Should Genesis Ethlizards be able to receive revenue similarly to the V2 collection?

Please discuss why or why not Genesis Ethlizards should receive revenue from the Vault.

Genensis Ethlizards should not receive revenue from the vault because they already have been rewarded with V2.

Their V2 will be receiving revenue too!

3 Likes

I can see two options for genesis ethlizards.

  1. They can get a portion of the staking revenue at a reduced rate of V2 lizards due to them receiving V2 lizards at the initial launch.
    2.They see a one time allocation of eth for them to claim. Alongside with receiving whitelist or other alpha in the future.
    Option 1 makes sense since they are still lizards and made up the initial foundations for the vault to be created. However, V2 lizards will feel diluted from what they see as a ‘fair share’. Option 2 is a bit more colder, but since they had the chance to mint the V2 lizards. It makes sense that they still have all the benefits of the liz alongsides the free mint they had.

Genesis lizards were allocated 10% of the V2 supply at mint. Each Genesis were able to mint 2 V2’s for free and 3 for WL of .06E. This alone was a utility for Genesis.

Genesis lizards trading volume is 123E whereas V2 trading volume is 3.3KE. They should clearly be different vaults.

I support Genesis benefits but not at the expense of V2, dilution is never the answer, especially in Crypto. I’d support early Beta access or x2 Discord entries.

Regarding those that sold early. Not sure why this is even a concern, reward people because maybe they sold?

Regarding those that bought after. Saying you bought an NFT for a utility where that utility is unknown, you shouldn’t expect to dilute a separate collection.

The Genesis is swag and OG and holders were already rewarded with V2.

*People suggest a vote but to me, there are certain items that shouldn’t be signed even if passed in a vote. If I owned 51%, I shouldn’t be able to clean the DAO funds to my wallet. I don’t think dilution of a collection should ever be an open option.

3 Likes

I’m not 100% where I sit in terms of if Genesis should receive revenue and be counted as part of the V2 DAO but I don’t like this line of thinking that they should be excluded because they received certain rewards in the past.

I think we need to think about these things long term. Currently already something like 30% of Genesis have been traded post mint meaning a sizable % of holders never participated in the mint. It’s not correct to say all genesis holders are V2 holders or at least would be V2 holders if they didn’t sell.

Long term this number is only going to increase. Some will hodl their genesis forever but 5+ years from now I’d bet 80 or 90% of Genesis holders will be those who never had anything to do with the mint.

We should make decisions about genesis utility based on its own merit and what makes sense for how V1 fits into the larger EthLizards ecosystem.

If we consider both V1 and V2 to be part of the same project then I think they should all share in DAO revenue (and V1 royalties should also go to the DAO). If we consider them separate projects then it’s reasonable that only V2 holders are part of the DAO and genesis holders will have to find separate utility.

The question is is it a separate collection or part of a larger collection. Or I guess a seperate collection that’s all part of 1 project or 2 different projects.

It would be a similar question for BAYC vs MAYC holders. They’re obviously separate collections in a sense but you could also argue they’re all part of the same project and should have similar voting rights and all are part of the same DAO (if you consider BAYC to be a DAO). Or you could argue the intention of the collections is different enough it does make sense for them possibly to have very different roles.

I think I’m still on the side of unifying V1 and V2 and saying they’re all part of the same DAO. All genesis royalties should go towards the DAO and each genesis holder should get 1 vote / 1 rev share like all other lizards.

The big question in my mind is - Why should the genesis lizard holders deserve similar revenues when they have not contributed to the treasury?

Eth from mint of genesis lizards went to someone else (who is no longer with the current dao?) and the genesis lizards contributed zero OS royalties to the ethlizards treasury.

There is a need for strong non-financial reasons in order to justify this merge.

4 Likes

I don’t have Geneis, but for me it is normal they should have a part of the vault I explain why :

  • First only 100 genesis so it won’t change a lot
  • They took more risk buying more expensive
  • If nothing, we could have argue in the future and I don’t see really the benefit for the community
  • I would say between 2 and 3 parts by genesis to don’t give them more than 10 % of the revenue.

We are all on the same boat, and we are to stay all together start a fight now won’t be good for the future
We have enough for genesis and Ethlizards (most of genesis have ethlizards)

My opinion (as a genesis holder) is that genesis lizards SHOULD get a benefit, but not at the detriment to V2 holders.

A dilution of v2 holders to the benefit of v1 would not be fair, given this was not included in the voted-in proposal.

Without the genesis NFTs, the v2 NFTs would never be a thing, so I think it’s only right that v1 holders (a lot of which are the OGs of the community) reap the rewards.

The only fair way I see to do this is by having access to allocation that v2 lizards don’t fill.

If v2 lizards are offered $100k in allocation for a gamefi project, but only decide to take $50k allocation, the remaining $50k is offered to Genesis lizards split pro rata ($500 per liz in this instance).

In the event 1 lizard chooses not to take the allocation, that lizard’s share is split among the rest (e.g. 1 lizard says no, 99 lizards say yes, therefore allocation = $50,000/99 = $505.05 per lizard)

This will only serve to strengthen the community (with more allocation taken up by lizards overall, more capital + talent flows in), it’ll increase the value of genesis lizards, and it will be absolutely zero dilution for v2 holders.

