Draft Proposal: Burn Event for the Distribution of the Amalgam WAGDIE

Public Archive
1

Proposal Name: WIP-1: Burn Event for the Distribution of the Amalgam WAGDIE

:skull: Abstract | With the sacrifice of the Beeple and Cryptoadz NFT’s we have given birth to a new WAGDIE, β€œThe Amalgam”. In the spirit of death and sacrifice, I propose holding a 24 hour burn event to determine who is awarded this piece of WAGDIE history.

:skull: Motivation | With the creation of this new legendary WAGDIE I believe we need to develop a fair distribution method for the Amalgam. The following proposal is an attempt to do just that.

:skull: Rationale | By holding a burn event to award the Amalgam we will further drive up interest in the WAGDIE project, give back to the community, and create an exciting event to look forward to for the community.

This is my preferred choice of distribution as it…

  1. Lets holders with not as many WAGDIE’s be able to contribute and still have a chance.
  2. Not restrict distribution to only the largest whales if it was simply β€˜Most burned wins’
  3. Incentivizes sacrificing wagdies and furthering the mission of β€˜We are all going to die’

:skull: Specifications | In this proposal each WAGDIE sent to the burn wallet over the course of a 24 hour period will be awarded one chance to randomly be drawn and sent the Amalgam. (Every burn is one equal chance) Upon completion of the 24 hour period WAGDIE devteam will tally up each burn and randomly choose one burned wagdie as the winner and award this wallet the Amalgam.

:skull: Steps to Implement | If this proposal is accepted WAGDIE dev team must decide upon a set 24 hour period to begin recording burned wagdie transactions. Each burned wagdie during this period will represent one entry into being raffled the Amalgam. Upon the completion over the 24 hour period no further entries shall be accepted and the WAGDIE team will determine a fair method of randomly selecting a winner based on the burned entries. Once that winner is selected they will transfer ownership to that wallet and announce to the community.

:skull: Timeline | The burn event will run for 24 hours after which the WAGDIE team will randomly determine a winner. The time from the contest ending to the winner being announced and transferred ownership should not be greater than 24 hours after the burn contest ends.

:skull: Overall Cost | The only costs associated with this are the small gas fee of transferring the randomly selected wagdie to the winner. Other costs such as Voiceover acting and Event/announcement related costs are unknown outside of the core wagdie team.

And as always remember traveler, WAGDIE!

5 Likes
2

Thank you for this well thought out proposal. In the future keep in mind we do not assign WIP numbers until the proposal is moved to final stage.

I have edited the title to reflect this.

4 Likes
3

Thank you Icculus for the clarification. I may have caused confusion by using WIP in my draft, even though it was WIP 0 so I take partial responsibility for any confusion.

4 Likes
4

I like this idea. The capping of WADGIEs is a welcome mechanic as it will inspire more to participate with an equal chance of winning.

How does this move from Draft to WIP?

1 Like
5

I like this idea as much as I like the notion of auctioning The Amalgam to highest bidder as a means of providing additional funding to the community wallet.

The Good
It’s a nice, even community-wide benefit and a simple experience. A nice little raffle in-theme, and creates a fun event out of the distribution. Quite like how many positives it touches.

Criticisms
With the way the specifications are laid, it still benefits whales who burn lots substantially (perhaps unavoidable), and limiting one per wallet only leans into people spreading their wagdies-to-burn across multiple.

We may have to accept that whales will always have an inherent advantage here.

6 Likes
6

I was the first to burn for the arrival of the Amalgam!
I hope to see others follow down my path.

7

Good idea! Let us going to die~

8

Thanks for starting this discussion.
Even though burning is fun and all… I see The Amalgam as a community artifact and as a representation of community’s congregated will at that particular moment - the moment when it was revealed that we are the 18th.

If we’re really now looking for a way for it to benefit every single holder at the baseline, I’d say just auctioning it is the most fair way to do it right now as it will give back to the common treasury that everyone has equal access to. But I think it’s still a bit early even for the auction.

The Amalgam became what it is by the community’s willpower, so to me it seems fair to maintain it as a source of that willpower in condensed form and to not give it up for anything less than that.

I see the burning contest as something that’s less than collective willpower, because the rule of β€œ1 burn = 1 chance” has bias towards those with superior financial allowance. And that financial power always lives by itself - at one moment it can be benefiting the community, the other moment it can freely step out of the community.

I say we should maintain the community treasury as a closed system that’s by design benefiting all holders equally and no other power from outside can influence it - financial or any other kind. Of course, this also means if burning contest is passing the holders vote, then so be it. But the point of why it is something lesser than we already archived so far and can archive in the future together still holds to me.

