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?”
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.
I appreciate the additional historical context. I’m not exactly sure how relevant it is or if changes my mind regarding this matter, it seems regardless of exactly how things developed early on the community clearly sees a connection between the 2 projects even if that connection isn’t exactly clear, but good to understand the facts regardless.
Regarding your comment that genesis has not been included in the DAO up to this point - the initial DAO vote was 3/27, that makes “up to this point” being less than 2 weeks ago. During this period there’s been constant discussion about genesis utility, if genesis should be included in the DAO and if they should be entitled votes/rev share, including the suggestion that they should receive a multiple on votes/rev share, so I don’t see this having been a closed question in any meaningful sense.
I agree on your procedural point that in order for Gen 1 to be included a DAO proposal would have to be drafted and voted on which to me is exactly why we’re currently having this discussion.
Updated the history post with more info. Actually since the beginning V2 was structured as a DAO, just with a different purpose to host the game tournaments. Many may not know that, but it was a DAO as soon as mint went live. That’s how we had the functionality to make a vote on proposals as far back as Feb 22nd.
I think that the first vote we have should be on what Kieran suggested - should genesis have a multiplier or not. A neutral / objective proposal & vote that gives everyone an idea of where the DAO stands as currently most of the discussion is from 30-50 of us total.
If the DAO disagrees, then let’s discuss & vote on the alternatives. But I think that the least we should do is vote on it given Kieran’s suggestion as a start.
Until then it will just be an echo chamber of differing opinions, but if there’s anyones opinion we should vote on as a starting point i think that should be Kierans, especially given that he started this topic by posting about it on twitter.
While this 59% is likely overstated since it is the maximum if EVERY gen 1 liz voted for the proposal vs the same amount of V2 only holders as last vote, it is a significant point. If a large group of shareholders in any business, corporation or DAO has a large % of vote, then they could potentially vote on things that give them a specific advantage (instead of voting for the option which is best for the entire DAO). Here lies a “possible” conflict of interest, since gen 1 holders could have a large influence in a vote to gain additional voting power and financial rewards in the case of a 1 for 1 merge (or multiplier) type of proposal. This is the kind of issue that could create division (and is currently) within a community if not cared for properly. This is important to point out so that we know there is a reason to have a good strategy while creating the proposal.
In a DAO system, ideally the priority would first and foremost make/revise/approve proposals and policies to ensure that they are best for the ENTIRE DAO and everyone involved. DAO first ftw.
Keeping the community united is key.
While we can’t remove that actual “potential” conflict of interest since it exists inherently, what we CAN do is ensure that the proposal, before being submitted for voting, firstly considers the wellbeing of the DAO (all V2 holders), while creating additional functionality and value for Gen 1.
In this kind of proposal:
Gen 1 holders gain additional utility
V2 holders would not be negatively impacted
If there is some stated benefit for V2, even indirectly, then even better
A simple way to look it is how to create a proposal that is good for everyone involved and not “overly” rewarding to a particular group.
A successful solution being a proposal that gives Gen 1 utility they like, and that V2 only holders are also happy with them having. I’m confident that we could do that if we take the time.
My personal opinion:
The initial discussion was about having 1 to 1 voting/revenue share for Gen 1. If approved, the HOPE would be that Gen 1 pulls it’s own weight with a newly introduced a 7.5% royalty, so as to not negatively impact the earning potential of current DAO members (aside from a small% of dilution).
The community has felt very divided in terms of a 1 to 1 discussion and now we’re talking about multipliers because Kieran had mentioned it previously? (I think it’s very unlikely he has had the time to see the community’s feedback and discussions so far). I’m honestly not sure how the multiplier (for 67 Gen 1 holders) could take effect without harming current DAO holders (1450 V2 only holders) in regards to either voting or staking rewards).
In the case of a multiplier, Gen 1 holders would go from 0 DAO membership voting or revenue (aside from the 2 free & 3+3 WL V2 liz they could potentially have from mint) to having more weight and advantage than current V2 NFT DAO holders. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me like a proposal containing multipliers would only serve to further divide the community. I don’t see where is the fairness or equality, despite what any voting outcome would determine. (add onto that the current voting power of Gen1 holders - I also noticed today, that a few Gen 1 holders buying even more V2 - could be a coincidence but… still their voting power is significant by any measurement).
I think it’s great if Gen 1 gets more functionality and I support that. Many great ideas to give them functionality have been proposed (extra allocations, future airdrops for V3, WLs, 1 to 1 functionality, etc). I personally see a proposal including multipliers to be potentially the most damaging to community sentiment (out of all possible proposals mentioned) if pushed to voting, so I don’t understand why we would be starting there.
IMO the MAIN goal should always be to protect the wellbeing of the DAO (which currently includes all V2 holders). Creating any proposal where one side feels like they are losing out is already a fail IMO, again regardless of voting outcome. If it were up to me, no potentially divisive proposal would ever make it up to voting, simply due to any potential damage would always out-weight any benefits. Preventing a problem is always better than trying to fix it later. Of course, it’s NOT up to me in any way; I just think it’s possible to instead create a win/win kind of proposal where everyone is more or less content with the potential outcomes.
Very clearly laid out and concise - appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
I agree with your first post on the integrity of the DAO, so the reason I feel that this should be voted on as a starting point is that while this discussion has created division, it is still 30-50 voices as a whole & we will never get a clear picture on the actual position of the DAO without a vote.
In terms of a starting proposal to resolve this, it then comes to a question of who thinks they are right. Which is why I think we should revert to Kieran as the starting point given that he is driving so much of the value for this project & has done from inception.
Having said this i’m very happy to be wrong as it means i’ll learn something. Whatever outcome the DAO as a whole votes in favour of is the best outcome for the DAO.
Just my two cents, appreciate what you’ve shared on why not though - I like to view things from different angles & hear opposing viewpoints. That’s how we all arrive at better decisions together . I could well be wrong & welcome it if so!
Edit: Just adding that an AMA with Kieran first sounds like a good idea too. Ultimately i’m for us starting with what he’s suggesting and going from there by voting.
If Gen1 are voted in to DAO that’s a dilution of 5050 of 1.98%. I can live with that.
And it would be good for the community that is now being divided.
But when I hear talks of a multiplier… So basically we (Gen2) would give Gen1 a finger but they would take the entire arm…???
They have no Revdis and no voting power atm and suddenly they would have more then Gen2? COMPLETE BULLSHIT And against everything a DAO stands for = Equality!!!
Whoever is going to write the proposal should specify if V1 also get voting rights, how much the voting right will be and also if we should add royalties to V1 collection and bring move it to the V2 vault (I recommend 7.5% royalties, same as V2)