Thanks Santi for putting together the proposal! I love the concept of having a Giver NFT that people could identify with, wear proudly as their profile pic. I love Alex’s art too.
I think the art production & minting sounds well taken care of, the part that I really think needs to be hashed out more is the ultility.
From the post:
I don’t like the idea of giving GIV as an incentive with constraints, i.e. can only donate to verified projects. TBH, I don’t really see a ton of value in us using GIV to incentivize minting an Giver NFT.
I think we should instead consider other utility… ones that create demand for GIV. In @paxthemax 's post, he said something like:
- NFTs can be minted in a stable coin, OR
- NFTs can be minted at a discount if using GIV
@sem’s idea of sending GIV to the common pool to mint NFTs is also interesting, because it refills the pool & creates demand for GIV… although I’m not sure I’m fully onboard with this because tbh we have a lot of GIV in the common pool… we’re not really in need of a top up any time soon (especially w the stream).
@sem I’m interested in this idea, but don’t fully understand it. How would that work? After “a long period of time”, does the minter get their GIV back without selling the NFT?
I think this adds unnecessary complexity to GIVpower, and we should keep the two ideas separate. GIVpower is well on its way at this point. Right now, users earn a yield for locking tokens… Also they can stake & lock different amounts of tokens at different times for different lockups. This could be a lot of NFTs… also destroying them to unlock GIV in small batches… ugh it just gets confusing. I don’t think it’s a good idea to go down this rabbit hole.
I agree with the idea of separating this proposal in two perhaps: one to cover the cost setting up artwork and minting… and a second to determine how to actually use these NFTs in a way that benefits Giveth & the GIVeconomy