XIP#46 - Sell 1 glpyh, buyback and burn some nftx

Authors - me

Summary - This proposal suggests removing some GLYPH from liquidity and buying back NFTX tokens ahead of V3 launch


  • ETH+GLYPH position has not had a single swap in 100 days, earning the treasury literally no yield. The eth could just be staked for stETH and earn more
  • With the current treasury we could buy the entire NFTX market cap multiple times over, so this is healthy price support
  • With V3 coming out, the price may not be this low again so its a good time to get tokens out of the hands of sellers and burnt
  • This is just 1 glpyh when the treasury has 5.91 (I am assuming 1 GLPYH token means 1 AUTOGLYPH NFT, please correct me if I’m wrong here)


  • All ETH/GLYPH liquidity to be removed
  • A single GLYPH to be redeemed for 1 NFT
  • The NFT should be listed on blur at 10% below the lowest ask and lowered by 5% each week it doesn’t sell
  • Once it sells, use funds to buyback NFTX tokens and send to burn address. Buyback should not happen in 1 candle but over 48h twap. Exact specifics to be decided by the team at execution.
  • If this goes well we could consider selling another

Funds request - yes


  • Forum quorum I feel doesn’t matter because its easy to make accounts here, but would like to see some discussion here
  • For on chain vote, this is not significantly impactful to the treasury. Entire treasury is over $10M and 1 glyph is like $150k? It also is not being given to anyone as the buyback is for all nftx holders. Therefore 50% must vote in agreement to pass.
1 Like

I wanted to update some notes on the proposal above from @floorpunk (AKA minossimon on Discord) which has come through as part of the Discord chat feedback.

My initial feedback is

NFTX is a governance token, I’m not sure I see the long term benefits in the DAO burning treasury for an artificial price pump.

Econometrie chimed in with

Guess you are trying to create some momentum for v3. I get it but its probably not rly a sustainable way of going about things. If you are a shorter term focused investor/trader that is trying to speculate on the v3 launch I guess this would be beneficial. But otherwise I think its best for the protocol longer term to not hard hype it. Just release it and let the market find out by itself how great or not great nftx v3 is.

point of treasury in my eyes is funding future development of nftx towards becoming a self sustainable protocol and/or at some point if it might become clear nftx will not reach this point to shutdown and only then distribute funds over nftx holders.

Mooncat5997 continued…

I agree with you @Econometrie , artificial pump is not the way.

Daimos agreed with …

I definitely would see it as artificial price pump and would vote with all my $nftx against it

Minossimon (@floorpunk ) came back with …

its not an artificial price pump, its permanently reducing the supply of NFTX tokens on the market
okay thats fair, i wont put this up for vote then as it seems most dont like the idea

i’m confused why we even hold these glyphs then if treasury exposure to them makes no diff to nftx token holders and they generate us no yield
im a bit warry to support new collections, i saw the PUNKS → MILADY proposal and given the price action there im glad it never happened
so I’d rather not just swap to some new nft that could go to 0
and we certainly dont need more punks
what would you think of a proposal to stake our eth and still sell the glyphs for more eth thats staked, then its all getting yields which actually does lengthen runway

I replied with…

If you’re looking for yield generating strategies then Floor DAO is a good place. They’re much more of a market maker.
Selling Glyphs and the bottom of a bera market doesn’t seem like the smartest play at the moment. If treasury is running low to keep the protocol moving then it might be a neccessary evil but it seems the wrong time to do that anyway.

At the moment the general consensus is to not pursue the original suggestion above.

It should be noted that there are treasury rebalancing approaches in the past…

The focus on these have been around securing stables for long term runway for the protocol.

1 Like

Thanks floorpunk ! Well written proposal. I am some thoughts, though…

With NFTX v3 coming out soon, the GLYPH vault may be more useful in the future. I’ve always had a soft spot for GLYPH because it is such a great bluechip… it feels like it has potential.

Autoglyphs are also a great investment in the NFT space for this reason. Personally I feel like Autoglyphs, being priced in ETH, have more upside than ETH itself.

The DAO treasury already has a lot of NFTX tokens, so it would be cheaper to burn some of those to reduce total outstanding tokens (although I don’t know if that would be ideal either, at this very moment).

Selling an autoglyph would mean 1 less autoglyph in the treasury. Which would reduce the treasury’s total value and ability to continue building longterm in worst case scenario. Personally as a token holder I’d prefer the extra autoglyph in the treasury I think.

Crypto is very extreme in its upshoots and its pullbacks. Buying and burning now will temporarily lift the price, but longterm it won’t really change the outcome I don’t think. So the main people that benefit would be people who sell shortly after the buy-back-and-burn.

These are just my personal opinions. I also worry that getting into treasury management and tokenomics may be a distraction with V3 and all the dev stuff going on.

This is a very well formatted proposal. Long term I would like to see the project get more into the DAO side of things. I have some ideas myself that I would like to add to the mix. For now though, in the bear market, I think we have a lot going on which is very close to being released :slight_smile: So focussing on maintaining treasury and pumping out v3 and v3.x would be my vote, personally.

1 Like