7 Likes
9

Thanks for the opinions King! I want to clarify that each burned wagdie would count for one β€˜raffle ticket’ for lack of a better term. It would not be 1 per wallet. This would obviously just cause whales to spread amongst wallets and burn which is a pointless exercise like you mention.

And on the topic of whales having an advantage I prefer a raffle over just β€˜highest bidder’ because the latter would remove all chance for smaller holders to ever get a chance to win. While whales would likely burn a greater amount for more chances β€˜highest bidder’ essentially means a small holder has a 0% chance where a raffle might mean they have a 1-2% chance.

10

Thanks for the comments tenacity! It’s a fair point to discuss about what would yield the most value for holders.

Say the Amalgam is auctioned and sells for 10e. That would be an additional ~$11,300 in the community treasury at the time of this writing. This could be used for marketing purposes, side project development, etc. However it is not guaranteed to sell that high and could be less. Would this provide more value to the community than burning a bunch of wagdies and decreasing the supply? It is quite tricky to contemplate.

I look at the projects namesake and think the goal is to drive community engagement and story progression though sacrificing wagdies to achieve story goals. While this is good on paper, holders are rightfully apprehensive to burn their holdings at the current $182 floor price without any possible guarantee of value being returned.

While both an auction and a burn raffle are both solid options I prefer the one that both achieves burning and death like the project seems to be built around. It also gives a chance that a small holder who only burns one to possibly win a legendary wagdie which would be a great story. While I am not basing this on anything, I personally think an incentivized burn could burn between 50-100 wagdies. The value in this scenario would theoretically be returned through rising floor price through decreased supply and a percentage of people rebuying wagdies after they have burned. Overall I think this type of an event would drive more hype and interest as an event than an auction would. In my opinion, If the goal is to get more exposure and hype around the project this would be a better means to achieve it.

11

i think we should gift it to gremplin for the toad we burned. he did create art for us

12

As the β€œhype driving event” I think the burning contest is cool. But I don’t think we’re good enough at β€œcreating the hype” at the moment. This is why I also said β€œit’s still a bit early even for the auction”.

I think we still have a way to go on organizing our community and creating a good tooling for successful attention farming. We need solid raid groups, we need to have an effective way to pierce through noise everyday on Twitter or at least around the important community events. We already have a ton of stuff to bring to the table - art, lore, wiki, all other resources. We have a lot of stuff to tell people about, but we don’t have a good way to make people listen or pay attention, in my opinion (from what I see from the open engagement numbers and comparing with other projects that are in the space’s focus right now).

As this is all the community goods, these kind of proposals should describe what will be the efforts on making it effective and there have to be proofs that it’s really worth it. IMHO, it literally should mention what was the result of the previous burning and how you are going to make this next burning event driving more engagement. There’s no way to make it sustainable without setting this kind of bar and vector - only higher, more and better. If we settle for something less, we’ll just burn through treasury and that’s where the fun ends.

From what I see: the treasury is for the work and for the efforts, not just ideas (and The Amalgam is part of the treasury right now). At least this is what I would love to see. I might be too serious and harsh about it, but I’m also just one person with one opinion and if this idea will get traction, I’ll be totally fine with it.
I also appreciate you taking a shot at it and engaging. I’m expressing my β€œtreasury vision” here in that way, because it’s just literally the first proposal (not counting the one about Representatives) and I need to take time to reflect on it all myself.

1 Like
13

I stand with this position. Keeping it in the treasury is likely the smartest move for the time being.

3 Likes
14

Voice of reason. Those who were here for the MAYC burn remember how much attention it captured. We burned Beeple’s Bullrun, hardly a whisper. Repeating the same tactics doesn’t equate to the same results.

Burning isn’t going to capture more attention and shouldn’t be used solely to try and do so. Our biggest critics would like to say that is all we have to offer. We know there is more.

I would like to see proposals that focus on marketing and reach, but with real solutions and true understanding of this space, by those with track records - instead of relying on outdated tactics or parlor tricks.

  • Building upon relationships with the right people and groups, not whitelist collabs.
  • Strategic understanding of how to capture attention and maintain, not just trying to do parlor tricks for a moment in the sun.
  • This space moves fast and is constantly evolving. What worked last month may not work, sometimes what worked last week or yesterday won’t have the same results today or tomorrow.

I do appreciate those who are thinking of these things and thinking how can we improve our marketing and reach - but I really would enjoy challenging us to think bigger.

Even raiding itself, which is something we never did, is an outdated marketing tactic that is embraced by the wrong people/bad actors/abused in this space and can cheapen how a project looks.

Remember, without marketing this project garnished the attention of some influential people in this space (not just influencers) & smarter money / builders. I’d hate to lose the good audience we have by trying bottom of the barrel engagement tactics.

Final thing to remember. There are many in this space who try to copy the same tactics as others without understanding what truly worked and didn’t. The MAYC burn had shock value, it was a surprise. Planning a burn for attention completely negates what made it work.

