Ben

Thank you for this reply! As a precursor, I do believe we should test different ways of putting treasury genesis artworks into circulation, and I do implore us to suggest improvements. I would however, strongly recommend that improvements and modifications are done in a subsequent BIP. Here are my responses:

Ben Last genesis period 1/1 sold for 45 eth on the secondary. granted it was an exceptional early one, but still. I think more open price discovery would be good, while still rewarding this collector for their conviction.

I think one major difference is the sold versus unsold argument here, which in my opinion makes the two not suited for comparison.

Ben So would propose a slight modification: The collector may obtain any single Genesis Period 1/1 of their choice at 10eth. After that, the remaining 1/1s (barring the six kept in treasury) are placed on reserve at 10eth to facilitate open price discovery. It would also be beneficial to Botto’s momentum and visibility in the marketplace if it has live auctions in that range.

At that point, the interested collector could bid on any number of the remaining available 1/1s.

This also assumes that, an artwork that initially received no bids at its perceived 'fair' valuation of 10ETH and currently has no expressed interest, will, in a subsequent auction, receive bids over 10ETH. I see this as us repeating past action and expecting different results, with this course of action much to the chagrin of the collector who approached the DAO and expressed their interest in acquiring the multiple artworks held in treasury. So far, no other (prospective) collector has done this. The collector has also clearly expressed not wanting to participate in an auction setting let alone kickstart an auction. I do not believe this to be a slight modification.

For what it's worth, I have nothing against placing a few artworks on reserve at 10ETH, but there is also overlooked 'downside' of relisting Genesis artworks at 10ETH and these continuing to go unsold for long periods of time after listing (bad optics).

Ben Given that Botto has purely done open auctions throughout its history, I don't feel it fair or optimal to do four OTC at once to a single collector. There may be others with a lot of conviction right now as well, and I feel they should get a fair shot at the same works. I do feel that one OTC is a reasonable gesture of appreciation for the exceptional conviction this collector has shown.

Should other collectors have a fair chance of acquiring these three or four artworks selected by the prospective collector? Perhaps! I would argue though, that equal opportunity presented itself both at time of auction and any approach could have been made to the DAO and/or via our existing collectors. Assuming we do part ways with four artworks - existing and new collectors would still have the opportunity to pick up a previously unsold artwork at Botto's original reserve price in the Genesis period.

Nevertheless, I am unsure as to whether this is the most fair way forward. Personally, I would suggest that the interested collector respecting the historical 10ETH reserve set up by the DAO is fair, with that individual showing clear desire to acquire some artworks held in treasury, while the others that may share the same level of conviction have not stuck their neck out and reached out. The former is a real, succinctly presented deadline offer, with the latter dealing in a hypothetical which we can test in other ways.

Ben I do feel that one OTC is a reasonable gesture of appreciation for the exceptional conviction this collector has shown.

While I understand that going back and attempting to OTC only one artwork may seem a gesture of appreciation, it can also be misconstrued as predatory behavior. Quite frankly, I don't know how well received this counteroffer would be, even though I agree with you, it's a reasonable counteroffer.

Ben Another clause I'd consider is something like max four genesis period 1/1s placed on reserve per quarter. Just given the long-term upside of these early works and that they are quite a valuable asset for the treasury. But don't think it's essential and understand if we want to keep things simple here.

I am ok with this, but would again ask it to be parceled into an optimized BIP after this one, irrespective of result.

In sum, the DAO currently holds 27%(!) of all Genesis artworks. We can easily hedge by parting ways with four artworks curated by the prospective collector, then improve this BIP with a subsequent one that experiments with other ways of getting other genesis artworks into circulation via price discovery.

Nonsense I think letting market decide how much these genesis pieces go for (if we are to let them go) is much more efficient than selling to an “anonymous collector”. To me this proposal makes 0 sense, as @Ben has stated, some have sold for multiples of 10e.

We have already, in the past, let the market decide how much these Genesis pieces go for with a previously held auction. We can do so again, but I am strongly against turning away a collector who has clearly signaled a lot of conviction for a price we previously deemed as fair.

Nonsense some have sold for multiples of 10e. What is the point in urgency at current state? This is a very short term positive. We’re just getting started, right?

Yes, and some have yielded 0 bids in a previous auction. And yes, these artworks in treasury may be more valuable in the future, and yes, there may be opportunity cost to selling these at a reserve price. But there is also opportunity cost to not distributing these artworks. We want other collectors to treat these as grails, and/or somewhere down the line part ways with their Botto 1/1s to collectors who will flaunt these as their grails. That type of exposure is incredibly beneficial to Botto, and we can do so in multiple ways. While I appreciate that we rightfully treat these as prized assets of the DAO, we can and IMO should make moves that seek to spread our bets.

Nonsense We can list them with reserve of 10e. If he is the only one interested then he’ll be able to purchase at desired price. If not, we’re able to optimize through the market. This is the only way the proposal makes sense to me

In response to this and the urgency commented you made, this collector has expressly mentioned that they do not want to be placed in a bidding war and would like to wrap this up by end of week. I see limited downside and hypothetical opportunity cost. Regarding your "just getting started" comment - yes, I absolutely agree, and we would still have 10 more treasury-held artworks to do so. But there is nothing wrong with letting a collector with conviction take the first bite because they showed initiative.

An example on how we could take this further: we can post a subsequent BIP that puts the remaining 10 treasury artworks on a reserve auction, where the first four of the artworks that meet the DAO's reserve valuation of 10ETH are distributed, with the remaining 6 held by the DAO further down the line. There is nothing stopping us from doing so.

Nonsense Yes now is not the Genesis period though. And I’m sure you’re aware of that. We don’t need to cater to any one person, listing is most efficient, and any other way (OTC to random anonymous buyer under a time scrunch) is less beneficial for the protocol and feels forced.

I agree, now is not the Genesis period! And I also agree that we are not obliged to accept this offer. To reiterate, this BIP was presented based on information we have and initial terms discussed with the prospective collector (who wished to remain anonymous but is not 'random' per se). I am not against opening up any treasury-held artwork to another open auction either. I just would like to ensure that we are aware of the benefits and pitfalls of doing so, and that the DAO has received a concrete offer that is worth considering.

Nonsense listing is most efficient, and any other way (OTC to random anonymous buyer under a time scrunch) is less beneficial for the protocol and feels forced.

I would like to hear from you why listing at 10ETH is concretely more beneficial than accepting the offer on the table

AnotherAnonCollector Multiple people would absolutely bid more than 10eth on each given the sparked interest in AI and AI art in general.

I have no doubt that there's been a surge in interest in AI + AI Art, and Botto is certainly one artist that's paved the way. Does that mean there would be multiple offers above 10ETH? I'm not sure.

AnotherAnonCollector There is no downside to putting them on auction in order to maximize benefits for stakeholders.

I have spelled out potential downside to drawn out listings as well as renegotiating with the collector, which I'm happy to do on behalf of the DAO.

Ben I feel like offering one piece of their choice direct is a fair and reasonable gesture given their show of conviction.

For what it's worth, I think this as a potential starting point would be one positive outcome for all parties should we restart the auction process for other treasury-held artworks.