Let’s not explicitly give the token holders the backing they very clearly are entitled to because we are shit scared of legal (this is a complete cop out) DESPITE this exact bloody scenario playing out at least 10 times over the past year alone across numerous DAOs in an incredibly clean way (nouns / NXM)
Sorry for not believing that the team that managed to not even outpace tbill returns since 2020 is going to suddenly be able to make this shitshow a success. “attract lesser people” we’re already there son.
And Gaus please pluck up the courage to own your suggestions - you literally control the vote. What you say is all that matters.
Thanks all for providing further feedback on the proposal as is. After going through all comments (not only here on the forum), including the one from Gaus which I fully respect as one of the most level-headed arguments made on the forum so far, I’m currently back to the drawing board with the rest of the people intending to ship Project New Wind working on an additional amendment to the current proposal. Note that the proposal in its current form isn’t going to magically appear on snapshot to be forced through by anyone. As the proposal is so impactful, it’s proven to require a bit more extra time than originally anticipated. Giving it my all (with the core squads and Merit) at the moment to come up with an extra amendment that makes everybody happy. If all goes according to plan, hope to post this by the end of Thursday this week.
Quick update from my end: might need one more additional day as I want to jump on a call with the entire team working on this to make sure everybody is happy with the wording. Expect tomorrow, if today end of the day is possible I’ll post it earlier. Appreciate everybody’s patience!
Before diving into the final amendment proposed below, let me briefly explain the intent. The purpose of this final amendment is to integrate a few final changes to the current state of the proposal, while respecting the original vision of Project New Wind (“PNW”). Although the team proposing PNW fully understands that this will impact certain aspects of the direction of the project, this final amendment aims to address the main concerns raised by a specific group of token holders voiced on the forum. The primary goal here is to provide a detailed and structured approach to the steps that will be taken prior to the launch of PNW, if the final amended proposal succeeds through a snapshot vote.
Overview:
The current proposal for PNW has generated significant discussion within the community, highlighting a need for more detailed procedural steps regarding the outcome for all token holders. The original proposal suggested a blanket approach to transitioning to PNW, which raised concerns about transparency and governance. Since then, an additional amendment has been proposed by the authors, where a ≥$75M FDV hurdle was put in place before any contributor tokens can become transferable, in addition to the 36-month vesting schedule that was already in the original proposal. This final amendment will be additive to all prior amendments and aims to address expressed concerns by introducing an option for those token holders of NFTX and FLOOR who do not want to join PNW (the “Non-Consenting Token Holders”) to instead break away from PNW and pursue a different path at their sole collective discretion. The mechanics for how this would work are described below, but for the avoidance of doubt, any actions taken by the Non-Consenting Token Holders during the process described below or following its conclusion are made at the sole discretion of the Non-Consenting Token Holders and without the approval or involvement of the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO.
Key Changes Introduced by this Final Amendment:
1. On-Chain Approval Mechanism:
Prior to the launch of PNW and the migration of NFTX and FLOOR to New Token, an on-chain vote will be initiated to determine community support for the final amended proposal. This step ensures that the community has a direct say in the decision-making process.
If the final amended proposal is approved by the on-chain vote, the Non-Consenting Token Holders will have 7 days to determine and develop a method for migrating away from PNW, which shall be done at their sole collective discretion and without input or assistance from the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO (the “Migration Window”).
If the Non-Consenting Token Holders are unable to launch a means for migrating away from PNW during the Migration Window, or if no single NFTX or FLOOR token decides to migrate away from PNW during the Migration Window, PNW will launch exactly as described in the original proposal with 100% of the treasury assets of NFTX and FloorDAO.
2. Remaining Treasury Assets:
If the Non-Consenting Token Holders are able to launch a means for migrating away from PNW during the Migration Window, and if at least one NFTX or FLOOR token decides to migrate away from PNW during the Migration Window, a portion of the treasury assets will remain in the existing multisig wallets and will not be transferred over to the new multisig wallet controlled by the Foundation (the “Remainder”).
All other treasury assets will transfer over to the new multisig wallet held by the Foundation for PNW in accordance with the original proposal.
The Remainder will stay in the existing multisig wallets for a period of 60 days. After which, control over these multisig wallets will be shifted to the persons selected by the Non-Consenting Token Holders at their sole discretion without input or assistance from the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO (the “Selected Persons”).
