Proposal to Fund Development and Confer Benefits by Charging Royalty Fee

Community & Ecosystem
,
#21

I am no longer editing the main post because voting has started.

The only vote taking place is whether to charge a royalty and if so, how much. There is no broader vote on governance, a link to $AGOLD or anything from the other points above. In fact the uses above may not end up being popular.

Further votes at each step as to governance and use of royalty fund will take place. These topics are being actively discussed in the Discord and there are great arguments for many different systems focused on Loot.

It may have been a mistake to include “too much” in the main post. I simply wanted to highlight the fact that having a treasury gives us options. I’m a lawyer, not a programmer or game creator and I think a lot of discussion will need to take place regarding these next steps after fund creation.

The immediate issue is that every transaction, royalty fees are being left on the table. We could be funneling them to content creators sooner rather than later by starting the fund. Things are moving too fast to lose this precious time.

Thanks for reading and being active on Discord.

2 Likes
#22

Confusion was (likely unintendedly) caused by WillPapper’s tweet that collected fees will be governed by AGLD. I, for one, find that wrong, given that already 10% of AGLD sits on Huobi and another 10-15% on other CEXes (and this will double after a Binance listing).

Loot is the lootproject’s original content. Collected fees should go into a treasury (e.g. 50% ETH, 50% AGLD) that is controlled by Loot holders. Thoughts?

2 Likes
#23

I fully support a self-funding mechanism for the Lootiverse, but I also echo @maximiliannorz’s concerns about the potentially adverse implications of an AGLD-controlled rather than a LOOT-controlled treasury.

We assume now that interests are aligned because the majority of LOOT holders are also AGLD holders, but that need not be the case in the future.

Edge case: In a year from now, AGLD holders sell most of their LOOT and choose to fund the development of a LOOT competitor/project that does not integrate with the LOOT ecosystem.

The ambitions of AGLD seem to be greater than that of LOOT, which is great for AGLD, but not necessarily for LOOT.

So in principle, I think a 2.5% fee (OK with 7.5% as well but the consensus seems to be on 2.5% right now) is a great idea to get the economic flywheel going for the Loot ecosystem, but also think that treasury should be governed by LOOT and mLOOT holders (this could be for a separate vote).

3 Likes
#24

Loot holders control ~55% of AGLD (as of lastnight)

#25

Thanks for elaborating and providing more information on this!

One more concern I have: AGLD is a derivative and as of now, how many derivatives are out there? 10, 20 or even more? Why does AGLD deserve a special treatment? If you say: because it’s an ERC20; then I’d say: so what? Loot could integrate 10+ ERC20s. Let’s not choose the winner in week 2…

Moreover, we can’t say which derivatives will still be around in 2+ years (and aligned to Loot’s interest). We can say, however, that Loot will still have Loot’s interest in mind :slight_smile:

What I envision is a expanded loot universe where Loot holders will officially integrate (and reward) those derivatives that add lasting value to the “lootverse”. Could this lead to a competition between derivatives? Yes, it could, and that would be great (last time I checked, we had, for example, Realms and Islands - both (and maybe further future derivatives) will strive to add a land-layer to the lootverse and right now, it’s best we let competition do its work without interfering too much; OK, I’ll stop as I digress… :-)).

2 Likes
#27

AGLD is not a derivative.

#28

I completely agree with this. We are assuming the majority of AGLD holders are Loot holders. I don’t have data to back it up, but my gut tells me based on anecdotal evidence of Loot buyers unable to claim their AGLD because the previous owner already claimed it. This suggests that potentially many or most AGLD holders were previously, not currently Loot holders. If this is true, then interests aren’t aligned.

6 Likes
#29

This stat has changed a lot in the last 24 hrs, so wanted to drop the latest here.

Currently >40% of AGLD is held by non-Loot holding addresses.

And it would only require 3 loot holders (<7% of total Loot) to join with non-loot holding AGLD to reach 51%.

2 Likes
#30

Thanks for figuring out these stats @polk. I agree that it doesn’t make sense to delegate rights to AGLD holders because of the situation where secondary buyers end up with Loot bags that have had the AGLD looted.

2 Likes
#31

100% on board with this and will support in any vote. any incentives or assistance we can have to help builders build will help create something amazing- which will also help appreciate LOOT and AGLD for those who are more focused on economics. the parallels to the ethereum ecosystem are very strong

1 Like
#32

This is a reminder that the Snapshot vote will close in 15 minutes: Snapshot

#33

While this makes sense and quickly creates kind of a community fund i think there are layers that needs to be built prior to that.

As an example an attribute system with staking and crafting of individual assets.