Using NFTs to facilitate more donations to Giveth projects - PoignART / Giveth Integration


PoignART allows artists to upload art & mint NFTs. Collectors can purchase that art, but instead of the funds going to the artist, 100% of the funds go to Unchain Fund - a humanitarian aid project in Ukraine. We want to build this into Giveth as a feature for verified projects.

Artists would be able to upload art (and set the price for it) to support a verified project. Collectors can buy that art and the funds go directly to the verified projects. The GIVbacks from there will be split: 50% to the artist, 50% to the collector.


We have been collaborating with PoignART for quite some time as they have developed a dApp for artists to donate their art for the Ukrainian cause. We like the idea of offering the same mechanic to those projects interested on implementing it so we have started conversations with PoignART group to move forward in that regard. You can take a look at their site to get the idea

After some initial discussions to understand their model and considering the differences we would have to introduce to contemplate several projects to donate instead of only one as they have, there are three main decisions we have to take and I would love to hear your thoughts.

  1. The blockchain to deploy our dApp.
  2. The smart contract formula
  3. The artist whitelisting

1. Which Blockchain?

The first one is the blockchain to use when deploying the dApp. PoignART has its dApp only in Mainnet, and although all governance in Giveth happens in Gnosis, we also use Mainnet with some of the pools. Using Gnosis seems to be the “natural” and cheap way to go, but most of the NFT art market happens in Mainnet and we have to think on the best option for the projects in the platform to get funds. My opinion is probably mainnet would have a bigger market to sell the art.

2. Smart Contracts

The second is the smart contract formula. As we will be dealing with art “linked” to different projects, PoignArt suggested two options. A smart contract factory, deploying one contract for every project and keeping the art collections separate, or only one contract introducing a parameter to filter the art corresponding to every project. The first option is cleaner but also more expensive in terms of deployment and maintenance. I would go for the second one.

3. To whitelist or not to whitelist?

Finally, the artist initial whitelisting request. PoignART introduced that option to avoid bots and users uploading inappropriate art. And although it introduces an extra step to the process and more maintenance cost, I do agree, we may want to keep that step so we do not experience any inappropriate art uploading.

Here’s a little flowchart showing the art uploading and selling process as PoignART have it, we should have to add an additional step to select the project the art is related to.

Resource Management

The PoignART dev team would be responsible for backend code & contracts. We would need a little support from our design team & frontend devs to make this integration happen.


Would love to hear your feedback, questions, ideas & concerns on this. If we decide upon the parameters, I can push this forward into creating a budgeting proposal and request funding from the GIVgarden.


OH YEAH! I am so excited to get the ball rolling on this. Thank you so much Santi for putting it together
& coordinating with the PoignART team. My thoughts:

  1. Which Blockchain? I love Gnosis chain for its cheap gas but think it is worthwhile to go for mainnet for the mints so that this art fits more seamlessly into the primary NFT market. I love the idea of creating real upside for donors… so if a “collector” has a better chance of benefitting from a mainnet NFT, that would be my choice. Totally open to other argumnents though.

  2. Smart Contracts. I’m with you, I think having a single contract is better than one per project. We don’t have full time solidty devs and a contract per project seems like it would create a ton of possible error… and make audits much more complicated.

  3. Whitelist. It might be cool if project owners are able to control/contribute to the whitelist :thinking: If we implement some kind of review team… I wouldn’t really want to add that on as a maintenance task for our team.

As for resource management, it would be great to get some giveth design support… but right now design is pretty limited resource. I think this is really timing-dependent. Would love to see this proposal up for 5 days for advice, and then pace out design considering also GIVpower & other DApp design changes that are currently required.

So excited to get NFTs onto Giveth!


I like this integration proposal however since this will require integration and some front-end management it would be cool if Giveth could take a cut from art sales, going to our multisig and/or the donation.eth matching pool. Obviously we should consider if this makes sense with the added gas costs of using mainnet.

perhaps 3% to giveth-main multisig? 2% to donation.eth?

1 Like

Open to the idea of having a percentage go to the main multisig, although I somewhat disagree with sending funds from art sales to donation.eth.

Artists are essentially going to be donating art to support specific projects. They can choose which project. I don’t think we need to skim off of that to send to donation.eth.


Gas will not be an issue, we will only have to pay for contract deployment once as the solution does not mint the NFT until the art is purchased and the cost is covered by the collector.

1 Like

Hey Santi!

I love this proposal. It’s very well thought. I think verified projects on Giveth would benefit so much from this. They could even start creating some synergies with local artists which in turn can increase and diversify the amount of art in the PoignART Dapp. I would love to help you take this proposal to the finish line. :slight_smile:

I agree with your thoughts on the main decisions:

  1. Mainnet as the blockchain. NFT buyers are in the Mainnet, we should meet the market where it is. Especially at the beginning after we build an audience we can implement it on Gnosis too, but I consider that is best to leave for later in the roadmap.

  2. One smart contract. This makes more sense in terms of resource efficiency.

  3. Whitelist with external verification. I think the whitelist makes sense, but I agree with @karmaticacid that it would overload our team. I think it makes sense to delegate this to the benefited projects.

It’s in my scope to bring more builders to work with Giveth. We might be able to find ways to get the design & frontend support for the projects. I will reach out to you!