2 Likes

EDITED: After re-reading your proposal. I agree and think it’s a good idea to benefit both holders.

Did you finish reading the post? You shouldn’t base your reply on the first sentence.

It would entirely depend on what the project is looking for. Maybe they don’t want 100 Genesis lizards investing, maybe they just want the DAO. But I do like the idea!

You’re right and I apologise sir.

Hey all.

Just jumping in to share my thoughts. Most are similar to other posts, so I’ll just mention a couple of things.

Firstly, I think the debate, in and of itself, answers the question. If we have to go back and forward to decide whether or not a collection of people have brought enough value to a project to receive additional rewards then the answer is likely a no.

Whilst I’m certainly open to it, I haven’t yet seen any decent reasons to suggest gen holders should receive revenue. Whilst we’re all grateful this project exists and that we’re a part of it, the ‘without us it wouldn’t exist’ argument is certainly not strong enough to justify the receipt of revenue. This community, as a whole, has brought this to where it is today and it’ll be the community that takes it to where it ends up.

I minted 3 lizards and sold them not too long after. I didn’t see any value at the time, not enough to keep my interest, at least. However, when this turned into a gamefi dao, I was more than happy to buy back in, above floor (2ETH) for my lizard. I think this demonstrates that the community, through its decision making and guidance, has created value. Simply owning a genesis token didn’t bring much at all to begin with.

I have a proposal in the works but the general idea is to encourage the community to build value into this project. I think that should be the goal of us all and I don’t think the revenue being sent to gen holders is conducive to this.

Look forward to hearing everyone else’s thoughts on this.

5 Likes

I respect all the genesis holders, but I find weak the argument of saying that V2 wouldn’t exist without them. That is obvious, but we could also say that lizards wouldn’t exist without Illuvium. Core team decided to create special lizards for the Illuvium core team within the collection to thanks them, and their decided to provide WL spots and free mints for genesis instead. That’s should be all imo, everyone took profits. Genesis will hold an honorable position in the community. They can have privileges in future tournaments, or any other advantage that not necessarily has to impact in the DAO. Changing the DAO foundations, the # of the collection, at this stage is an extra headache right now (at least I see it like that haha). I would sepparate both things, I’m sure that we will find hundreds of ways of venerate genesis lizards in the future

5 Likes

Didnt genesis holders get free ethlizards. Therefor they already got extra piece of the pie so to speak?

3 Likes

Seriously, I really wish we could focus this discussion on where we think genesis lizards fit into the project long term instead of have current genesis holders received enough immediate benefit, etc

The current set of holders is already different than the set of holders at mint and will be even more different going forward. The question of genesis utility and where these V1 lizards fit into the project is going to be here for the lifetime of the project.

I think how we should frame the question is what is the relationship of V1 lizards to the DAO and V2? Are they a seperate project? Are they a different collection in the same project? Are they mostly a historical artifact that makes a cool PFP but nothing besides that?

This to me his how we should be thinking about this decision and not “have current holders (who aren’t even the original holders or minters in many cases) received enough benefit?”

3 Likes

All time average price for V2 is 0.58 eth, and all time for V1 is 0.54. On average, a Gen person didn’t pay more and they received 2 free V2 and 3 WL for the price of 0.06

1 Like

That is only for the original owner though, something to keep in mind.

Genesis Ethlizard Discussion – Relevant Facts

Ethlizards v2 is a separate collection created by the current Ethlizards team. V2 Ethlizards was not initially planned at the time of Genesis creation and was later envisioned to become a larger, more functional DAO project. Initially the LizardDAO’s focus was to host gaming tournaments, but through successful governance proposals has transitioned into a full on Game-Fi Investment DAO. The V2 Ethlizards 5050 tokens are contractually structured to have permissions within the DAO (this includes membership in the DAO by owning said Ethlizard NFT token, voting, as well as future staking functionality and future DAO benefits). 7.5% Royalty goes to the vault and team. Currently has vault treasury near 300ETH.

Ethlizards V1 Genesis was created as a meme NFT collection to be distributed among friends and OG degens of the Illuvium community by 0xDrs. It was a free mint given out and a discord was formed for these degens to connect and share alpha. Currently Genesis Ethlizards collection has 0% royalty, $0 revenue and 0 in treasury. Only recently has the Ethlizards team acquired rights to this collection from 0xDrs.

Ethlizard Genesis V1 holder Perks:
• Pre-V2 mint, holders received 2 free mints of Ethlizards V2 and 3 WL spots for the mint [additionally there were 3 extra WL spots available for early members to discord for a possible total of 8 v2s]
• Have access to closed Bathhouse channel on discord
• Collector/Flex value (speculative)

Note: The DAO is restricted ONLY to V2 Ethlizard NFT holders, with the token contractually being granted permissions to participate in the DAO. Ethlizard Genesis V1 is NOT included in the DAO and never has been up to this point; contractually, membership, voting, staking or otherwise. There is no “automatic” inclusion possible, since from the beginning the DAO was developed for V2 holders only. For Gen v1 to be included, a DAO proposal would need to be drafted and voted on according to the functional governance process of the DAO.

1 Like