3. Obligations and Responsibilities:
The Selected Persons are expected to act in the best interests of the Non-Consenting Token Holders. However, ultimately, it will be up to the Non-Consenting Token Holders to determine their own governance process and methods for holding the Selected Persons accountable. The existing NFTX and FloorDAO teams will not be responsible for the actions taken by the Selected Persons, nor will the existing NFTX and FloorDAO teams be liable in any manner, whether to the Non-Consenting Token Holders or otherwise, for the acts or omissions of the Selected Persons. The Non-Consenting Token Holders and the Selected Persons assume all risks in this regard.
Treasury and Tokenomics:
1. Treasury:
Assuming that (i) the Non-Consenting Token Holders are able to launch a means for migrating away from PNW during the Migration Window, and (ii) at least one NFTX or FLOOR token decides to migrate away from PNW during the Migration Window, the Remainder will be left in the existing multisig wallets of NFTX and FloorDAO, respectively.
The Remainder will reflect the relative amount of NFTX and FLOOR tokens that have elected not to continue with PNW and to pursue an alternative path as a Non-Consenting Token Holder.
The composition of the treasury assets shall be divided between the existing multisig wallets of NFTX/FloorDAO and the new multisig wallet held by the Foundation for PNW as follows:
Any fungible assets and non-fungible assets that can be fractionalised will be split according to the ratio (in USD) between the Remainder and the amount transfering to the new multisig wallet controlled by the Foundation for PNW (the “Ratio”):
Prior to the determination of the Ratio:
All ERC721 tokens that can be fractionalised will be fractionalised into their corresponding ERC20 token via NFTX, and will be split according to the Ratio.
All available harvests and claims will be made.
All inventory positions will be unstaked (e.g., xPUNK will be converted to PUNK).
Dust positions (with a value of less than USD 100) will be disregarded.
All NFTX and FLOOR tokens will be excluded.
Any assets that are non-fungible and cannot be fractionalised will transfer to the new multisig wallet controlled by the Foundation for PNW.
2. Tokenomics:
The final amendment will directly impact the proposed tokenomics of PNW, particularly the portion of the New Token supply that will be allocated to migrating token holders of NFTX and FloorDAO.
Earlier, the PNW camp voluntarily proposed a ≥$75M FDV hurdle before any contributor tokens can become transferable. This was inspired by feedback from the community and is in addition to the 36-month vesting period the tokens are subject to. This amendment will stay in place and will not be adjusted in any way based on the outcome of the vote. In accordance with this final amendment, the effective hurdle for contributor token transferability can only increase (based on the number of Non-Consenting Token Holders), which is to the benefit of the future PNW token holders. In doing so, the current group of contributors reiterates their belief in the long-term prospects of PNW.
The exchange rate between NFTX/FLOOR tokens to New Token (previously 2:1 in the original proposal) will be adjusted based on the Ratio determined after the Migration Window closes. When it is clear following the conclusion of the Migration Window how many NFTX and FLOOR token holders are Non-Consenting Token Holders, and how many NFTX and FLOOR token holders are supporters of PNW, the Ratio will be estimated as precisely and fairly as possible. The conversion rate of both current NFTX and FLOOR tokens into New Token will be accordingly adjusted based on how many NFTX and FLOOR token holders elect to be Non-Consenting Token Holders.
For the PNW side, the same 50% of token supply is made available for conversion into New Token. Since there can only be equal (100%) or fewer tokens migrating into PNW versus the original proposal, the amount of New Tokens that supporters of PNWs will get upon migration of their NFTX and FLOOR tokens can only increase. Anyone who decides to join the Non-Consenting Token Holders during the Migration Window will relinquish the opportunity to receive New Tokens in PNW.
Non-Consenting Token Holders will need to decide, at their sole discretion and without input or assistance from the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO, the mechanism, rules, name, or denominator of their token should they decide to create one during the Migration Window.
Chronology of Steps prior to Launch of Project New Wind:
1. Snapshot Proposal:
The proposal, including all amendments, will be submitted to Snapshot for a temperature check vote. This non-binding vote will gauge community support and guide the next steps. If the proposal stalls at this stage, the team will consider all alternative options to continue its mission of building PNW.
2. Migration Phase:
If the proposal passes, the Non-Consenting Token Holders will have a 7 day window to determine, develop and launch a method for migrating away from PNW, which shall be done at their sole collective discretion and without input or assistance from the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO (the “Migration Window”).
Prior to the Migration Window, the respective treasury assets of NFTX and FloorDAO will be unwound (not sold), and balance sheets for both treasuries will be published. This phase ensures that all token holders have a clear understanding of their options and the implications of their choices.