6 Likes
15

@Hogo - Yeah, I understood. 1 ticket per burned.

Just pointing that it still benefits whales substantially, but that it can’t be avoided (even if we made it 1 per wallet).

16

Maybe we can keep the Amalgam for now and proceed with the burning of other collections to forge even more new legendarys.

I came here, because you burned a Toad.
I didn’t like it at first impression. Why burn a toad, what’s wrong with those wagdies?
I tend to not like them…
But I saw what you did with the bull and the toad and I think it was super amazing and creative.

Now I’m in here, creating artworks, to fit in the lore and am pretty excited to onboard people from my inner circle, but most don’t see the big value to get in yet.
For me, a working community with members willing to enhance the project is exciting enough.

I think burning more interesting collections and merging them into wagdie legendarys could lure in more new pilgrims.

we then could use our β€œAmalgam price pool” to reward people from the community with these legendarys when they perform certain tasks.

We could keep them busy with promotional tasks over twitter and co.
(or things, that make more sense to balance the giveaway better and promote the project)
let them fight for the discord role that qualifies for a finalists battle in the arena.
last wagdie standing gets the amalgam.

Or we let promoters, writers and artists battle for the amalgams through their crafts.
Best story, artwork, onboarder gets a shot on the amalgam arena battle… Also winner will actively form story and visuals of wagdie, which is dope in addition to get the amalgam

We don’t have to burn top collections I think. To spare the treasury. There is lots of cool smaller communities which can be brought together with bigger ones by burning their art together with something β€œbigger”. We’d be filtering out only the active builders and holders… cause wagdie is to draining to handle for the normal flipper or discord watcher…

short form:

-maybe Keep the one we have
-Create more legendarys
-Let the community earn them by bringing value in

But it is only an idea and all the text you read here speaks to you relaxed, slow, slightly stoned and without the use of any exclamation marks

6 Likes
17

π–‚π–Žπ–™π– π–Œπ–”π–”π–‰ π–—π–Šπ–†π–˜π–”π–“ π–™π–π–Žπ–˜ π–Žπ–˜ 𝖆 π–ˆπ–”π–“π–™π–Šπ–˜π–™π–Šπ–‰ π–‰π–Šπ–‡π–†π–™π–Š π–†π–˜ π–Žπ–™ π–™π–”π–šπ–ˆπ–π–Šπ–˜ 𝖔𝖓 π–’π–šπ–‘π–™π–Žπ–•π–‘π–Š π–Žπ–’π–•π–”π–—π–™π–†π–“π–™ π–†π–˜π–•π–Šπ–ˆπ–™π–˜.
𝕬𝖗𝖙, π–‹π–šπ–“π–‰π–˜, π–Šπ–“π–Œπ–†π–Œπ–Šπ–’π–Šπ–“π–™, π–‹π–šπ–™π–šπ–—π–Š π–’π–Šπ–ˆπ–π–†π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ–˜β€¦
𝕬𝖑𝖑 π–ˆπ–”π–’π–’π–Šπ–“π–™π–˜ π–π–Šπ–—π–Š π–π–†π–›π–Š π–™π–π–Šπ–Žπ–— π–’π–Šπ–—π–Žπ–™π–˜.

𝕴 π–‡π–Šπ–‘π–Žπ–Šπ–›π–Š π–™π–π–Š π•Άπ–Šπ–Šπ–•π–Šπ–—π–˜ π–Œπ–Žπ–‹π–™π–Šπ–‰ π–™π–π–Žπ–˜ 𝖙𝖔 π–™π–π–Š π–ˆπ–”π–“π–ˆπ–‘π–†π–›π–Š π–†π–˜ π•¬π–’π–†π–‘π–Œπ–†π–’π–˜ (π–†π–˜ π–Žπ–™ π–ˆπ–šπ–—π–—π–Šπ–“π–™π–‘π–ž π–˜π–™π–†π–“π–‰π–˜) π–π–†π–›π–Š 𝖓𝖔 π–œπ–Šπ–Žπ–Œπ–π–™ 𝖔𝖓 π–™π–π–Š π–’π–†π–Žπ–“ 𝖕𝖑𝖔𝖙. π•Ώπ–π–Žπ–˜ π–Œπ–Žπ–›π–Šπ–˜ π–šπ–˜ π–‹π–—π–Šπ–Šπ–‰π–”π–’ 𝖙𝖔 π–‡π–Š π–’π–”π–—π–Š π–‘π–Žπ–‡π–Šπ–—π–†π–‘ π–œπ–Žπ–™π– π–”π–šπ–— π–†π–•π–•π–—π–”π–†π–ˆπ– 𝖙𝖔 π–™π–π–Š π–‹π–†π–™π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–Š π•¬π–’π–†π–‘π–Œπ–†π–’ 𝖋𝖔𝖗 π–“π–”π–œβ€¦

