BIP-18: Precedent for Treasury Genesis Artworks + 4x Artwork Sale: Page 2 - Botto

BIP-18: Precedent for Treasury Genesis Artworks + 4x Artwork Sale

Nonsense

choobie 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.

choobie

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.

Cooper

AnotherAnonCollector The collector would probably not be as interested in buying after an auction if the auction would show that no one else is willing to pay 10 eth.

Nonsense

If no one buys, then so be it. Transparency is the most important. Please do not OTC these

Nonsense

choobie Look at your responses. You are not confident in your protocol.

I’ve already explained to you why listing is better. For transparency’s sake, for better (or worse) price discovery, and fairness.

AnotherAnonCollector

If the DAO is open to sell artwork from its treasury for 10eth, then I would also like to offer 20eth for 2 pieces. It is only fair I am treated the same way with no auction as we are both anonymous collectors.

I see this as beneficial to the protocol and its stakeholders to have 6 sales worth 60 eth instead of only 4 for 40 eth. And instead of one committed anonymous collector showing increased conviction, you will now have two!

Ben

AnotherAnonCollector Great to see this interest. If you can, I'd consider placing open offers at 10eth or higher on treasury works to demonstrate your conviction and get the ball rolling. Cause I think some people here would be more inclined to vote for an open bidding process if they were convinced there's more real interest in these early pieces right here right now in that range.

pepe

This seems like a good opportunity to do two valuable things at the same time, sell 4 artworks and set a precedent for what to do with other unsold Genesis pieces. The bidder for these pieces is the first time any collector expresses interest in any of the 14 works for months since they went unsold, and DAO governance shouldn't result in bad UX for prospective collectors who do the first bidding, in this case for a relevant bundle.

Anyone is free to bid on any pieces, as they have for the past few months. If no new bids appear during the vote I'd vote to sell the pieces and also pass the protocol for action on future bids for treasury holdings. Seems like a practical proposal with positive outcomes on both ends.

juanje

Hey, Encryptus here,

I shared my thoughts with Choobie before but he asked me to share them here too.
I´m not a fan of this BIP because it´s just a patch for a situation that found us on the wrong foot (without a framework for swapping these assets). However, I would support it as long as (3) in the TL;DR, (which is a plain mistake) is left without effect in a subsequent BIP.

One could quickly see that there are two issues here:
A) Handling this offer (which -with multiple caveats- sounds more or less good, given the context, which is kinda funny)
B) Creating a good (for us) framework for future incoming offers

A) Is important and seems urgent (although I wonder why)
B) Is even more important (given all the potential impact & lost upside) and non-urgent (to my understanding…unless I´m missing something)

There is (absolutely) no need to tie them in a messy manner (Choobie seemed to agree with this). I think the arguments wielded by Nonsense and AnotherAnonCollector are valid: picking up your 4 preferred 1:1s out of 14 choices, at a floor price, is an option no one else had. However, their points are as strong as our (this community´s) inability to have a framework in place for a case like this.

For A) - Handling this offer

Now we have a fast-moving smart collector, who asks for what I deem some very favorable conditions, and who seems to be handling momentum & tension like a pro (or better than us). And we only count on a bunch of (all reasonable) assumptions & arguments against and for giving a discrete "yes", "no" or "not yet". My inclination leaned heavily towards the "not yet" (which would be quite interesting to watch, btw), and which would imply saying "no" to this BIP. But then there is Choobie´s very Einstenian observation that "nothing happens until something moves". Well, this might be the move...and luck belongs to dauntless people. So for those who now as for the same conditions: why didn´t you make an equivalent offer before? Just overturning this collector would not be fair, and would not probably be wise (4/14, and we want fragments in circulation). Besides, bargaining here, without prior guidelines, would prove to be tough and probably not fruitful. So probably saying "yes" is the lesser evil...

Side comments:

I don´t think there is a problem in making a discrete/OTC decision, just like we did with the $rare-$botto swap; it´s exactly that, a swap of assets
The fact that unsold fragments went unsold is meaningless; the correct analysis is discounting potential Eth in the future vs. Eth in the present
I´m bullish on the idea of Botto (not as much on its execution) and I think that we might lose Eth here

For B) - Creating a good (for us) framework for future incoming offers

If we don´t have decision power over anything (the assets or the price) the decision-making is flawed. And then there are the signals that we send, because how we operate today, is how people will judge and operate with us in the future. And today we are selling the family silver, and we are telling that the bare minimum price is acceptable. Consequently, the coolest 5 pieces out of the 14 will be taken, and we won´t keep the ones we might have wished to preserve.

(3) Would be terrible because it would dig in all the wrongs of this situation, we would be creating an unnecessary moral obligation with the market that would bring no (or negligible) benefits, and we would be using momentum against us…AND depreciating the value of our holdings. Therefore this must be a one-off, (3) must disappear asap, and we must devise and pass a BIP with a plan for the remaining 10/11 fragments.