3. Asset Transfers:
If the Non-Consenting Token Holders are unable to launch a means for migrating away from PNW during the Migration Window, or if no single NFTX or FLOOR token decides to migrate away from PNW during the Migration Window, PNW will launch as originally intended, meaning that 100% of the treasury assets of NFTX and FloorDAO will be transferred to a new multisig wallet controlled by the Foundation, governed by and in accordance with the original proposal.
If the Non-Consenting Token Holders are able to launch a means for migrating away from PNW during the Migration Window, and if at least one NFTX or FLOOR token decides to migrate away from PNW during the Migration Window, a portion of the treasury assets of NFTX and FloorDAO will remain in the existing multisig wallets and will not be transferred over to the new multisig wallet controlled by the Foundation (the “Remainder”).
The Remainder will stay in the existing multisig wallets for a period of 60 days following the conclusion of the Migration Window. After which, control over these multisig wallets will be shifted to the persons selected by the Non-Consenting Token Holders (the “Selected Persons”). During these 60 days, PNW will not liquidate material amounts of the treasury assets allocated to PNW in an effort to ensure that the floor price of such assets (if applicable) will not be materially impacted. The 60-day period gives both the Non-Consenting Token Holders and the supporters of PNW time to put in place proper governance, structure, and process. It also puts a minimum and maximum delay threshold to any effective transfer of value, in effect acting as a safety mechanism.
4. Finalization and Launch:
The current teams of NFTX and FloorDAO will resign from their core team positions at NFTX and FloorDAO, respectively, and merge into a combined team for PNW, where they will pursue the development of PNW as further described in the original proposal. At this point, any relationship that the teams of NFTX and FloorDAO have with NFTX and FloorDAO, respectively, will be fully and formally terminated.
The Non-Consenting Token Holders will then be ultimately responsible for determining their own governance process and methods for selecting and holding the Selected Persons accountable.
The existing NFTX and FloorDAO teams will not be responsible for the actions taken by the Selected Persons, nor will the existing NFTX and FloorDAO teams be liable in any manner, whether to the Non-Consenting Token Holders or otherwise, for the acts or omissions of the Selected Persons. The Non-Consenting Token Holders and the Selected Persons assume all risks in this regard.
The migration to PNW will proceed as originally intended, ensuring legitimate off-chain structuring and governance systems are in place in accordance with the original proposal. The launch of PNW will be initiated within the timelines envisaged in the original proposal.
Conclusion:
This final amendment aims to enhance transparency and community involvement in the execution of PNW, while also ensuring that the project progresses in a manner that reflects the diverse interests of all token holders of NFTX and FloorDAO. By adding this final amendment, we aim to provide a clear, structured, and community-driven path forward. Let’s work together to finalize and implement this proposal to achieve our shared vision and goals.
I had a question regarding this statement: “All ERC721 tokens that can be fractionalised will be fractionalised into their corresponding ERC20 token via NFTX, and will be split according to the Ratio.”
Will the Non-Consenting Holders have the opportunity to redeem back these ERC20 tokens via NFTX post the split? i.e. for each whole ERC20 PUNK token the splitting faction can in-fact obtain a Punk NFT if they so wish?
Obviously the LP will be pulled so there will be no liquidity for the non-integer ERC20 Punks.
Thank your @0xchop and all co-authors for the effort put into crafting an additional amendment that in my opinion, suits exactly the purpose of offering a fair and balanced solution for token-holders that want to keep their claim on DAO assets and don’t wish to onboard into PNW.
I would have a few comments:
I would suggest allowing NCTH (Non-Consenting Token Holders) to express their candidacy as Selected Person as well as a suggested methodology to migrate away or align to a methodology suggested by another Selected Person candidate. This will allow NCTH to vote for their Selected Persons with a clear understanding of these new signers execution plan.
The 60-day period before the transfer of treasury assets is unnecessarily long, it would benefit from being shortened to 30 days, as selling NFT assets might already take some time.
Maybe I missed it or it isn’t mentioned, but how would NFTX holders opt-in as NCTH, would they burn their NFTX for a new ERC20 token that will be the ‘NCTH DAO’ governance token?
@0xchop Thanks for the revised proposal, from what I’ve read it seems like they right and fair route to go down. It seems like it’s an outcome that makes everyone happy.
My only two opinions here are:
I agree with @TheRealMarx that the migration period should be 30 days rather than 60 days especially since NCTHs only have 7 days to figure out governance and a migration path. 14 days is probably acceptable as well as it allows for multiple rounds of social media/discord announcements from NFTX. After looking at what Floor did with their DAO split, they only allowed for 7 days which is substantially shorter than what was proposed here and that ended up being successful. 60 days feels unnecessarily long and subjects NCTHs to increased market risk.