π–‚π–Š π–†π–—π–Š 𝖆𝖙 𝖆 π–›π–Šπ–—π–ž π–“π–†π–˜π–ˆπ–Šπ–“π–™ π–˜π–™π–†π–™π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–Š π–ˆπ–žπ–ˆπ–‘π–Š π–œπ–π–Žπ–ˆπ– π–†π–‘π–‘π–”π–œπ–˜ π–šπ–˜ 𝖓𝖔𝖙 𝖙𝖔 π–‡π–Š π–•π–—π–Šπ–˜π–˜π–Šπ–‰ 𝖋𝖔𝖗 π–†π–‰π–‰π–Žπ–™π–Žπ–”π–“π–†π–‘ π–‹π–šπ–“π–‰π–˜ π–†π–˜ π–œπ–Š π–π–†π–›π–Š 𝖓𝖔 π–‘π–†π–—π–Œπ–Š π–Žπ–’π–’π–Šπ–‰π–Žπ–†π–™π–Š π–šπ–˜π–Š π–‡π–šπ–™ π–™π–π–Š π–”π–™π–π–Šπ–—π–˜π–Žπ–‰π–Š 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖙 π–Žπ–˜ π–œπ–Š 𝖉𝖔 𝖓𝖔𝖙 π–žπ–Šπ–™ π–π–†π–›π–Š π–™π–π–Š π–˜π–šπ–˜π–™π–†π–Žπ–“π–Šπ–‰ π–†π–™π–™π–Šπ–“π–™π–Žπ–”π–“ 𝖙𝖔 π–‡π–—π–Žπ–“π–Œ π–™π–π–Š π–‰π–Šπ–˜π–Žπ–—π–Šπ–‰ π–—π–Šπ–›π–Šπ–“π–šπ–Š 𝖋𝖗𝖔𝖒 π–™π–π–Š π–˜π–†π–‘π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–Š π•¬π–’π–†π–‘π–Œπ–†π–’.

𝕱𝖔𝖗 π–“π–”π–œ, π–œπ–Š 𝖉𝖔 𝖓𝖔𝖙 π–œπ–†π–“π–™ 𝖙𝖔 π–Šπ–“π–ˆπ–”π–šπ–—π–†π–Œπ–Š π–”π–šπ–— π–ˆπ–šπ–—π–—π–Šπ–“π–™ π–™π–—π–†π–›π–Šπ–‘π–Šπ–—π–˜ 𝖙𝖔 π–‡π–šπ–—π–“ π–™π–π–Šπ–Žπ–— π–‹π–šπ–“π–‰π–˜ 𝖋𝖔𝖗 π–˜π–”π–’π–Šπ–™π–π–Žπ–“π–Œ 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖙 π–Žπ–˜ 𝖓𝖔𝖙 π–ˆπ–—π–šπ–ˆπ–Žπ–†π–‘ 𝖙𝖔 π–™π–π–Š π–’π–†π–Žπ–“ π–˜π–™π–”π–—π–ž.

𝕱𝖔𝖗 π–™π–π–Š π–—π–Šπ–†π–˜π–”π–“π–˜ π–†π–‡π–”π–›π–Š, 𝕴 π–‡π–Šπ–‘π–Žπ–Šπ–›π–Š π–Žπ–™ π–Žπ–˜ π–‡π–Šπ–˜π–™ 𝖙𝖔 π–œπ–†π–Žπ–™ 𝖔𝖓 π–‰π–Šπ–ˆπ–Žπ–‰π–Žπ–“π–Œ π–™π–π–Š π–‹π–†π–™π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–Š π•¬π–’π–†π–‘π–Œπ–†π–’. π•Ώπ–π–Šπ–—π–Š π–Žπ–˜ 𝖓𝖔 π–šπ–—π–Œπ–Šπ–“π–™ π–“π–Šπ–Šπ–‰ 𝖙𝖔 π–†π–ˆπ–™ π–šπ–•π–”π–“ π–™π–π–Žπ–˜ π–†π–˜ 𝖔𝖋 π–žπ–Šπ–™.

6 Likes
18

So the proposal is to burn a WAGDIE and enter raffle for a chance to win the Amalgam nft? If so then sure why tf not, but I’m guessing the more WAGDIEs burned from a wallet will give that wallet more raffles/weighted-raffle?

19

While I love the idea of the burn raffle, and the auction … I am leaning towards the sentiment of keeping the Amalgam for now and seeing how the story develops, which may present an opportunity for it to play a role.

I am curious how the likes of the Glutton will come into play too …

2 Likes
20

I mostly agree with this perspective.

2 Likes