I would base that plan on three key principles:

We choose the pieces we want to protect/keep beforehand
We set the prices for the ones above & accept the prices for the rest, individually, on an ongoing basis
We do negotiate, and decide on, and do the exceptions (if any)

This can be done in several ways, happy to discuss some more in-depth if any large holder likes the idea and is willing to support it.
I also have a few more ideas with BIP potential in the oven (Choobie seems to be hungry for community-led BIPs!)

choobie

Quasimondo I'm in support of this, except for point #3 - whilst I can understand that this point is added to avoid future short-notice BIPs like this it feels like it will just trigger another proposal in the future to remove it again in the case that market conditions change or the demand goes up but at the same time will force us to stick to our decision and sell at a discount should that happen. I would rather treat this offer as a one-time decision and leave it to another BIP in case more offers like this are coming in in the future - it does not seem like setting up another BIP is that much of a hassle and as we see there is enough community engagement even at this short notice.

juanje However, I would support it as long as (3) in the TL;DR, (which is a plain mistake) is left without effect in a subsequent BIP.

I've made clarifications to #3, adjusting phrasing to ensure we have no obligation to sell once the reserve is met on subsequent artworks (excl. the 4 from point 1). This allows us to explore future bids efficiently through a straightforward BIP with options presented here, without shoehorning us into a premade decision. To reiterate, I would implore us to create a BIP with further comments after this one.

AnotherAnonCollector If you intend to bid, please make yourself aware to the team and/or place bids directly on SR. I understand your sentiment but it would be good to verify at this stage.

AnotherAnonCollector

I will increase my bid to 12 eth for 2 extra artworks (total of 24 eth) from the DAO if this BIP moves forward and this OTC deal of 4 artworks for 10 eth each OTC goes through.

I see this as beneficial to the protocol and its stakeholders especially since I am now paying 20% over last sale in the very same timeframe of trade, thus increasing conviction in the project. This is very good for Botto and its stakeholders, 20% over-bid right after an OTC sale. I see absolutely no issue with what I am offering taking into account the Rational section in the OP by Choobie as this offer not only checks all the marks but goes above and beyond.

As for why I did not make these offers before: the answer is the very same as this anonymous collector who, in fact, did not put any offers nor bids before. I am happy to participate in a fair and transparent market that will be the most beneficial to Botto and its stakeholders.

I hope this BIP goes through to allow this fellow anonymous collector to help the protocol by purchasing the 4 artworks for 10 eth each, so I can, in turn, help the protocol myself by purchasing 2 for 12 eth each immediately following him.

pepe

AnotherAnonCollector It's great to see this interest! It would be great if using the guidelines outlined in BIP-18 you created (or asked the team to help create) a BIP-19 specifying your bids, for the DAO to vote on as well after BIP-18.

Quasimondo

I'm in support of this, except for point #3 - whilst I can understand that this point is added to avoid future short-notice BIPs like this it feels like it will just trigger another proposal in the future to remove it again in the case that market conditions change or the demand goes up but at the same time will force us to stick to our decision and sell at a discount should that happen. I would rather treat this offer as a one-time decision and leave it to another BIP in case more offers like this are coming in in the future - it does not seem like setting up another BIP is that much of a hassle and as we see there is enough community engagement even at this short notice.

selo

I understand the concern of some members of the DAO about the situation - the handling of this has not been perfect and this offer has caught us off-guard and without a system. At the same time, I think this BIP is a good starting point - the works get sold at a price that no one has ever offered before, we still hold most of the Genesis pieces in treasury and we put the 1/1s in the hands of a collector that has conviction. If this situation triggers other collectors wanting to bid, I think everyone will cheer for that if the price is right but let's hear those bids on BIP 19.

hudsonsims

think there are strong points on both ends and little confusion about where folks stand at this point. in favor of seeing it move forward quickly so that the collector can get a straight answer asap. I like respecting their conviction, and would like to see another BIP to clearly establish how to handle other offers.

Junglee

The collector has also clearly expressed not wanting to participate in an auction setting let alone kickstart an auction.

Well nobody does. Although it is more fair to allow open bidding, if the buyer states that the format of an auction may be a dealbreaker, it may be an interesting idea for the sake of sale diversity to sell OTC. There are likely benefits to make this sale as is for reasons that we are currently unaware of, depending on who the buyer is (not that it should matter massively though). Open bidding (maybe a short auction) is more fair and

We have to be aware of how this decision of the DAO will look a few years in the future. Justice as fairness, and shouldn't we aim to be fair?

luck belongs to dauntless people

But I do think the end of week time limit is unreasonable and rushed. It's quite a complicated dilemma. I'm not sure what is fair. I must be missing something here.

« Previous Page