I love Alex’s artwork, and he and Santi do a great team. I think they are going to provide a very high quality PFP that everybody will love to show in their profiles and other places.
The two parts that the proposal is floppy IMO are the narrative and the tokenomics.
In regards of narrative, the question the proposal should reply are:
- Why should I love my Giver?
- What Givers stand for?
Whereas gender inclusivity is something to stand for, it can’t be the only motive to have a Giver. Having a Giver must mean something, such as being a true supporter of the projects within Giveth (meaing), having more than X amount of GIV (ownership), or having a lot of GIVpower (social influence). Octalysis framework can be useful to determine which use to give to new elements such as PFPs.
In regards of tokenomics, we can think on what is important to Giveth, and design the NFT in a way that we obtain what Giveth needs as an outcome. I see many positive things for Giveth and how they could be accomplished with the minting of NFTs:
- Refilling the Common Pool with GIV.
- If we mint the NFT in exchange for sending GIV to the common pool, the two positive outcomes:
- GIV may be potentially bought, creating a buy pressure on GIV, and increasing its price.
- The common pool has more resources, so more things can be done using the GIVgarden.
- There is one drawback, obtaining givers would mean give away your GIV governance power.
- If we mint the NFT in exchange for sending GIV to the common pool, the two positive outcomes:
- Locking GIV for a long time.
- If we mint the NFT in exchange for locking GIV within the NFT for a long period of time, we can avoid the sell pressure, because selling/unlocking your GIV would mean to “destroy” your Giver.
- GIVbacks could be automatically locked within Givers.
I’m currently working on the GIVpower contracts, and it would not be a bad idea to use non-transferable NFTs to represent token locks that hold GIVpower (second positive outcome above). If we altogether figure out a better narrative, and the GIVpower team like the idea (@karmaticacid and @markop may be the most relevant for telling), I can work on a proposal to include NFTs on GIVpower. Otherwise, Givers could be used for something else.
If we go this way, Funnyverse team would only have provide the images and their metadata (traits, rarity score…).
I would suggest to divide the proposal in different parts, so the community can see the outcomes before committing to pay for the full price. The community also has to access which is the value that the NFTs will provide in relation of their cost, and it will depend mostly on the tokenomics used.