XIP#56 Project New Wind

Authors

ChopChop (NFTX)
Caps (FloorDAO)
Marco (Merit Circle)

Summary

  • This is a proposal for a “merger” between NFTX and FloorDAO, in collaboration with Merit Circle. If approved, the result of the proposal would be a combination of the respective teams, products and treasuries of NFTX and FloorDAO (referred to as “Project New Wind”).

  • Project New Wind would have a governance token that the existing governance tokens for NFTX and FloorDAO would be exchangeable into (referred to as “New Token”).

  • As part of the merger, there would be a scheduled release of a novel NFT liquidity protocol, powered by Uniswap V4 and scaled by Base.

  • Relaunch of Floor V2 in the lead up to Project New Wind to seed initial liquidity pools with selected collections.

  • Governance of the New Token would be on-chain, with 20% of the total supply of the New Token being controlled by a smart contract that is subject to on-chain token holder governance.

  • An ownerless Cayman Islands foundation company structure will be incorporated to be adjacent to the DAO and to further the growth and development of Project New Wind, as well as ensure compliance.

  • Expected timeline for completion would be within Q3, in the scenario the proposal is approved without material changes.

  • An identical proposal is being made simultaneously on the governance forum of FloorDAO and proceeding with the proposal is subject to approval by the token holders of both NFTX and FloorDAO.

Overview

This proposal seeks approval for a “merger” between the existing NFTX and FloorDAO projects, in collaboration with Merit Circle. This “merger” is intended to result in a new joint project that aims to become an NFT powerhouse. This will be achieved through bundling the forces of these complementary projects (hereafter referred to as “Project New Wind”, which will serve as a placeholder name until a rebrand is complete).

Project New Wind aims to combine the talent, products, and respective treasuries of FloorDAO and NFTX into one unified concept, with the assistance and collaboration of Merit Circle in a range of areas (i.e., marketing support, (re)branding, revised tokenomics, collaborations, offchain structuring and governance). With this integrated operation, we believe that Project New Wind would be well-positioned to lead a new era of NFTfi in the Ethereum ecosystem and promising scaling solutions.

Starting with the release of a novel NFT liquidity product scheduled to launch in Q3 of this year, the goal is to make Project New Wind the market leader in NFTfi infrastructure. We acknowledge the broad scope of these ambitions, but we strongly believe we can achieve these ambitions with the renewed strategy, synergies and connections we can unlock with this proposal.

In an effort to align the interests of all community members of both NFTX and FloorDAO, an identical proposal is currently live simultaneously on the governance forum of both NFTX and FloorDAO. As it’s key that both communities support the proposal, the process and goals discussed herein will be subject to the approval of this proposal by the respective token holders of each project. If for whatever reason this proposal is not approved by the token holders of both NFTX and FloorDAO, or if only the token holders of one project approve the proposal, the contemplated “merger” will not proceed unless the proposal is amended and thereafter approved by the token holders of both NFTX and FloorDAO.

Rationale

NFTX Background: In 2021, NFTX v1 was created by Alex Gausman (Gaus) with the vision to fractionalize NFT collections by pooling NFTs that shared traits. A basket of these fractionalized assets were used to create “NFT indices”. After launch, this concept had difficulties gaining traction because liquidity was thin and the understanding of these products in 2021 was scarce. With NFTX v2, a pivot was made into an NFT liquidity layer accompanied by a marketplace that allowed for buying, instant selling and the swapping of floor NFTs, making NFTX more user-friendly while maintaining the vision to solve liquidity issues in the space. NFTX v3, which has recently been launched, was developed to take advantage of Uniswap v3’s concentrated liquidity and price oracles (resulting in better integrations with other DeFi products like Wasabi and NFTPerp).

FloorDAO Background: FloorDAO was founded to solve the issue of coordinating deposits into NFTX. It was founded as a result of NFTX struggling to grow organically, because without 20+ items paired with ETH in a pool, the pools were not usable/yielding (spreads were too high). Most users could not afford to bootstrap a pool and impermanent loss was also a major issue. Earlier this year, FloorDAO announced a liquidity layer internally, an alternative implementation to NFTX v3 that unlocks mid-tier, rare and synthetic liquidity with greater incentives for LPs and drastically lower gas fees.

After lengthy discussions about the future of both projects between the teams at both ETHDenver 2024 and online, a strategy to create a joint project was formed. Throughout these discussions, leaders from Merit Circle shared their experiences on various fronts and offered to support our vision of unifying the two brands. By combining forces between NFTX and FloorDAO, with support from Merit Circle, the intention is to create the largest NFTfi project in the NFT ecosystem and dominate this vertical, in both on-chain metrics as well as brand awareness.

A brand new liquidity layer will be the first core product of this “merger”, which is intended to launch between Q3 and Q4 of this year. Subsequent products to grow liquidity are intended to be developed in parallel, starting off with an NFT launchpad and marketplace. Passing this proposal will also mean that we will halt further development of NFTX v3.1 and FloorDAO will halt mainnet activity and relaunch Floor v2 on Base (and other chains in the future) to support Project New Wind’s liquidity coordination efforts. Moving forward, we would direct all resources to the development and support of the new projects’ new liquidity layer. NFTX v3 would be inherited by the merged product and would remain fully operational to keep current (and to-be-migrated) liquidity available for all aggregation marketplaces that support Reservoir, such as Blur and Magic Eden.