What comes after the vote goes through and some holders opt to become NCTHs?
I think the easiest way forward is to follow the Floor fork playbook here, where NCTH’s can show their willingness to split with NFTX in the snapshot vote and then a swap site can be created on NFTX. NCTHs can swap their native tokens for a forked token, any swapped tokens are burned.
Hi all - this is potato from the discord, I made a new account here to hopefully provide some additional feedback to the well-articulated proposal from Chop. It is clear that a lot of thought has been put into it with buy-in from large stakeholders, the team, and the potential merging parties, offering a clear route to participation for NFTX holders who remain bullish on NFTfi x GameFi but at the same time offering an exit route for those who prefer to part ways.
There are a few feedback points that I think can be incorporated to ensure that it is maximally fair for the latter contingent, these relate to four different facets of the proposal:
Migration period / Asset Transfer period - I think the consensus from talking to a few members of the community, as well as comments in the forum, is that the 2 month migration period is unequivocally long. There is a clear case for reducing this to 1 month. But more importantly:
PNW will not liquidate material amounts of the treasury assets allocated to PNW in an effort to ensure that the floor price of such assets (if applicable) will not be materially impacted
We need to be much clearer regarding what you mean by ‘material amounts’ here. Some of the NFTs in the treasury are, at this point, extremely illiquid, and locking NCT holders for 1-2 months, whilst PNW attempts to liquidate is not equitable and changes the calculus of whether to fork or not. I implore the PNW team to be forthcoming regarding which assets they intend to liquidate in this intervening period prior to the snapshot if at all.
Fractionalisable NFTs - Given that there are a portion of NFTs that will not be fractionalised and will remain in possession of PNW. We think it is important to clearly list what you see as non-fractionalisable NFTs as this is an effective tax on NCT holders (or rather holders who planning to become non-consenting). This should not be a material amount.
Stolen NFTs - As we all know stolen NFTs may command a lower market premium, this might not be the case for Punks since there is no way of blacklisting on the native site, but it is still an issue if one were to shop around on Blur/Opensea. Question to answer prior to Snapshot is, will NFTX’s mint and redeem functionality remain in-place to ensure NCT DAO can redeem the ERC20 for a Punk NFT of its choosing? To be clear NCT msig signers will likely have one mandate which is to realise fair values for the treasury in possession and we think that starts from the Snapshot date.
NCT Holder Fork Process - There will only be 7 days for holders to congregate and agree on a process which seems to be quite short. Will NFTX ensure NCT holders can use the discord as a place to agree on a path forward?
One way of doing this would be to simply issue a 1:1 $NCT token to all NFTX holders who vote on a simple YES/NO 3-day Snapshot for the NCT option which will be posted after (and if) the PNW Snapshot passes. I envision there will likely be a brief 1-3 day period in which potential NCT signers can lay a plan forward and a follow-on period in which $NCT holders can vote on the persons to carry out said plan. This all could take a little more than 7 days.
Good to see you like the amendment. The answer here is “it depends” - all full ERC20s are redeemable by the Non-Consenting Token Holders if they wish to, following the same mechanisms as general LP/IPs utilize the NFTX platform. All leftover fractions won’t be able to be swapped for a full NFT as the platform doesn’t provide that.
Thanks - took some group effort, but given the responses I’ve seen I’m quite convinced we turned the tides here in the best interest of everybody involved. To address some of your comments:
The original 60-day period is proposed as an extra security measure for both sides. We want to ensure that there is sufficient time to prevent something being done in an unprepared, rash or rogue way. A time period will ensure there is more time to catch potential mistakes, provide feedback, and set up proper protocol and governance within both communities. Not implying or expecting something would go wrong, but we don’t want to increase risk unnecessarily.
However, perhaps we can sharpen the sweet spot somewhat here and reduce the time period from 60 days to 45 days to meet in the middle? This would give us sufficient time on our side to set up new structures, and still satisfies most of the above safety mechanisms.
For the NCTH (Non-Consenting Token Holders) comments, we defer those decisions to the non-consenting community to self-organize and rally around. How, where and by whom this governance process happens & the methods of selecting/holding accountable the “Selected Persons” will be entirely up to the community of Non-Consenting Token Holders. As Meowth also mentioned below, there’s probably already enough ideas & experience floating around.
Aiming to push the proposal (temperature check) towards Snapshot tomorrow - will post a link to Snapshot on this post to make sure all engaged with the forum discussion know where to head to.
Good to see you’re as positive as we are atm for the future of New Wind!
