This is a proposal to burn the keys to the Loot contract, which removes the ability for any figure or organization (like a DAO or multi-sig) to ever act as its owner.
Because this decision preempts any other decision, I’ve decided to call it LIP-0.
Before getting into specifics, it’s important to outline the powers and capabilities of the contract owner.
These are the absolute powers of the contract owner. They can always be performed as long as their underlying mechanism (individual, multi-sig, DAO vote) choose to perform them.
- Set and collect a royalty fee on supported exchanges
- Mint unused owner bags
- Manage funds associated with royalty fees or owner bags
- Transfer contract ownership or burn the keys
- Define its own governance structure
These are the only hard powers of the contract owner.
These are the perceived powers of the contract owner. For better or for worse, as long as there is a contract owner, the perceived powers of the contract owner likely have some legitimacy. The owner’s primary soft power is the ability to signal what is or isn’t canonical or approved, and to require some degree of psychological buy-in:
- By social means (“the DAO has repeatedly voted against integrating these types of projects… it’s not official”)
- By financial means (“it’s the preferred way to do it because the DAO funded it”)
This proposal comes after many conversations and some careful thinking about the ways the outcome of either decision can both benefit and harm the ecosystem.
- The contract owner can set royalties and mint bags to establish a treasury
- The treasury can be used to fund projects that are good for the ecosystem and require capital
- The contract owner can signal what is and isn’t canonical to help establish common threads and goals
- Signaling establishes legitimacy around what is and isn’t worth working on
- Royalty structures can incentivize using existing exchanges (e.g. OpenSea) over others — or even prevent them from being built in the first place
- Drama, politics, vampire attacks, and the like are inevitable, but now have an additional vector where they take up space by attempting to be recognized as “official” projects, “official” funding, “official” marketplaces, “official” initiatives
- It becomes easy for the meta to shift from talking about Loot rather than building on Loot
- Builders feel suffocated by all of it and bounce, or never get started in the first place
- Permanently neutral and truly decentralized, in the spirit of the project
- Every participant (organization, DAO, or individual) is required and incentivized to be creative and self organize
- All incentive structures begin with equal footing
- Funds are left on the table
- No central figure or organization
- Possibility for fragmentation
Burn the keys to the Loot contract, removing the ability for any figure or organization to ever act as its owner.
Please note that there are currently 221 unminted “owner bags” that only the contract owner can mint. In either outcome, I would like to claim 21 of them personally and lock them behind a vest, leaving 200 bags remaining.
- Create a single followup proposal to determine the fate of the 200 owner bags and act on it
renounceOwnership()on the contract, burning the keys and removing ownership permanently
- Create followup proposals to determine who should act as contract owner
transferOwnership()on the contract, moving ownership over to the new figure or organization
- The new figure or organization comes up with governance rules and structure (likely similar to the LIP-1 proposal)
- Snapshot via the community-run “LootDAO” frontend (because it’s already setup)
- 1 Loot = 1 Vote
- Open until Sunday, September 12th 16:00 GMT
- Quorum of 1,555 votes (~20% of Loot currently in existence)
- At least 60% must vote in favor of burning, otherwise default to keeping
It is my opinion that the benefits and tradeoffs of burning the keys greatly outweigh the benefits and tradeoffs of keeping the keys. For that reason, I am in favor of burning the keys. I worry that the contract owner is and always will be the de facto authority (“the church”) on Loot, and that this will ultimately harm the the project.
In many cases, I’ve found the cons of burning the keys are addressable:
- Creating a Loot-specific marketplace allows collection of royalties, likely provides a better experience, allows for more optionality around L2 and other chains, and is a lower “all-in” fee since the marketplace fee is equal to the royalty, rather than being added on top of it
- Allowing separate DAO or token initiatives to fund and incentivize projects creates multiple incentive structures, some of which can be narrowly focused or otherwise specialized
- Fragmentation is tough but also allows for innovation and optionality, especially in the early days of a project when things are being figured out on the fly. Other forms of consensus and curation can solve for it in the future
If you are a builder and any of this resonates you with you in either direction, please speak up. You are the most important part of the project and we need to hear from you.
Apologies but in order to get a completely fresh start, this vote will be duplicative of the existing “Burn the Keys” proposal.