I’m sorry, but your proposal does nothing for current JUP stakers aka DAO members.
Do you want 50,000 to 100,000 JUP financing for what? What are the costs that need to be covered?
I see no reason why we would pay to create a collection of NFTs to fund the creation of a validator while paying 2.5k SOL to the project runners from the minting costs.
If we ever wanted a JupiterDAO validator, we can directly contact Helius or any other infrastructure provider, order what is needed to build a validator that they would manage and simply create a JupiterDAO LST with Sanctum. Later, we can decide how to distribute/use the potential revenue for the benefit of the DAO.
so for example on base I have one called the doge nft and I have a nft of a pfp of a doge right…
like token quantity the nft quantity will reflect supply
you can own any portion of the supply. it’s adds another dynamic as if Apes gobble them all up price can go expo fast.
most supply are like 777,777,777 or something like that.
can be 777 or 7T if you want.
everyone would get a nft sorta you just see the picture with your ballance I guess.
hope I explained better I’m no pro ita my understanding. maybe someone knows more
Sorry if my proposal isn’t clear enough. I will quote myself and add clarification.
The proposal establishes a self-stake within the Jupiter Validator with all (100%) profits directly benefiting staking DAO members. Half is allocated to the active staking rewards, while the remaining 50% is reinvested to bolster the self-stake. And note, that since half is continuously reinvested, the revenue from the self-stake will increase exponentially. This initiative generates an extra revenue stream for JupiterDAO, thus also boosting JUP token value.
Creating the collection calls for a temporary work group comprising of developers and an artist. This team will be tasked with both crafting the artwork and developing the NFT collection to ensure its proper functionality, then followed by the minting. The requested amount is reasonable considering the scope of this collection. Note that, as specified in the proposal, all final figures will be subject to the determination of voting DAO members.
We already have one. Our current validator for the JupSol LST solely benefits JupSol holders and doesn’t provide any benefits to DAO members. This new proposal aims to create an NFT collection for us Catdets, to be the personification of our community, while also increasing active staking rewards and boosting JUP token value.
Agree. NFTs this early in DAO development is not the way. The optics of NFTs, ROI expectations, general NFT /crypto market. Launching an NFT requires a sub-community management.
If we do an NFT collection it should be free, limit one, a sponsored artist, available to all Catdets etc and for fun.
SOLseeker, thank you for the information. Delving deeper into the SPL404 protocol, it might be possible to use JUP as liquidy for the NFTs. After all, each NFT as proposed, will have a perma-staked supply. Swapping into the voting system, and then swapping back could be a way to create a visual tracker directly on the art. I could imagine a Roman numeral in one of the corners or distinctive borders (possibilities endless). It could elevate the experience and reflect tangible DAO engagement. Plus, a visual high-level count or rare border could offer bragging rights.
Thank you ButchTripps for the reply. A portion of the budget will go toward marketing. It will be unmistakably clear that these NFTs will be the definitive collection and quintessence of the JupiterDAO. And yes, I am not sure if you saw previous comments, but the tentative plan is to have a round base launch. 1 mint per round. Expecting to see this collection in many hands
… It seems to me vital that the design of the collection should be the result of a collaborative effort involving SEVERAL ARTISTS who have succeeded in presenting a consensual work, even if in the event of disagreement over certain details they could have recourse to polls to settle a few points of disagreement. It would probably not be necessary to go so far as to organize a vote to choose the aspect of this or that feature. I’m totally opposed to sponsoring a single artist on principle, as this would run counter to the spirit of group work we’re trying to promote at J.U.P. A collaboration of AT LEAST 2 people would be required. I’m in favor of setting up a working group to take the initiative for this project, with the aim of achieving what is now required of all WGs: work open to the public and regular reporting to the community, as well as the minimum condition I’ve noted above.
The choice of standard (SPL404, WNS, etc.) should be identified by the project leaders as being the most preferable, providing all the information in summary form and as a comparison to justify why one option rather than another is appropriate for the purpose.
In terms of utility, beyond the desire for distinction (to be displayed as a PFP or not), I imagine receiving the NFT as a symbolic value of the ASR with a level of rarity correlated to voting power (depending on the quantity of JUP deposited, rarity probabilities evolve). The NFT could then be traded on the secondary market, giving the S͟E͟L͟L͟E͟R͟* the opportunity to recover the value of his assets without necessarily having to wait for the 30-day period. The advantage for the A͟C͟Q͟U͟I͟R͟E͟R͟* is that he will have been able to strengthen his voting power instantly, without necessarily having to go through the unstake process to reallocate a larger quantity afterwards. So, in the scenario I’ve just described, the strike would initially take place on vote.jup.ag, and its fair value would be exactly equal to the number of JUPs deposited (information recorded in the metadata: I don’t know if this is technically feasible as things stand). But fluctuations would appear on the secondary market : devaluations or overvaluations may occur for various reasons (e.g. collectors’ interest in certain aesthetic criteria , panic sells on the markets , etc.): to each his own. That doesn’t prevent NFT from being intrinsically equivalent to a certain known quantity of JUP (=metadata), and even if its price at a given moment (t) may not exactly reflect this value, we can reasonably assume that the price will revolve around it, and that on average there won’t be any major discrepancies. The A͟D͟V͟A͟N͟T͟A͟G͟E͟S͟* lies above all in the flexibility provided compared with the fixed 30-day unstacking period.