Responded on the 60 days comment above, we’re happy to meet in the middle at 45 days!
For the “what comes after the vote” - unsure about which part you’re referring to. For Project New Wind, the entire NFTX & Floor current core team will merge (which has its operational impact) and will start working full time on Project New Wind, to ensure we’re able to hit our deadlines stated in the original proposal. For Non-Consenting community, this of course fully depends on the route that’s chosen by newly installed governance.
Ty for the update chop - wasnt able to post on the forums so put initial take on twitter (x.com)
some followup qs:
Q1) “NCTH have 7d to determine for how to migrate away” - can this be explained more? Who is determining this? how are you deciding who is a NCTH? I feel like this could get messy. There’s already a Selected Persons concept so maybe the process can be more like the FLOOR fork was? If so then we don’t have to include this… because there’s no way for NCTH to even know who is NC until the migration happens. So how can they collaborate to create a method of migrating away?
For example:
Everyone who is a NCTH burns FLOOR or NFTX for FORK_TOKEN (or FLOOR_FORK and NFTX_FORK)
Everyone who wants to run as a Selected Person writes a pitch on why in the NFTX discord (new channel)
FORK_TOKEN votes on their Selected Persons (top 3 become signers on a 2/3 multisig where assets move)
FORK_TOKEN launches its own snapshot and does what it wants w the forked assets. Likely voting to compensate the Selected Persons (something like $10k ea) and equally distributing assets / liquidating assets.
Q1B) Are the selected persons the same selected persons for both floor and nftx or different?
Q2) This seems to all imply that the forking will happen prior to the launch and migration to PNW tokens. If that’s the case then are there separate forks of each DAO (FLOOR and NFTX)? If they aren’t separate forks then how will the ratio be determined for how many fork tokens each gets for burning 1 FLOOR or 1 NFTX? It’s a bit confusing because the NFTX/FLOOR conversion to PNW will be calculated post exit of NCTH.
Q3) What if a malicious actor joins as a NCTH and forces things the minority NCTH don’t like? In the nouns fork they made it so forks can fork again, just incase. I doubt this happens but wanted to put it on the radar at least.
Q4) Can you give a concrete but simplified example. Say there is 10 ETH, 100 USDC, 5 PUNK, 10 FLOOR in the treasury of FLOOR. 20 ETH, 200 USDC, 10 PUNK, 20 NFTX in the treasury of NFTX. There are 100 total NFTX tokens and 100 total FLOOR tokens. 50 NFTX tokens are NCTH, and 10 FLOOR tokens are NCTH. After this process, what does the NCTH treasury vs the PNW treasury look like? (Or if we’re not making a NCTH treasury, then the NFTX and FLOOR treasuries)
Q5) What happens to the FLOOR in the NFTX treasury?
Q6) What happens to the USDC in sablier streams?
Q7) Can you give a list of assets that are non-fungible and cannot be fractionalized? I think all of floor nfts are in nftx vaults and same with nftx.
Q8) can you explain what this means " If the proposal stalls at this stage, the team will consider all alternative options to continue its mission of building PNW.". What would those alternative options be?
Q9) What does “material amounts” mean in " PNW will not liquidate material amounts of the treasury assets allocated to PNW in an effort to ensure that the floor price of such assets (if applicable) will not be materially impacted"?
Q10) If I understand correctly, the Selected Persons are taking over NFTX and FLOOR existing multisigs? Seems a bit messy, can we not create new multisigs and move the assets to them just as we are doing for PNW?
Q11) Sadly we didn’t land on the “have your cake and eat it too” outcome where holders get best case the upside of PNW and worst case the treasury value. Now we have to decide which we want, but what if we want a little bit of both? Can a holder be non consenting with half their tokens, and consenting with the other half?
Q12) Gaus mentioned having not really spoken to merit circle. Some holders followed up asking for him to and he said he would as the founder. Has this conversation happened? what was the outcome?
Q13) Just to confirm, when calculating the ratio of assets to move… all treasury owned NFTX and FLOOR (including the amts in the POL) will be excluded?
Q14) The user owned supply of NFTX is easy to calculate as there’s never been a token migration. FLOOR on the other hand has gone through a migration and also has many tokens (aFLOOR, sFLOOR, gFLOOR, v1 FLOOR, v2 FLOOR). Can the team provide some accurate numbers / examples here?
Q15) Maybe missed this from the original proposal but what happens with locked floor currently voting in the floor wars, will it be unlocked for users to decide what they want to do?
Responded a bit above already, but let me quickly address the rest of your points.