Effect

Opportunity

  • By merging the NFTX and FloorDAO projects, and having hands-on support from Merit Circle to help launch Project New Wind, we believe that we’ll be able to build a best-in-class team with deep NFTfi experience to create and dominate the next era of NFTfi.

  • With FloorDAO’s current plans to build an alternative liquidity layer for NFTs utilizing Uniswap V4, it makes sense to combine forces on creating the ultimate liquidity layer and subsequent products rather than competing with each other (which would lead to further fragmentation of liquidity in NFTfi).

  • Working together with Merit Circle means we’ll have direct access to the web3 gaming projects they work with (GameFi), a vertical that the existing team members have been very excited about and want to explore further as liquidity providers in the NFT space.

  • Merit Circle brings a lot of expertise to the launch of Project New Wind, specifically in marketing, go-to market strategies, branding, tokenomics, offchain structuring and governance. A good example of this is the release of Sophon, which came to fruition in a similar manner by collaborating with Merit Circle. Our main goal of this proposal is to leverage the elements that made Sophon successful and add other elements that will better suit the NFTfi market.

Risks

  • Combining teams might cause friction. However, the NFTX and FloorDAO teams have worked closely together before, and Merit Circle will have a supporting role only, which has demonstrated to be a success for other projects it has assisted.

  • A change in tokenomics and structure may have a (short-term) impact on the behavior of FLOOR and NFTX governance tokens.

  • While we aim to implement simple on-chain governance from the beginning with Project New Wind, the execution period for setting up the merger and the corresponding reorganization of teams requires a variety of offchain actions that are more easily facilitated without having to first implement comprehensive on-chain governance (which we aim to upgrade to later in Phase 2). The intention is to first complete Phase 1 of the merger between NFTX and FloorDAO and thereafter move to implement comprehensive on-chain governance by the token holders of the new, unified concept in Phase 2.

Funding request - Yes - Implementation Requires Funding

Executing this proposal will require nominal initial funding for costs incurred from Cayman Islands legal counsel and other Cayman Islands service providers (approximately $50,000) in connection with the formation of the offchain structure (see below), ongoing annual costs for the same service providers (approximately $15,000) in connection with maintaining the offchain structure. As a sidenote to the FloorDAO community; this proposal will nullify the legal and marketing budget approved pursuant to FIP#74 (such costs will not be incurred).

Moreover, this proposal will have a direct impact on the current treasury, as it requires the NFTX treasury, in its entirety, to be merged with the entire treasury of FloorDAO. As both the NFTX and FLOOR token will be replaced by the New Token, it also means that all theoretical value of the current treasury-held governance tokens of the respective treasuries of both NFTX and FloorDAO will be transferred into the New Token. Every holder of NFTX and FLOOR Governance tokens will be able to migrate (one way swap) their existing tokens into the New Token.

This proposal seeks for the migration window to be open indefinitely. Once the migration window opens, the New Token will be the only eligible governance tokens moving forward, and the old governance tokens of the respective projects will lose their governance rights. Furthermore, each project will transfer the majority of its liquidity paired with the existing governance tokens to this New Token within a 12-month timespan after the migration window opens for the New Token. If the proposal is approved, we therefore encourage anyone who wishes to participate in Project New Wind to migrate within 12 months of the migration window opening. Any token holder who does not approve of Project New Wind can vote no on the proposal, and if the proposal is approved anyway, such token holders can choose to stop partaking in [NFTX/FloorDAO] by selling their respective tokens prior to or after the opening of the migration window for the New Token.

Tokenomics

50% of the supply of the New Token will be reserved for the FloorDAO and NFTX communities/token holders. The exchange ratio for the migration will be based on estimated fair value ratios between NFTX token and FLOOR token at the time of this proposal passing. Currently, this ratio sits at approximately 2:1, which would lead into a 33.3% claim for NFTX holders and 16.6% claim for FLOOR holders.

Token distribution for New Token will look as follows:

  • Team 20% (used for team/current contributors)*

  • Treasury 30% (used to fuel long-term growth of Project New Wind - platform incentives, LP incentives, reserves, strategic rounds if necessary, grants to future contributors etc.)**

  • Community 50% (reserved for NFTX and FloorDAO token holders to migrate NFTX and FLOOR tokens, respectively, to New Tokens)***

*Team tokens will be split among the team of contributors formed by NFTX, FloorDAO and Merit Circle’s treasury. The tokens will be subject to a minimum of a 6-month cliff upon the opening of the migration window and a 30-month linear vesting period thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt, all NFTX and FloorDAO team members with existing team vesting schedules applicable to NFTX and FLOOR tokens will be terminated and replaced with the vesting schedule for New Token described above (with the exception of Gaus, who will continue to receive NFTX tokens under his existing vesting schedule, which he will be able to periodically convert into New Token at his discretion).

**In Phase 1, 20% of the total supply of New Token (2/3 of the 30% allocation to the treasury of Project New Wind) will be controlled by a smart contract that is subject to on-chain token holder governance. The remaining amount (10% of the total supply of New Token or ⅓ of the 30% allocation to the treasury of Project New Wind) will be held and controlled by the ownerless Foundation. When and if this proposal is approved, the Foundation’s initial governing documents will mandate the Foundation to only use the treasury for the above specified purposes in furtherance of the development and growth of Project New Wind. In Phase 2, we propose expanding the scope of on-chain governance by amending the governing documents of the Foundation such that they mandate the use of certain programmatic, smart-contract-based controls over the New Token pool, ensuring that the token holders can give feedback to, and provide checks/balances against potential misconduct by, the human managers of the Foundation (see “Offchain Structure” below).

