ETH, that should come in the treasury mng proposal and not an alteration of the mission and vision of NFTX as a whole. As the treasury mng discussion has a lot more ideas and possibilities that are already being spoken about and need more time and community discussion to implement

TL;DR

  • Mission and Vision statement should be focused on NFTX and be as neutral and objective to NFTs
  • Holding wealth in ETH/PUNK/NFTX should be discussed in another proposal relating to Treasury Management
  • NFTX should be NFT agnostic, otherwise things can get extremely convoluted if we start being bias towards NFT projects (especially this early on in the show)
  • Rather than cherry-picking projects at this early stage, focus on outlining and detailing the parameters by which we should pick the top projects (age of project, tvl, trading volume, innovation etc…)

PS: I LOVE CRYPTOPUNKS, and hold a bunch myself, and this would be bad for me as a punk devotee. But I feel if we let this slide, decentralization and the true purpose of NFTX will be lost in people fighting over which NFTs the DAO should buy and hold. Rather if we are on the same page about the objective parameters by which we will decide which NFTs to buy and hold and not “just because”… things will be more longer-term and less prone to manipulation.

I should jump in and say that although Finesseboi has handled setting this proposal up, most of the contents come from me and what I put in the litepaper.

I like your point about splitting this proposal up into two seperate proposals. Intuitively, it feels like fleshing out both the mission statement and the treasury charter could take awhile, and that is fine I think. We can use the conclusion from the litepaper as a current standard until new documents are finalized.

Thoughts ak/finesse/anyone?

I agree with splitting them out and keeping a high-level focus on what NFTx is for the mission/vision statement, and then using another proposal around how we’re going to achieve the mission.

It seems like it will be easier to approve the mission/vision independently and that most of the discussion/debate will be around how it is achieved.

With that in mind, is a vote of Yes on the current proposal still going allow for this to happen, or would we need to vote No? I’m for the charter (Yes), but would like it broken out (No).

1 Like

@ak4422

  1. I agree that this proposal is over-reaching, maybe should have worded it as ratifying litepaper but seemed kind of odd. The proposal also is not a change of anything but more of an explanation of what is already the case.

100% agree that Mission is our north star, which is why it’s the first thing I wanted it done. I’m absolutely for going straight into a treasury charter after more discussion! Imo mission is what we achieve to be, treasury charter is what our funds achieve to be. Both are a reflection of the other and represent the DAO so both should be subject to scrutiny.

  1. "The current NFTX mission is to become a DeFi black hole for NFT assets. We will aspire to remain objective about which NFTs we give preferential treatment, focusing above all else on what is best for the long-term appreciation of the NFTX token. That said, we will also place high value on principles of decentralization and endeavor to work with like-minded organizations. "

This is straight from the litepaper, chop and I have only tried to dig in deeper into what this
means, not change it’s meaning.

  1. We will aspire =/= We are. Aspiring to be objective does not mean a lack of subjectivity it just means trying to avoid it. The reason I kept this here is because it is part of Alex’s vision for NFTX, having a treasury proposal is essential but I wanted to get the Mission done first, and to me ETH/PUNK was part of that vision.
  • Mission and Vision statement should be focused on NFTX and be as neutral and objective to NFTs (to me based on the litepaper, NFTX was not 100% neutral so mission and vision follows what I perceived)

  • Holding wealth in ETH/PUNK/NFTX should be discussed in another proposal relating to Treasury Management (Absolutely!!!)

  • Rather than cherry-picking projects at this early stage, focus on outlining and detailing the parameters by which we should pick the top projects (age of project, tvl, trading volume, innovation etc…)

Absolutely, my whole basis for making this proposal is so we can start creating standards and parameters so we do not cherry pick.

I feel the main reason people are arguing with this is because they disagree (which is fine) with the litepaper (the stuff I’ve stated in this proposal all comes from the litepaper). What I’m finding confusing is why you would fill bounties if you disagree with the litepaper.

The goal of this proposal is NOT for me to determine Punks as the NFTX NFT standard. The goal of this proposal is for people to vote on if they agree with the Founder’s vision.

@javery yep any proposal can change things retroactively (if they are not time based events, for example we won’t be able to recuperate a contributors pay so proposing that would be useless)

Any beliefs the DAO holds can be changed based on a governance vote and it should always be that way imo.