The note towards material amounts in the final amendment refers to that there is no intent on Project New Winds’ side to directly sell any non-fungible asset in amounts that would move markets, i.e. dust (fractionalized). As we continue to strive towards building a dominating liquidity layer, all current NFT liquidity is intended to be brought back online after operations are recalibrated (i.e. legal entities set-up, etc).
Mainly refers to ENS names which are not distributed to prevent them being used for phishing attacks later, might they not be extended. These will likely be burned or infinitely extended instead. Value of these are marked to zero.
As per the original proposal, NFTX v2 & v3 will continue to operate until its successor is launched. Protocol functionalities will not be paused, so mint & redeem stay functional for everyone.
The NFTX and FLOOR forums and Discord channels will stay open to everyone, including Non-Consenting Token Holders. Token holders are expected to act in the best interest of token holders that do not want to follow the Project New Wind route. What comms channels these Non-Consenting Token Holders eventually choose to organize on, is fully up to them. However, we would encourage the Non-Consenting Token Holder camp to set up their own dedicated comm channels, to ensure effective communication and proper governance. We want to avoid two projects using the same forums and channels, this could get confusing and give the wrong messaging for each project. The current plan is that New Wind will also set up a brand new forum eventually dedicated to New Wind. Whether the current Discord will be rebranded to New Wind or a new Discord will be set up is TBD.
That’s a ton of questions, so will keep it structured using A+n to keep the same structure. Here goes;
A1+B:
To reiterate and quote directly from the final amended proposal, the NCTHs will have 7 days to determine and develop a method for migrating away from PNW, which shall be done at their sole collective discretion and without input or assistance from the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO. So, the NFTX and FloorDAO teams will not participate in the decisions as to who constitutes a NCTH and how the NCTHs will migrate away from PNW. It ultimately all comes down to self organization by the NCTHs to break away, but you’re right that Floor already used a process that could be utilized again to determine the above. Whether or not that process, an adjusted version, or an entirely different one is used, is in the end up to the NCTH community to determine, develop and launch on their own. NCTHs will need to actively create that process, install it, and end up collaborating to get that through within the pre-set timeframe if they are certain about breaking away from PNW. The only thing in this relation that is pre-determined is the cut-off date, as PNW has its own timelines that we want to stay true to. In practice, the 7-day time frame is actually a 14-day period (Temp check starting today, for 7 days, with day 1-2 often already showing majority outcome, into 7 days of the Migration Window where NCTHs have opportunity to break-away).
A2:
If the NCTHs decide to fork into a separate token during the Migration Window, then yes, this will take place prior to the launch of, and migration to, PNW. As a result, yes, the exchange rate of NFTX/FLOOR into New Token for the token holders who wish to join PNW will be calculated post-exit of the NCTHs. With respect to your other questions, we leave that for the NCTHs to determine and implement at their sole discretion. The NFTX and FloorDAO teams will not be able to facilitate or assist in this regard.
A3:
This and many other security reasons are why we’ve proposed a 60-day buffer between the date that the NCTHs decide to break away from PNW (if applicable) and the date that PNW formally separates from NFTX and FloorDAO (subject to potentially reducing that security buffer to 45 days as a midpoint between our original proposal and the feedback received from the NCTHs). However, I’d also like to reiterate that what the NCTH community ends up doing (with its new community governance model, whichever that looks like) after the NCTH community decides to break away (assuming the NCTH community utilizes a similar process to the one you suggested above) is fully up to the NCTHs and will not involve the input or efforts of the NFTX or FloorDAO teams.
A4:
NCTH treasury (combined for the sake of calculations):
11 ETH = 10 ETH (50 NFTX tokens = 50% of NFTX) + 1 ETH (10 Floor = 10% of Floor)
110 USC = 100 USDC (50% of NFTX) + 10 USDC (10% of Floor)
5,5 PUNK = 5 PUNK (50% NFTX) + 0,5 PUNK (10% of Floor)
0 FLOOR
0 NFTX
Native treasury token will be burned, therefor non of the native tokens become part of new treasuries.
PNW Treasury:
Will have the inverse of the above percentages, making the total:
19 ETH
190 USDC
9,5 PUNK
0 FLOOR
0 NFTX
A5:
All native tokens to both projects held by the treasuries are burned as per the original proposal. As with this project we’re “merging”, we believe it’s only fair to consider both assets as “native tokens”, no matter which treasury they belong to (i.e. we won’t consider the FLOOR in the NFTX treasury as circulating supply to be migrated/sold).