***NFTX and FLOOR tokens currently held by the respective treasuries of NFTX and FloorDAO will not qualify for migration to New Token. This includes tokens in protocol-owned-liquidity (POL) positions, which will be gradually unpaired and removed from the applicable liquidity pools over the course of the first 12 months after the migration window opens. If this proposal passes, all such tokens will be burned by the combined treasury of Project New Window, by transferring such tokens to the following burn address: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The respective treasuries of FloorDAO and NFTX will be merged and put under a 4/7 Foundation multisig. The signers of which shall consist of leadership level operators from FloorDAO, NFTX and Merit Circle, for the foreseeable future. The multisig signers will enter into a multisig participation agreement with the Foundation, pursuant to which they are obligated to abide by – the multisig participation agreement will be published for transparency purposes.

Offchain Structure

We propose to incorporate a memberless (i.e., ownerless) Cayman Islands Foundation Company (the “Foundation”) whose memorandum of association, articles and bylaws (the “governing documents”) mandate that the Foundation must foster the development and growth of Project New Wind. In Phase 2, we propose expanding the scope of on-chain governance by amending the governing documents of the Foundation such that they mandate the use of certain programmatic, smart-contract-based controls over the New Token pool, ensuring that the token holders can give feedback to, and provide checks/balances against potential misconduct by, the human managers of the Foundation – as further described below.

Cayman Islands Foundation Companies are a popular choice for DAOs, protocol “foundations” and other crypto-/DeFi-/web3-related entities. The same features that make such entities useful in those contexts also render them suitable for Project New Wind:

  • Tax-free status within the Cayman Islands;

  • “Memberless” structure so that the entity need not be ‘owned’ by any person(s) and can therefore be operated for non-profit, community-aligned purposes;

  • Limited liability for managers and service providers of the entity (except in the event of fraud, crime, or the knowing and intentional breach of the entity’s rules);

  • Governance customizability capable of accommodating novel smart-contract-based rules and mechanisms; and

  • A jurisdiction with a longstanding commitment to fostering digital asset endeavours and an ecosystem of law firms and other service providers deeply embedded in the crypto ecosystem.

The Foundation would be managed by its director(s) – initially, a sole director, however the sole director may also appoint (an) additional director(s). The Foundation may from time to time retain independent contractors or other types of service providers, which would include the respective teams from NFTX, FloorDAO and Merit Circle. The provision of services by these teams for the Foundation are managed by the director(s).

Like all memberless Cayman Islands Foundation Companies, the Foundation would have a supervisor overseeing the actions of the directors (the “Supervisor”). The Supervisor has a duty to the Foundation to ensure that its rules are enforced and can hold the director(s) liable for any misconduct. The Supervisor would be a professional corporate services company in the Cayman Islands.

In Phase 2, we propose that the appointment and removal of directors should be subject to veto by the token holders. Meaning that the token holders can block any appointment or removal of directors of the Foundation. Additionally, the Foundation’s amended governing documents would allow the token holders to appoint an emergency council or supervisor to, respectively, oversee any critical smart contract systems or the Foundation in times of crisis. For example, if the director(s) of the Foundation ‘go rogue’ and breach their duties (such as the governing documents of the Foundation), the emergency supervisor could, if appointed, be given the legal right, pursuant to a combination of Cayman Islands statutory authority and the Foundation governing documents, to enforce the rules of the Foundation and sue the director(s) who violated them. The token holders would also have the ability to appoint and remove members of the Council.

Communication

Proposed points of discussion.

  • All unforeseen topics that may have not been mentioned in this proposal.

  • If either DAO doesn’t agree, the proposal will not pass. For the proposal to pass, there needs to be a quorum and majority threshold voting in favor of both projects. In this scenario, depending on acquired feedback, a new, adjusted proposal could be proposed.

Quorum (For forum)

Due to the impact of this proposal, both forum & snapshot times have been increased to run for 7 days instead of 2.

  • Minimum Quorum: At least 5 votes

  • Passing Threshold: More than 66.6% (2/3rds) must vote in agreement for the XIP to Pass. For changes to the NFTX contract, more than 70% must vote in agreement for the XIP to pass towards onchain voting.

  • Yes, execute Project New Wind
  • No, amend proposal
0 voters
1 Like

This includes tokens in protocol-owned-liquidity (POL) positions, which will be gradually unpaired and removed from the applicable liquidity pools over the course of the first 12 months after the migration window opens. If this proposal passes, all such tokens will be burned by the combined treasury of Project New Window, by transferring such tokens to the following burn address: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Sounds like we’re removing the built-up LP reserves from Floor Treasury. Maybe this is not referring to NFTX pool tokens, but the NFTX token itself.

I would like to start by thanking @0xchop and other authors for the effort put into the proposal. I share the observation that NFTX has been progressing slowly recently and that given the slowdown of the NFT market, it makes sense to join forces with other houses to build new products that will find product-market fit.

I don’t think I could support this proposal in its current form. It destroys a ton of value for the DAO and NFTX holders and is unbalanced to favor team members above everything else, despite the fact that the lack of revenue and DAO financial resources burn is directly attributable to these individuals.