1 Like
  1. Did we ask Verified project owners what they think of this feature and how they plan to utilise it (if at all)?
  2. Do we have a marketing plan to attract artists globally and motivate them to create art for Giveth projects?
  3. If Project Owners (PO) don’t have the know-how or capacity to create NFT’s, do we want to offer them those services, and at what cost?
  4. Would the NFT be living on Giveth? Where? Or would this be a separate NFT gallery page?
  5. Do we publish all NFT’s to OpenSea, Rarible or other platforms and allow anyone to buy/sell?
  1. I agree we should get some feedback from project owners to evaluate their interests.
  2. A communication effort should be considered for donors and artists to learn about the new functionality. We have a previous experience with The Toilet Paper for Charity
  3. The process will be quite straightforward but a step-by-step guide is needed.
  4. This is something to decide. I prefer this to be integrated on Giveth. Where the art will be shown before purchasing/minting.
  5. After minted the NFTs will be shown as an Opensea collection.

This is PoignART’s initial quote for the coding.

I think we would likely handle development through Raid Guild. It will likely be between $30-40k for:

  • dApp design and engineering
  • contract development and testing
  • backend development and testing
  • contract peer review by a senior Solidity Engineer

Pursuing this through Raid Guild would get us some additional support from Zother Raiders which would give us access to supporting roles and peer reviews for our coding. Since our contract will be handling user funds and tracking balances I think a peer review is essential.


So I am definitely inclined to agree on 1.

99+% of all NFT activity I have seen on Dune Analytics is all on Mainnet Ethereum.

  1. If we decided to use a multi-contract approach; we wouldn’t need to code the individual smart contracts. So it would still be a single audit whethe we have 1 contract handling all the different NFT collections; or a contract factory. There are upsides and downsides to each approach:

A Single Contract would put all of the NFTs for Giveth on the same page on OpenSea. We could have attributes/properties for each individual NFT which would determine which sub-collection they belong; as well as which charity receives the donation for the NFT.

A contract factory would mean each individual charity would have their own contract, so the unclaimed funds would be easier to track. Each charity would have it’s own page on Opensea; but there would be a significant transaction fee for deploying the new collection / contract. It would also enable collection owners to have more fine grained control over their collection.

  1. I really like the ability to have a whitelist as a safety mechanic, or a tool for preserving the integrity of a collection. The only thing is that for PoignART we are starting to see that the whitelist is acting as a pretty significant barrier to entry for our users.
1 Like

Oops it will only let me make three replies so I am going to condense my replies into one.


  1. Yeah mainnet is the way to go - and that’s why lazy minting is so crucial.

  2. One smart contract would significantly reduce the design and engineering complexity for the contract and back end.

3.) See my comments above - the whitelisting element is slowing our roll at Poignart a bit. It makes sense to explore the design space of: maintaining collection integrity, allowing the collection owners to control whether whitelisting or open minting, and providing safety features in case someone wants to spray doo-doo in the marketplace.


  1. I would love to see this happen and cross promote with
  2. It’s pretty easy for new users (especially if the whitelisting is optional per collection). A video tutorial that accompanies a medium article would nail it.
  3. The NFT would be an asset on the Ethereum blockchain; so the asset actually can live on any NFT marketplace - OpenSea, Rarible, Superrare, X2Y2 etc. Since it’s a lazy minted NFT, the initial purchase and mint would have to be done on Giveth.
  4. Yeah; since it’s an ERC721 token there’s no getting around this. Those marketplaces will pick up the tokens and we can’t stop anyone from buying or selling.
1 Like

I think it’s wise to discuss this. Having some portion of all royalties allocated to Giveth could be a smart decision. I know that Giveth is hugely on the “create value” side of the spectrum; but I think it’s okay to capture some value too. It’s really important to gather some intel/feedback from not only the Giveth community including charities but from creators as well.

Oh yeah one other thing I failed to mention:

Having a contract factory approach would also allow collection owners to decide their own approach to royalties.

So, PoignART did something very novel with the Giveth integration with NFTs. However would like to see

1: the ability if this were to be created for any Giveth verified project to be selected as the project(s) that would receive funds (I’d like to target more environmental projects with this idea)
2: have the ability for people to create their own NFT marketplace in alignment with this tooling (similar to like what Rarible does)
3: have different funding levels equate to different NFTs (such as anything below 100 equals this NFT, anything from 100-200 gets that NFT and anything above 200 gets that) Celesta Labs is currently working on this:
4: be able to mint Charged Particle NFTs (ability to have nested NFTs) I’m now involved with their ecology guild
5: custom royalty separation (Giveth, Artists, and Organization Promoting the marketplace) such as what happens on I think Mintable
6: Be able to be blockchain agnostic, starting out initially on Ethereum but expanding tooling eventually beyond that

What is the progress on this and how can I/ we help?

1 Like

Also DoingGud has been a great place for NFTs for good so maybe partnering with them in some way.

1 Like

Hey Terexitarius,

Thanks for all your comments.
We are requesting feedback from the projects to find out if they consider this an exciting way for funding. We are using Typeform and directly contacting art-related projects with direct input before deciding how we move forward.

Ok nice, I have submitted the Typeform. Looking forward to hearing what’s decided on moving forward.