A6:
All Sablier streams are cancelled if PNW sees the light of day (*note some are not receiving any salary at the moment as we haven’t extended due to this proposal). New streams (if we end up using Sablier again) will be set-up once PNW’s legal structure is in place.
A7:
We are able to fractionalize the 4 digit ENS names but the following NFTs will remain non-fungible and therefore move to PNW:
Due to the size of the YAYO NFT position (200 NFTs) and BGAN NFT position (73), and the gas costs involved in minting and redeeming these fractions from NFTX, these will stay non-fungible and any split left in the current multi-sig will be rounded down to the nearest whole item.
A8:
The end-goal for our team is to build Project New Wind in the current teams’ form - we believe the route we’re taking right now has the highest probability of succeeding. If, for any reason, this route is unsuccessful from a governance perspective we will have to look into other means of achieving the same end-goal. What those alternative options might be is unknown, as it’s highly situational.
A9:
Answered this to Potato above, hope that answer brings clarity on the meaning.
A10:
This is a route the PNW team is not willing to take due to it raising potential regulatory & tax risks. What the NCTHs and their Selected Persons end up doing after they receive ownership over the current multisigs is for them to determine at their sole discretion without input or assistance from the respective teams of NFTX and FloorDAO. Again, the NFTX and FloorDAO teams will not be responsible for the actions taken by the Selected Persons, nor will the existing NFTX and FloorDAO teams be liable in any manner, whether to the NCTHs or otherwise, for the acts or omissions of the Selected Persons. The NCTHs and the Selected Persons assume all risks in this regard.
A11:
With respect to PNW, yes, any current NFTX and/or FLOOR token holder can elect to join PNW. With respect to the NCTHs, it depends if the NCTH process allows it – which we have no input in or control over. The snapshot, which is posted later today, acts as a temperature check whether the current proposal with its two amendments is supported by the majority of community members. We believe with the current amendments, chances of that succeeding are above average but not certain. For example, the community in-support of following Project New Winds’ mission could end up voting “No” on this temperature check, due to not vibing with the added amendments that we have proposed.
If we end up getting through the temperature check period, and if the NCTH camp manages to self-organize a process that allows a subset of the community to break off from PNW, voting “No” with only 50% of your supply could mean that you’re also voting “Yes” with the other 50%.
A12:
Can’t answer for Gaus here so leaving that open for him to answer.
A13:
The answer is a little more complicated, as it’s situational.
In the scenario where there is indeed an NCTH community spun up that successfully breaks away from Project New Wind, all POL will be temporarily withdrawn from AMMs. Native assets are then burned, before deciding on ratios.
In the scenario where there is no NCTH community spun up, there is no ratio.
As an effect, this also means that POL for old tokens will not be available anymore, meaning the ability to join Project New Wind will be temporarily removed until the New Token is launched. Given the requirements and lead times for setting up the entities to launch PNW, we estimate this to happen in July.
A14:
All contract addresses for FLOOR tokens and balances can be found in the V1 and V2 docs here:
A15:
Not mentioned in the original proposal but there is an “Emergency Exit” setting in the staking contract that can be used if the temperature check passes successfully. This will allow stakers to unlock without an early penalty fee. This will also prevent further deposits into Floor.
Q1) A lot of the answers are along the lines of “nftx and floor team will have no input”. I understand why you’re doing this, but please keep in mind that these projects took in the funds in the first place and have a responsibility to token holders regardless of if they’re consenting to this new idea or not… a little guidance to help ensure the NCTH don’t get swindled would be great. Can you simply say yes, or no on if the following will meet the requirement for “a method for migrating away from PNW”
A NCTH discord is created that anyone can join (done, potato has kindly done this and put the link in the nftx discord)
Anyone who wants to be a CP can post in a channel saying why they are running, what their goal is, which of the two gov tokens they own, what compensation they expect (suggest $10-15k usdc), and any other important info
We have no way of knowing who is non consenting and who is consenting at this point so for the sake of convenience, NFTX holders vote on who the CP are as they have a far larger treasury. Vote is taken using NFTX snapshot or via a new community snapshot. If FLOOR holders don’t like the choice they can put up a snapshot vote on the FLOOR snapshot or a community made FLOOR snapshot and signal a re vote that includes them. If that happens a more complex voting method can be made. All PNW team members or those that are fully consenting (100% of their holdings) are asked not to participate in this vote.