There is no reason why the team and foundation-controlled treasury should receive 50% of the DAO treasury, this is a misappropriation of funds that should remain 100% under DAO holders control.

I’d like to level the playing field for everyone and share numbers I put together after reading the proposal:

  • Circulating supply of NFTX is 379,120 (650,000 - 171,162 [DAO owned] - 99,718 [DAO owned liquidity])

  • Market cap of NFTX is $6.7M

  • NFTX DAO owns: ~81 punks, ~6.4 glyphs, 461,000 USDC, 1,623 ETH

  • NFTX DAO treasury value is $21.1M

  • This means that every NFTX token is backed by ~$55, x3.2 times the current market price

I don’t want to sound like I am throwing away this proposal by pointing out more pressing and concerning matters. I also don’t want to look at how much has been spent by team resources until now, and compare it to revenues, this wouldn’t help any progress here.

But I think this proposal misses 2 key elements to make sense for NFTX:

  1. Offering the option for NFTX holders to exit at fair value (this fair value doesn’t need to be 100% of the NFTX token backing) as a gesture to give the option to opt-out or opt-in New Wind.
  2. Remove the dilution from the new tokenomics, with each DAO receiving a pro-rata share of new tokens to distribute to its holders based on the treasury contribution. There is no reason to dilute the current DAOs.
2 Likes

I think you mean memberless here. Is confusing as is.

Thank you for sharing this analysis, TheRealMarx.

As this is only the first day of the proposal going public, I plan to mostly digest the organic discourse and not comment heavily one way or another. However, I do believe you bring up some valid points here that are worthy of further discussion.

1 Like

Hey all

Prefacing by saying I’ve been both a FLOOR and NFTX holder for many years now. Long enough to see the buzzing community in NFTX with projects like gem and sudoswap coming out of it. Before doing the initial bonding event for floor I even did a call w the team giving some advice, and am probably the largest non-team market buyer and locker of floor tokens to participate in the floor wars.

Overall the proposal does a great job in setting the future for things like team motivation, dev talent, product vision, marketing, etc. Its clear that although we’ve retained good dev talent, we haven’t done so hot on the marketing front and merit circle can help solve that.

But I feel we’ve completely ignored token holder value and have only focused on a good outcome for building product and team value. This comes at an unreasonable cost to both NFTX and FLOOR holders, when the exact same outcome can be reached without unhealthy dilution and tokenomics changes.

Some facts:

  • The NFTX treasury is $20M (DeBank | The Real User Based Web3 Community)
  • The Floor treasury is $11M (DeBank | The Real User Based Web3 Community)
  • Token holders (NFTX and FLOOR) have over $30M of hard assets (NFTs, ETH, USDC) backing their tokens
  • Every NFTX token is currently backed by $55 according to marx above
  • Every FLOOR token is currently backed by over $8 (including dilution from flayer… which we no longer will own?). Can share a spreadsheet here if needed.

Now, if this proposal were to pass:

  • NFTX and FLOOR holders would have to share 50% of the supply of newToken. The proposal says 2:1 NFTX:FLOOR
  • NFTX holders would end up with 33% of the total supply of the new token. The new treasury would now be $31M and NFTX holders would only have $10.2M of assets now backing their piece of the pie… down from the current $20M.
  • This is an instant destruction of 50% of the treasury value per nftx and completely unfair
  • The other $10M ends up with team, merit circle, floor holders, new dao emission recipients, etc.
  • This could be even worse, as gaus mentioned in discord that the new structure would mean the new token has no backing at all.

Just based on this alone, I don’t think its fair to put this proposal to snapshot - we need to get the exact tokenomics down before voting, and we can’t sacrifice that much backing value to try this experiment. It’s a yolo with the entire treasury.

Some options for how to make this proposal better, but still get the same end result:

  • Each of merit circle, floor, and nftx co-fund a new token with a reasonable spend. Something like $300k per dao. Launch a first product, see how it goes, and keep the same tokenomics. 50% to the communities (nftx, floor, mc). This would meet the budget requirements, have equal amounts of money on the line from all projects, sacrifice very little backing, and deliver a fat new airdrop to every holder involved.
  • If we are forced to donate the treasury to this new project, let everyone choose their own path so nobody is left frustrated. Those that don’t want to lose/destroy the treasury backing can rage quit, and those that are cool with the tradeoffs can migrate to project new wind. This should go for both nftx and floor. Floor did this going into floor v2 and it went fine, there has been no fud or frustration since.

Some additional takes / questions:

  • Why is merit circle not providing any money but getting a large piece of the pie. They also have a large treasury and can put some skin in the game.
  • What happens to the floor wars? Many have bought and locked expecting that to go on
  • The floor dao funded flayer expecting to own 100% of it, after this they may end up with less than 25% of it, are they cool with that?
  • In both cases (floor and nftx) large mints / allocations were just granted to contributors in recent votes. Will those get clawed back given that “current contributors” now get 20% of new wind?
  • NFTX holds a large amount of the FLOOR supply, coupled with the FLOOR team votes basically anything can get forced through governance there. Seems unfair / conflict of interest for both teams to be participating in these votes, whats the plan for that?
  • Is this considered a change that needs 70% passing in the nftx dao?

(edit: fixed some numbers)

2 Likes

My understanding is that this is related to the FLOOR/WETH position held by FLOOR and the NFTX/WETH position held by NFTX.

