Canon Bounty payment ideas and general tokenomics/NFTs/Bounty ideas

Hello fellow Bees :honeybee::honeybee::honeybee:.
First let me say that I am meta happy to be here after wandering the wide world of DAOs these many months and extremely excited to be a part of Canon swarm.

It’s been difficult to figure out funding needed since nothing like this has ever been done before and frankly, we just don’t know. As Canon swarm is working diligently to produce the components of our first Genesis Collection NFT we are tracking our time and work flow so as to be better able to anticipate project costs and, of course, find ways to streamline.

In the meantime we have many many Bees wanting to help.
We’ve had a few talks in Canon swarm about this.
We’ve discussed developing a token payment system in which the tokens would be redeemable for NFTs. That way the Bounties could vary in size and value whereas the NFTs would hopefully represent a more stable amount of input from NFT to NFT.

Adding in edit: the underlying problem I am trying to solve is how to pay Bounties with no funding.

This is my personal riff on this idea.
I’m sure it’s close to what other people in the space are coming up with.
I would love to hear about those projects.

So…
The idea is to pay in tokens that are then redeemable for NFTs.
The Tokens would be basically unlimited mint, exchangeable across projects, have no official pool and no established financial value.
Each project would be able to use project specific NFTs or the general protocol could also mint NFTs to redeem tokens for.
The NFTs could be redeemable for next tier NFTs and so on.

So to recap so far, Pay Bounty in Tokens.
Redeem Tokens for NFTs.
Redeem NFTs for next tier NFTs.

While there is no xDai value attached to the NFTs I anticipate that they will become desirable and that people will buy them from Bees etc in order to support the various projects, get NFTs, and to participate in this cutting edge economics experiment.
Each Bounty should come with a POAP in order to efficiently track work done,
and each NFT should come with a POAP to match the NFT so that the people who earned the NFTs aren’t so loathe to sell them to generate income for themselves.

Thank-you @pab for being so persistent discussing the Harberger tax.
When you said “If this works Canon won’t need funding from 1Hive” I finally got it.

The NFTs could come with a Harberger tax paid to the person who earned it, or to the person who earned it and the issuing project as well. I feel like paying some back to the project will encourage buyers who support the project but may be ambivalent about a particular Bounty earner.
Alternatively, the NFTs could have a commission attached to go back to the earner and the project.

I’d love to hash this around here, get some inputs, throw in with someone else if they’re already working on something like this…
Since the Bounties would be internal here, at least at first, your feedback is essential!

Come for the Honey🍯.
Stay for the Bees :honeybee::honeybee::honeybee:.

Love,
meta

10 Likes

I really like the idea of using Harberger tax mechanism to pay artists who produce the art for Canon NFTs.

However, I’d argue that the creation of a new token here is essentially gambling on what the market price of that token will turn out to be worth (and thus what artists will be paid for their work). Even if there’s no “official pool” so long as it’s a transferable token then it’s just a matter of time before someone LPs it on Honeyswap.

Rather than minting a new token, I’d love it if we could use this opportunity to create some synergy between 1Hive projects. What if we made the Canon NFTs purchaseable (and the Harberger tax payable) in COMB tokens? In doing so, the success of Canon will benefit Honeyswap (which benefits 1Hive and all HNY holders), and the success of Honeyswap will benefit Canon (and all COMB holders).

4 Likes

While I like the experimentational aspects of implementing POAPs deeply in the cred system for whatever activities the canon swarm partakes in, I’m not completely sure if having the actual bounties’ payments’ economic value be as much subject to speculation as mentioned in this post…

A few questions come to mind - What happens if the valuation in the market for these NFTs is lower than the actual value being provided by the contributors? would there be ways to engineer a base value to these so that contributions aren’t underpayed so as to foster a space in which contributions aren’t only being made by people who are fortunate enough to have a sort of runway but we actually help and give jobs to people who need the money and are willing to put in the hours? I’ve heard of people putting fungible tokens inside NFTs before to do this kind of thing but I’m not familiar at all with the sort of technicalities this would entail (an example would be https://charged.fi/)

2 Likes

I love the idea of using COMB tokens! If we were to take this direction I think it’d be cool to have the NFTs only be mintable through the 1hive.io UI maybe…? and have a smart contract do something interesting with the comb tokens used for minting like burning them or something :eyes: my main concern is probably around the idea of having these tokens retain the royalty / harberger system even if they’re bridged to other networks such as mainnet or arbitrum for trading / collecting purposes - although I think we’re still not sure what kind of collectors we would be aiming at; many of the decisions around tokenomics I think rely a lot on the kind of use cases these tokens would have way beyond just having them existing for the purpose of collecting art / speculating on price.

Im just thinking out loud here since there’s a lot of directions we could take and every one of these is really a big rabbit hole - I’d be more comfortable if decisions around this were taken by people with actual hands on / technical knowledge around token engineering but just having these discussions and bouncing ideas around is important too I think

We would have to explore this more.
What I’m looking at is running an experimentation in value.
I don’t think we want pCOMB to have an infinite supply nor do we want to mint NFTs representing compensation for labor to people pooling coin.
I’ll repeat this in my response to pab:
My initial idea for the coins and the NFTs was that they would be a place-holder until funding could be secured, after-the-fact. Then I brain wandered from there.
I’m down to look at ways to integrate pCOMB into Bounties though.
Big time.

Alchemist (https://crucible.alchemist.wtf/) does the same thing with crucibles. Each NFT is like a vault where you can deposit assets.

Is it possible to set a floor price for each NFT?

My initial idea for the coins and the NFTs was that they would be a place-holder until funding could be secured, after-the-fact. Then I brain wandered from there.

I think it would run nicely as an experiment though.

What are you thinking with the floor price?
I think the person awarded should choose their price. That’s inherent in the Harberger tax I think.
The person chooses how much to sell for, then the next owner sets a price and starts paying tax to the artist and possibly the project.

You’re totally right! I was thinking about setting a floor price to respond to @pab

And what about sybil resistance? Couldn’t really explain why but I think that might be a issue.

I don’t understand?
If people want to work under five different names is that a problem?
None of this is gifts.

There really aren’t that many people who have technical hands on knowledge,
and by us doing this we do.
It’s still extremely experimental.
The people writing about Harberger tax are still in the extremely early stages of experimentation.
This is an excellent opportunity to generate some data to advance token engineering.
I was thinking the initial owner of the NFT, the person who had done the work to earn it, could set the parameters on tax rate.
It’s a really excellent opportunity to Learn Some Things.

The underlying problem I am trying to solve is how to pay Bounties without funding.
I’ll edit my initial post to reflect that.

1 Like

I totally agree with you. That’s one of the core idea of Harberger tax.
That might also be the issue for the sybil attack I was talking about. You can set the parameter on tax rate yourself and rent it to yourself. Once again, I have no idea yet why you would do that and if that’s really a problem but I’ve seen how people use NFTs to do money laundering, and all the issues there was with Gitcoin in GR9 with Quadratic Fundings. If there is a way to exploit it, people will find it.