The CP make two mutlisig, 1 for NFTX_FORK and 1 for FLOOR_FORK
The CP collaborate to launch 2 smart contracts. 1 that accepts FLOOR and moves it into the FLOOR_FORK multisig (or burns it) and returns FLOOR_FORK tokens. Another that does the same for NFTX tokens. For the sake of safety, this should not be rushed. If they aren’t able to deploy it within 7 days then the CP can ask the PNW team for an extension, if rejected the fallback will be to send tokens directly to the newly made multisigs.
the 45 day waiting period happens
FLOOR_FORK token holders govern the FLOOR_FORK treasury and the CP act on their behalf, and same for the NFTX equivalent.
The CP duty is to move assets from the old multisigs to the new ones, liquidate to eth, distribute eth on a per token basis, collect their compensation, and resign from NFTX and FLOOR multisigs.
Q2) How do you want the NCTH holders to present their plan to you as you have to decide if it meets the requirements for “migrating away”.
Q3) in A4 the DAO held tokens are considered circ. Was this a mistake or is this how it’ll be done?
Can for obvious reasons only comment on the mechanisms that break away NCTH, but will ignore your suggestions on what is envisaged after the 45-day waiting period ends, as that is ultimately for the NCTH camp to decide through its own governance.
The process to come up with the Selected Persons for NCTH seems transparent. If (and how much) they are compensated is fully up to future NCTH governance, so that’s a risk they have to understand.
The only way (see my answer to Q2 too) to break away from PNW is to take NCTH tokens out of circulation, permanently. Moving them to anything else than 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 will not be considered meeting requirements.
The 7-day period post-temperature check is a hard deadline if the temperature check is approved on both snapshots. The NCTH camp can of course always ask for an extension if they for whatever reason fail to self-organize. There are no guarantees for grace, given that PNW governance ultimately would have to decide (and might vote against providing additional time).
The only route to ensure NCTH holders migrate away is by permanently removing their NFTX & FLOOR supply from circulation within 7 days from the moment the temperature check would be voted through. If that is achieved, requirements of migrating away are automatically met.
Whether this burned supply is then represented by a new token or not, is fully up to the NCTH camp to decide.
Ah yes, that’s been a mistake due to misreading, assuming on my end that any treasury held supply was already considered non-supply due to earlier forum discussions.
If you meant to consider treasury-held in your example as part of the total supplies, the calculation will look as follows:
A4:
NCTH treasury (combined for the sake of calculations):
Claim on NFTX treasury = (50/80)x100 = 62.5%
Claim on FLOOR treasury = (10/90)x100 = 11,111%
11 ETH = 12.5 ETH (50 NFTX tokens = 62.5% of NFTX) + 1,11 ETH (10 Floor = 11,1% of Floor)
136,1 USDC = 125 USDC (62.50% of NFTX) + 11.1 USDC (11.11% of Floor)
6.805 PUNK = 6.25 PUNK (62.50% NFTX) + 0.555 PUNK (11.11% of Floor)
0 FLOOR
0 NFTX
Native treasury token will be burned, therefor none of the native tokens become part of new treasuries.
PNW Treasury:
PNW will have the inverse of the above percentages, 37.5% of NFTX & 88.89% of Floor, making the total:
17.5 ETH
163.9 USDC
8.195 PUNK
0 FLOOR
0 NFTX
Hey chop,
NFTX’s token implementation (which uses Aragon’s MiniMe) does not allow transfers to address 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (h/t to digitaldaikon!).
The only way to do it is via destroyTokens() which is only accessible to the token controller.
So the null address won’t work, but 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD could. Can you confirm that this would also satisfy the definition of “breaking away from PNW”? It’s a pretty common burn address used by many projects in the past.
Hi chop - just to be absolutely clear, NCTH will indicate their desire to be non-consenting by ‘burning’ tokens during the 7 day migration period (deadling 18th June). Is that statement accurate? If that is the case, how do we hold the pre-PNW team accountable w/r/t the pro-rata treasury if at all? We won’t have any tokens nor claim if we were to burn before split-math is made available.
Further, NCTH will control the remaining assets within the current NFTX DAO multi-sig post the 45 day period, in which the keys will be handed over to the elected representatives of NCTH DAO. Is that accurate and to your understanding?
Will there be time/buffer period to agree on the pro-rata split to ensure no one is aggrieved?
Think the team and large stakeholders have handled this with a lot of goodwill and there’s a lot of trust, but this is crypto at the end of the day.
Accurate, as stated above. Accountability will be similar to before PNW was proposed and how both DAOs have always operated: by trusting the core team to act in the best interest of all token holders and in accordance with the parameters of the proposal, as approved by the token holders.
Correct.
Yes, that is what the 45d buffer is partially intended for. Preferably faster, but that is the deadline.