1 Like

Here’s another idea that could be a great outcome for everyone: Make no changes to circ token distribution while reducing fdv, still merge the projects, get merit circle involved for marketing, remove all sell pressure before new wind launch, maintain the backing

Here’s how we could do it:

  1. No changes to token distribution and reduce fdv
  • This proposal says dao held nftx and floor is basically burnt so we still burn it
  • Don’t mint any new tokens for the new DAO
  • Current contributors to both projects (NFTX and FLOOR) already have NFTX and FLOOR tokens, their tokens will migrate anyway as user held supply so we don’t need to mint 20% more supply for them.
  • For example see the recent “Floor Labs” proposal which just minted 235000 FLOOR (nearly $2M at 1x treasury rage quit value). Why do we also need another 20% dilution on top of that for the same contributors to build the same product this was minted for?
  • On the NFTX side it is similar (Snapshot). This proposal gave Javery $45k of NFTX based on the may 4th price of ~$16. That’s 2800 tokens or $150,000 of NFTX at backing value that is already considered circulating and will migrate. No need to again double dip simply because the token is migrating. Similar proposals and votes have happened for all contributors I think.
  • If a certain contributor does not have enough NFTX then we can handle / vote on a case by case basis, but nowhere close to 20% more supply should be needed.
  • Outcome here is a lower total supply from the burn, and more solid tokenomics as people know new supply wont hit the market, and no change to the book value / backing value as new supply isn’t being minted for DAO and Contributors.
  • Effectively circ floor and circ nftx will own 100% of new wind
  1. Still merge the projects
  • The 2:1 ratio feels randomly selected. It should be made more accurate.
  • Process should be as follows: calculate the treasury value of nftx, calculate the treasury value of floor, merge the two treasuries, issue each project their proportional share of the treasuries as new wind
  • If any contributors are on pre funded sablier payments, those should be ported to the new project and continued
  • Launch new wind (flayer) and nftx v3 marketing w merit circle and get to winning
  1. Get merit circle involved for marketing
  • The problem here is merit circle is getting a large grant for unknown results
  • Good thing is MC has a large treasury
  • We offer MC the right to buy into the treasury with up to $3M at 1x book value payable as 50% MC tokens and 50% eth or usdc.
  • This is great for MC because its equivalent value because they’re swapping for a worst-case backed asset, but they get a big chunk with no slippage and can collaborate to make this a huge win
  • Another win for MC because they pay in 50% MC tokens. This is great for them because they convert a non backed asset (protocol held mc) to a backed asset (new wind w a treasury of usdc, eth, nfts) at 1x backing.
  • If they take all $3M they would own 10% of the total supply of new wind
  • Additional grants for work completed can happen too, just like any contributor
  1. Remove all sell pressure before new wind launch
  • Many floor and nftx holders may look to sell at 1x treasury value which creates an artificial ceiling on the price of new wind and sell pressure right out of the gate
  • Best outcome would be to launch new wind with nobody looking to sell
  • To make this happen, both NFTX and FLOOR can offer a rage quit pre merge. Or even better, spend the next few months doing buybacks to destroy supply below the book value, socializing the book value gains across the stayers… resulting in a higher portion of new wind per remaining holder.
  1. Maintain the backing
  • Legal should amend the proposal to ensure the token is still treasury backed in the worst case if holders want it
  • This will reduce the risks with holding new wind or buying into it
  • If its not possible then holders should be 100% aware of this and have the opportunity to get their treasury backing at least once before migration

This route should satisfy every stakeholder. Team still gets to build together, merit circle is still involved, holders are not diluted heavily, token price goes up across the board, new products get launched. It’s pure wagmi.

1 Like

Would like to reiterate previously made claims I find personally important.

  • Token holders should remain to have a claim on treasury for worst case scenarios.
  • Merit Circle should be buying in and not receive a claim on treasury before showing any substance. This would also decrease dilution for current token holders.

In case any of these points are not possible I think it would be fair to give tokenholders the option to rage quit and receive close to fair treasury value for their tokens.

Can you elaborate on this example? I’ve never heard of Sophon so don’t have context on the success here.

I dont think sophon is a great example

It’s not just any collab w merit circle / beam, the founder is literally the founder of merit circle and pentoshi is a co-founder who has a massive following and trust

regardless of if mc brand was involved or not, these two being the founders would’ve made it huge

Absolutely!

Sophon is a project assisted by all expertise within Merit that we aim to tap into. The in-house branding & marketing team helped them with creating the brand, their go-to-market plans, alongside sourcing talent (and probably other things I’m forgetting to mention).

Some examples you can see around their branding (which I am personally a fan of) is on their Twitter here, their site here and their node sale page (with info) here. Post on The Block re their raise here.

Hello everyone,

Marco here, on behalf of Merit Circle. Excited to see this proposal live, and happy to see a lively discussion already taking place. Please see the responses to the received feedback below.

All quotes below are from the response by @TheRealMarx

There is no reason why the team and foundation-controlled treasury should receive 50% of the DAO treasury, this is a misappropriation of funds that should remain 100% under DAO holders control.

To clarify, this refers to the allocation of New Token only (not the treasury). 20% of that 50% would be under direct control of the token holders via on-chain governance. 10% of that 50% would be controlled by the Foundation and only for the purpose of furthering the growth and development of Project New Wind. The final 20% of that 50% allocated to the team would largely replace their unvested allocations of NFTX and FLOOR, respectively.