*: mutual benefit
The amount of NFT issued could be voluntarily controlled so that only a limited number of users can enjoy these benefits, in order to motivate ownership.
How about designating a lead artist for the WG? They would be responsible for the base layers, rarity borders, and DAO member art submission reviews. Their role would involve crafting and disseminating both the base layers and design guidelines, so members have a framework upon which to base their submissions.
Having a lead artist should help maintain continuity and cohesion in the overall design. Yet we would still offer and accept submissions from any DAO member.
Ahh! Yes! We don’t necessarily need to set a fixed price. We could set a minimum amount, and then, for each “X” amount of JUP deposited the NFTs rarity level increases.
I just bought one of these SPL404 NFTs to try it out … mallstreet … Seems like a cool idea, however, I don’t think it can meet the needs of the project. Although each NFT is backed by a token and can be exchanged back and forth, the original NFT’s metadata is not preserved. A fresh NFT is minted each time.
For our proposal, each NFT would be backed by perma-staked JUP. The staked JUP account would remain static and ASR would be allocated to the NFT owner. Regardless of who owns the NFT, the rewards are distributed to the current owner at the time ASR is allocated. Essentially, metadata must be preserved
How about dropping NFT Costumes in addition to the Catdet NFT. I like the recent Adidas costuming options Doodles offers and thought about this while reading here. You know - Pirate Hats, Houla-Hoops, Spiked Hair/Wigs etc…
The Rare accessories can be dropped to the Top Stakers and then Tier down and make it where everyone gets one Catdet NFT when they reach say 100 Staked JUP. Next Catdet NFT @250 Staked JUP and so on. ~ MIR ~
Interesting. I like the Art-Based costume, maybe have a Catdet looking backwards wearing a Hoodie/Jacket so the Art can be displayed.
Monthly Costume Winner is Mintable for 30 days, then on to the next months winner.
It seems to me vital that the design of the collection should be the result of a collaborative effort involving SEVERAL ARTISTS who have succeeded in presenting a consensual work, even if in the event of disagreement over certain details they could have recourse to polls to settle a few points of disagreement.
It would probably not be necessary to go so far as to organize a vote to choose the aspect of this or that feature.
I’m totally opposed to sponsoring a single artist on principle, as this would run counter to the spirit of group work we’re trying to promote at J.U.P.
A collaboration of AT LEAST 2 people would be required.
I’m in favor of setting up a working group to take the initiative for this project, with the aim of achieving what is now required of all WGs: work open to the public and regular reporting to the community, as well as the minimum condition I’ve noted above.
The choice of standard (SPL404, WNS, etc.) should be identified by the project leaders as being the most preferable, providing all the information in summary form and as a comparison to justify why one option rather than another is appropriate for the purpose.
In terms of utility, beyond the desire for distinction (to be displayed as a PFP or not), I imagine receiving the NFT as a symbolic value of the ASR with a level of rarity correlated to voting power (depending on the quantity of JUP deposited, rarity probabilities evolve).
The NFT could then be traded on the secondary market, giving the S͟E͟L͟L͟E͟R͟* the opportunity to recover the value of his assets without necessarily having to wait for the 30-day period. The advantage for the A͟C͟Q͟U͟I͟R͟E͟R͟* is that he will have been able to strengthen his voting power instantly, without necessarily having to go through the unstake process to reallocate a larger quantity afterwards.
But fluctuations would appear on the secondary market : devaluations or overvaluations may occur for various reasons (e.g. collectors’ interest in certain aesthetic criteria 
, panic sells on the markets 
, etc.): to each his own.
That doesn’t prevent NFT from being intrinsically equivalent to a certain known quantity of JUP (=metadata), and even if its price at a given moment (t) may not exactly reflect this value, we can reasonably assume that the price will revolve around it, and that on average there won’t be any major discrepancies.
The A͟D͟V͟A͟N͟T͟A͟G͟E͟S͟* lies above all in the flexibility provided compared with the fixed 30-day unstacking period.
The amount of NFT issued could be voluntarily controlled so that only a limited number of users can enjoy these benefits, in order to motivate ownership.
