WIP 1: Community Projects Royalty Fee

Final Proposal Discussions Closed Proposals
1

Returning Value to the Community Treasury

Abstract
Income generating projects funded by the community treasury should return a portion of earnings back to the community.

This proposal is not intended to force all projects to be income generating.

Motivation
Creating a more sustainable treasury is key to the success of the project. This will allow the community to continue funding more interesting projects and potentially grow the treasury past it currents value!

Rationale
Projects developing within the WAGDIE ecosystem are benefitting from the work done by the team as well as the community. Direct funding of community projects also enables builders to offset risk and recoup development costs prior to launch.

The value added for building on top of WAGDIE warrants a return of a portion of earnings back to the treasury.

Specifications
Proposals with earnings potential will agree to share at least the minimum agree upon percentage with the treasury. This can be accomplished using on-chain methods (i.e. splitter code in smart contracts) or through off-chain agreements.

Steps to Implement
Decide on if there should be a minimum split between project builder and treasury.
Snapshot vote to codify this amount
Create framework to provide projects and approved implementations.

Timeline
This proposal is mostly policy based and can be implemented right away if it passes.

Overal Cost - 0 USDC cost.

To judge community interest please pick an option in the below poll.

What is a reasonable minimum amount that should be allocated to the commuity treasury?

  • None
  • 10%
  • 20%
  • 30%
  • 40%
  • 50%

0 voters

6 Likes
2

30-40% is standard publisher rate in most industries.

4 Likes
3

ℭ𝔬𝔫𝔰𝔦𝔑𝔒𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔀 𝔱π”₯𝔒 β„­π”¬π”«π” π”©π”žπ”³π”’ 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 π”Ÿπ”’ 𝔣𝔲𝔫𝔑𝔦𝔫𝔀 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔧𝔒𝔠𝔱 π”žπ”«π”‘ 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π” π”―π”’π”žπ”±π”¬π”― 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔯𝔒𝔠𝔒𝔦𝔳𝔒 π”―π”¬π”Άπ”žπ”©π”±π”¦π”’π”°, 20% 𝔦𝔰 𝔱𝔬𝔬 𝔩𝔬𝔴 𝔣𝔬𝔯 𝔱π”₯𝔒 β„­π”¬π”«π” π”©π”žπ”³π”’. 𝔐𝔦𝔫𝔦π”ͺ𝔲π”ͺ 30%.

2 Likes
4

On that note. If this goes to a snapshot vote, I think 20,30,40 and maybe a kicker of 0 should be on it.

Even though 20 seems to be winning now, we have a very small sample size of participation. (7 voters so far)

5

Considering there’s only 7 votes on this so far, maybe someone could create a Conclave twitter account, which updates with the important discussions on here. Maybe this will remind people to check the conclave more regularly.

4 Likes
6

Might be better suited for the Discord but a more accessible reminder def has merit

1 Like
7

60% for the builder, 40% back to the Conclave

2 Likes
10

@Icculus How do we move this on snapshot?

1 Like
11

All the following Conclave Representatives have agreed as well: @Dontfeedthewolf, @M3RL1N, @hersilence.eth, @josiah.peace

12

What is the structure planned for this vote?

I was hoping we would have a % agreed upon and it could be a simple Yes/No/Abstain.

13

Set a deadline for this poll here.
When it concludes, push it to snapshot with only the winning percentage.
Options: Approve / Disapprove

14

wait, doing the poll here is the issue, no one is interacting with discourse. it gives you the exact same result if we just put the poll on snapshot right?

3 Likes
15

β„‘ π”žπ”ͺ 𝔦𝔫 π”žπ”€π”―π”’π”’π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱 𝔴𝔦𝔱π”₯ @brennen_eth π”ͺ𝔬𝔳𝔦𝔫𝔀 𝔱π”₯𝔦𝔰 π”’π”΅π”žπ” π”± 𝔭𝔬𝔩𝔩 𝔱𝔬 π”°π”«π”žπ”­π”°π”₯𝔬𝔱 𝔀𝔦𝔳𝔒𝔰 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”°π”žπ”ͺ𝔒 𝔯𝔒𝔰𝔲𝔩𝔱.

𝔒𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔯𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔒 𝔴𝔒 π”žπ”―π”’ π”žπ”°π”¨π”¦π”«π”€ π”žπ”©π”© 𝔱𝔬 𝔳𝔬𝔱𝔒 𝔱𝔴𝔦𝔠𝔒. 𝔒𝔫𝔠𝔒 π”₯𝔒𝔯𝔒 π”žπ”«π”‘ 𝔬𝔫𝔠𝔒 π”žπ”± 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”°π”«π”žπ”­π”°π”₯𝔬𝔱.

1 Like
16

Only difference between the snapshot vote and this is that there’s discussion here, and snapshot conversation is more in-the-air.

If we’re not going to determine best percentage, and then vote a yay/nay, then by all means move to snapshot.

3 Likes
17

π”šπ”’ 𝔒𝔦𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔯 𝔫𝔒𝔒𝔑 𝔱𝔬 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔲𝔒 𝔱𝔬 𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔨 𝔱𝔬 π”Ÿπ”―π”¦π”«π”€ π”žπ”° π”ͺπ”žπ”«π”Ά 𝔭𝔒𝔬𝔭𝔩𝔒 𝔱𝔬 𝔱π”₯𝔒 β„­π”¬π”«π” π”©π”žπ”³π”’ 𝔱𝔬 π”Ÿπ”―π”¬π”žπ”‘π”’π”« 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”―π”’π”žπ” π”₯ 𝔬𝔣 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔑𝔦𝔰𝔠𝔲𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔬𝔫 𝔬𝔯 π”Ÿπ”―π”¦π”«π”€ 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔑𝔦𝔰𝔠𝔲𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔬𝔫 𝔱𝔬 𝔱π”₯𝔒π”ͺ 𝔦𝔫 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔇𝔦𝔰𝔠𝔬𝔯𝔑.

3 π”‘π”žπ”Άπ”° 𝔦𝔰 𝔰𝔲𝔣𝔣𝔦𝔠𝔦𝔒𝔫𝔱 𝔱𝔦π”ͺ𝔒 𝔣𝔬𝔯 π”ž π”₯π”’π”žπ”©π”±π”₯𝔢 𝔑𝔦𝔰𝔠𝔲𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔬𝔫 𝔱𝔬 π”±π”žπ”¨π”’ π”­π”©π”žπ” π”’ 𝔦𝔫 π”ͺ𝔢 𝔬𝔭𝔦𝔫𝔦𝔬𝔫.

3 Likes
18

Agreed, that’s why I suggested the twitter. (I see it’s been added to the discord, thanks) With this one it seems to be ready to move to snapshot.

19

We have had discourse and fear that not enough are participating in the poll and if we draw more attention, ask them all to participate on % then vote on snapshot: yes, no, abstain we are asking them to vote multiple times on one thing.

We think it’s best to just have a 20,30,40 or no/0% vote with this proposal on snapshot.

2 Likes
20

I would love to see this go on further and developed more. Trying to create irl tangible growth I think is important to fund to help grow digitally. Would be nice to see those doing that get a little help or boost to kick start it. And then in return give royalties back to the community wallet

22

Sounds good, lets get the vote up with this structure.

4 Likes
23

Snapshot is up: Snapshot

2 Likes