But I think this proposal misses 2 key elements to make sense for NFTX: 1. Offering the option for NFTX holders to exit at fair value (this fair value doesn’t need to be 100% of the NFTX token backing) as a gesture to give the option to opt-out or opt-in New Wind.

A liquidation plan where the treasury is returned to the token holders is effectively an expression of the opinion that token holders don’t believe the project can accomplish something better than the present value of the treasury. Our belief with this proposal, is that by combining the respective teams and products of NFTX and FloorDAO, we can unlock synergies between the two projects that may result in Project New Wind far outperforming what NFTX or FloorDAO can achieve individually, which in turn may result in New Token becoming more successful than NFTX and FLOOR.

If token holders don’t support this vision and wish to exit the project, they will always have the ability to opt out through the sale of their tokens on the open market.

  1. Remove the dilution from the new tokenomics, with each DAO receiving a pro-rata share of new tokens to distribute to its holders based on the treasury contribution. There is no reason to dilute the current DAOs.

There is no effective dilution of the existing token holders in NFTX and FLOOR with this proposal. Yes, a portion of New Token is proposed to be allocated to contributors (i.e., NFTX/FloorDAO Teams and Merit Circle), but this was already the case for both NFTX and FloorDAO. More importantly, these allocations are intended to create value accretive growth and development to Project New Wind and by extension New Token (i.e., the token). Facilitating such growth and development, however, requires allocating spend today to generate development in the future.

Yes, technically, shareholders of companies in the Cayman Islands are referred to as ‘members’, but for purposes of this proposal, we’ve tried to avoid using too much legalese in order to be as inclusive as possible for those who might not be familiar with these terms. In that way, ‘ownerless’ and ‘memberless’ may be used interchangeably.

All quotes below are from the response by @dcfgod

But I feel we’ve completely ignored token holder value and have only focused on a good outcome for building product and team value. This comes at an unreasonable cost to both NFTX and FLOOR holders, when the exact same outcome can be reached without unhealthy dilution and tokenomics changes.

Our intention with this proposal is to create value that’s accretive to Project New Wind and, by extension, New Token, by allocating resources to the product and team. The goal here is not to reallocate value away from the token holders, but in fact the opposite. We want to accrue greater value to the token holders in the long-run, rather than stagnate or regress because we are too focused on the pro rata share of non-native assets in the treasury.

Now, if this proposal were to pass:

Based on the proposed allocation of New Token, (i) current NFTX token holders would hold 33.3% of the New Token supply, (ii) current FLOOR token holders would hold 16.6% of the New Token supply, (iii) the combined NFTX and FLOOR token holders would also control 20% of the New Token supply (pursuant to on-chain governance) and finally (iv) 10% of the New Token supply would be reserved for the Foundation for confined uses that benefit token holders. This effectively means that 80% of the New Token supply is either directly or indirectly controlled by the token holders, whereas 20% is reserved for the team and subject to 36 months of vesting.

With respect to the value of New Token, our intention with this proposal and revised project plan is for present-day actions to be more value accretive to token holders in the future than the current status quo of the project.

Each of merit circle, floor, and nftx co-fund a new token with a reasonable spend. Something like $300k per dao. Launch a first product, see how it goes, and keep the same tokenomics. 50% to the communities (nftx, floor, mc). This would meet the budget requirements, have equal amounts of money on the line from all projects, sacrifice very little backing, and deliver a fat new airdrop to every holder involved.

Our goal with this proposal is to capture synergies between NFTX and FloorDAO to compete with other projects in the NFTfi space and ultimately lead the space in terms of market share. Leaving NFTX and FloorDAO in place, and creating another separate project can have the opposite effect by fracturing liquidity and spreading users thinly across platforms that could function better in a combined format. Arguably, the costs of human labor that has been, and will be put in from all sides far exceed the current value, or the proposed $300K per DAO.

If we are forced to donate the treasury to this new project, let everyone choose their own path so nobody is left frustrated. Those that don’t want to lose/destroy the treasury backing can rage quit, and those that are cool with the tradeoffs can migrate to project new wind. This should go for both nftx and floor. Floor did this going into floor v2 and it went fine, there has been no fud or frustration since.

As stated in response to TheRealMarx, a liquidation plan where the treasury is returned to the token holders is effectively an expression of the opinion that token holders don’t believe we can accomplish something better than the present value of the treasury. Our belief with this proposal, on the other hand, is that by combining the respective teams and products of NFTX and FloorDAO, we can unlock synergies between the two projects that could result in New Token far outperforming NFTX and FLOOR.

Why is merit circle not providing any money but getting a large piece of the pie. They also have a large treasury and can put some skin in the game.

Merit Circle is contributing in-kind by providing assistance with marketing, go-to market strategies, branding, tokenomics, offchain structuring and governance - not only in connection with the launch of Project New Wind, but as part of a long-term collaborative effort to dominate NFTfi.

What happens to the floor wars? Many have bought and locked expecting that to go on

The Floor Wars will be relaunched on L2 to help coordinate liquidity on Flayer with the mechanism working in a similar fashion as it is now. The relaunch aims to activate users by removing barriers to entry and better incentivising voters as part of a broader campaign. The wars will not require locking New Token to access voting power.

The floor dao funded flayer expecting to own 100% of it, after this they may end up with less than 25% of it, are they cool with that?

If we consider this in real terms, where FLOOR and NFTX holders control 80% of the New Token supply, the dilution is not as profound. In return, the team has the resources to deliver a more ambitious roadmap along with the essential support on growth, go-to-market, off-chain structuring and marketing that Merit Circle brings.

The alternative here is that FloorDAO waits for Flayer to launch in order to better attribute value to it in a possible “merge”, but this risks the critical early stages of the product by going it alone and may leave the DAO in a worse position.

In both cases (floor and nftx) large mints / allocations were just granted to contributors in recent votes. Will those get clawed back given that “current contributors” now get 20% of new wind?

Current contributors would get 20% of New Token subject to a 6-month cliff and a 30-month linear vesting period, which effectively terminates and replaces their unvested allocations of NFTX and FLOOR, respectively. In that sense, the unvested allocations to current contributors would be “clawed-back” and replaced with a new vesting schedule that is more advantageous for token holders (i.e., more restrictive vesting schedule resulting in a longer lock-up of the same allocation).

NFTX holds a large amount of the FLOOR supply, coupled with the FLOOR team votes basically anything can get forced through governance there. Seems unfair / conflict of interest for both teams to be in these votes, whats the plan for that?

Team members are equally allowed to participate in governance of the project by virtue of being token holders. If the proposal would result in a material benefit for one or more team members, then we would expect those team members to recuse themselves from voting. However, in this instance, we believe that the proposal will be mutually beneficial for all token holders since the goal is to grow the project in its combined format and thereby accrue further value to the token holders than exists today. For that reason, we don’t see a conflict of interest between the average token holder and any team member.

Is this considered a change that needs 70% passing in the nftx dao?

Yes, because the proposal will require changes to the upgradeable NFTX contracts.

My issue with this proposal is equity is not the same when there is treasury involved.

Traditionally, equity is given to project teams and founders to incentivize them to build a project from 0 to value, and if they can do so they get rewarded handsomely with their equity, but if they fail they take home just their regular salaries.

However, in this case, the combined treasuries of FLOOR and NFTx are ~30 million. In creating a new token and getting 20% for themselves, the team effectively gets ~6 million off the bat and can keep it quite literally without lifting a finger. That is not a proper application of equity.

Furthermore, I agree with others that there is no reason for Merit Circle to receive any equity in the new project. 7.5% is a $2.25 million. It makes much more sense to use their services on an annual basis if their price is fair, which tokenholders can decide in separate proposals.

I understand there are synergies between FLOOR and NFTx, and a merger of the tech makes a good amount of sense. Therefore in my eyes, a good solution is 1) do not take money from treasury from tokenholders, 2) enable additional synergies.

@dcfgod and others have proposed decent solutions to build off of. Another one I would like to throw out there for consideration is taking this proposal largely as-is, but instead of paying team with 20% stock, they receive 20% in stock options, with strike price at the backing price. This would mean the team would receive nothing if they do nothing, but if they grow the project higher than backing price, they would benefit handsomely, aligning interests with tokenholders.

3 Likes

That’s a great idea actually - if there’s so much confidence that the token will trade at multiples of cash instead of a fraction as it does today, team can be issued options (the UMA team can help with this… I’m happy to intro if needed).

The options would only be useful / valuable if we can get either of these projects to be worth more than cash

1 Like

Thanks for the long and thoughtful response ser, and congrats on all the success with beam and sophon

Hopefully your team will be able to collaborate with floor and nftx to create another huge win

I think you’re approaching this from an angle of privilege and still not seeing the economics for token holders and that’s the crux of what needs to be fixed here before we go to snapshot

  • You tell Marx that he can’t rage quit at 1x treasury because that would mean he doesn’t believe more than cash value can be created… but then go on to say sell on the AMM, which trades at a fraction of cash value? That’s not fair at all. Marx has not sold on the AMM and has been in the NFTX discord for a long time because NFTX should be worth at-worst its treasury value. If he thought the team was going to destroy all value he would have already sold on the AMM and not be here discussing the future of the project.

  • If MC/Beam has so much confidence that this will trade at multiples of treasury, why are they looking for a free take? Why not buy NFTX and FLOOR in hoards with your massive treasury as both projects trade at 1/3rd of cash value… seems like a great outcome. It’s crazy to ask NFTX and FLOOR holders to take this bet with 100% of their treasury when the people putting forth the proposal wont even take it themselves.

  • The take that “token holders own the newly minted supply so it’s not dilution” is a psyop, will the current token holders get that newly minted supply? Or will it go to others. If it’s going to others, will it be in exchange for assets to ensure the dilution is backed? Perhaps, or perhaps not. We have no idea what the team will do with it, so it’s better it doesn’t exist at all. We can approve mints on a case-by-case basis if needed.

  • Let’s take the case of NFTX. We currently have a $21M treasury and a $6M market cap (see marx numbers above). After this proposal the portion of supply owned by NFTX holders will have $10M of backing (see dcf numbers above). If NFTX holders share of the market cap needs to equal our current 1x treasury value, we need new wind to trade at 2x cash… when NFTX currently trades at 1/3rd of cash… this is not a simple task as you basically need to 6x the current AMM price of NFTX with no rage quit like mechanisms. The exact same outcome can be produced with 100% certainty with a rage quit, but instead we’re being asked to risk 100% of the treasury in a trust me bro scenario and potentially get a 0.

  • FLOOR holders may also have some PTSD from this situation because it happened in the past. FLOOR V2 was going to make FLOOR great again (worth more than cash), but everyone who rage quit, despite doing it at the bottom of the ETH/NFT market has still made more than any FLOOR holder that stayed by AMM price. It’s totally fine because the FLOOR treasury is way up and holders still here could rage quit for far more than previous quitters got. But if FLOOR v2 transition was in the form of this proposal instead of remaining backed, stayers and team trusters would be screwed.

  • Would also love to hear more from the NFTX/FLOOR leaders here as at the end of the day this is still their project, MC/Beam is just supporting with auxiliary services. Given the points above, I’m not sure why they would want their token holders to move to any setup other than one that reduces dilution as much as possible, and keeps the tokens fully backed in case this next leg of the journey doesn’t work out as expected.

  • Maybe Beam/MC can also give more insight on what exactly they plan on doing. Is the L2 we are referring to Sophon? If so will there be a large grant of Sophon tokens? Those can be used as emissions. Maybe it’s enough to fill the 7.5% dilution to mc in backing terms?

1 Like

Thank you for the detailed answer Marco. But I beg to differ.

  • Merit Circle receives ~$2.5M of equity & treasury value. That’s it. Basically, you are asking tokenholders to hand over assets and have the nerve to tell them to “sell if they are not happy” while you acquire ~$2.5M worth of liquid assets for $0.
    I’m sorry but no. If Merit Circle thought both teams had more value than the market currently prices them at, Merit Circle would be able to take a substantial stake in both DAOs at an acquisition price way below book value, with a reduced risk thanks to the assets held by each treasury. If you are not doing it, it probably means you have close to no confidence it is the case.

  • Others have tried to use deceiving pie charts and “foundation tokens” to hide embezzlement done in plain sight, and I have been around long enough to know that “30% to treasury” to finance long-term growth basically means 100% of it will go to team members and contributors, certainly not to DAO token holders. So yes, these new tokenomics still mean every token holder is sacrificing 50% of its backing in this merger.

  • I don’t want to be pictured as someone who doesn’t support a strong move forward to increase NFTX’s odds of finding product-market fit and growing valuable products. But there needs to be a balance between what the upside/downside looks like for every counterparty in this deal. It can’t be “team/MC gets 100% of the upside and 0% of the downside while current tokenholders get 50% of the upside and 100% of the downside potential”.

  • A combination of 1) opt-in/opt-out + 2) options for team members and MC is the most sensible way to make this deal more balanced for everyone. It aligns interests, provides a safety net for token holders that at the end of the day still hold the treasury, and makes sure resources are allocated to value creation from day 1. All parties are incentivized to build and support strong value-creation projects.

As a NFTX holder, i don’t see how accepting dilution that endangers the treasury backing on which all the community is relying on, all for an upside that is uncertain while the status quo presents a certain upside, is a sensible decision.

  • Merit Circle should put some skin in the game, the idea of options is one of the most commonly used for technical/professional involvements in a project, to guarantee alignment, even with market makers.
    Alternatively, Merit Circle professional services should be evaluated at their normal cost, without equity dilution.

  • As part of such a rework of the plan ahead, there should be a rage quit option for holders of both communities, especially if this involves a change in the tokenomics.

1 Like

Moreover, I would like to ask @0xchop if the current $NFTX and $FLOOR teams have any vested interests with Merit Circle, $BEAM? i.e. token vests, reward streams, investment etc in the past or in the foreseeable future.

I think its relevant to the discussion and people deserve to know this information.

Thanks all for the discussions brought to the forum!

In response to feedback from various stakeholders in NFTX and FloorDAO, we have amended a portion of the original proposal as follows. The amended portion of the proposal has also been authored by me (ChopChop) (NFTX), Caps (FloorDAO) and Marco (Merit Circle), with input from members of the NFTX and FloorDAO communities.

Tokenomics

Allocation of New Token remains the same, except for the mechanism for vesting/distribution of New Token for team and current contributors (including MC/Beam).

Team tokens will still be split among the team of contributors formed by NFTX, FloorDAO and Merit Circle’s treasury. The team tokens will still be subject to a 6-month cliff upon the opening of the migration window and a 30-month linear vesting period thereafter. However, pursuant to an enforceable contract entered into by each team member/contributor, all vested team tokens would be non-transferable unless and until the fully diluted valuation of New Token reaches or exceeds $75,000,000 (as determined by a third-party token tracking service, such as CoinGecko or Coin Market Cap). At any time the fully diluted valuation of New Token reaches or exceeds $75,000,000, all vested team tokens will become transferable at the discretion of each team member/contributor (and will remain transferable for so long as the the fully diluted valuation of New Token reaches or exceeds $75,000,000).

For the avoidance of doubt, all NFTX and FloorDAO team members with existing team vesting schedules applicable to NFTX and FLOOR tokens will still be terminated and replaced with the milestone lock-up described above (with the exception of Gaus, who will continue to receive NFTX tokens under his existing vesting schedule, which he will be able to periodically convert into New Token at his discretion).

Other than as described above, the content of the proposal remains unchanged from how it was originally published by ChopChop (NFTX), Caps (FloorDAO) and Marco (Merit Circle) on 21 March 2024. As always, we welcome continued feedback from the community to both the full proposal and the amended portion.

1 Like