WIP 9: WAGDIE Community Recognition Awards


Awarding 6 community members with a Token of Concord (ToC) each, every WAGDIE Conclave cycle (6 weeks).


The Two started their ToC distribution as a reward to community members for their notable work and this spirit of generosity and gratitude is a practice that needs to be carried forward. The WAGDIE community is full of ardent artists, skillful storytellers and brilliant builders whose products and creations deserve to be celebrated and awarded concretely.


Why ToCs? The first ToCs were handed out individually by the Two with the implication that those who received them would pass them out to other members of the community deemed to embody the lore spirit of those ToCs. As the project developed, the Two expanded their breadth of token delegation to different guilds.

Objectively, by far and large, these ToCs have not found their way to circulation amongst the community. And while itโ€™s true that other manners of obtaining ToCs have been possible, the windows in which they operate (eg., live on spaces by answering riddles or participation in the Festival Tournament) are generally quite limiting, in both quantity and opportunity. While there are ~2.4k WAGDIE holders and 914 members in the Library discord, only 224 hold any kind of token. All this leads to a dearth of unique holders which this proposal seeks to challenge in proposing ToCs be awarded as opposed to WAGDIEs.



  • The Two will create a new ToC that reflects their purpose of awarding outstanding work by community members., ex. Conclave Crucible, Candle, Crescent, Crest, Crown, Badge. They will mint, at minimum, 36 of these new ToCs.

  • A gnosis safe with multisig access by the six current Conclave Representatives will be created. [wagdieawards.eth].


  • The Two will airdrop a total of 36 ToCs to conclaverepresentatives.eth. The makeup of ToCs is up to their discretion; it may be solely comprised of the new Conclave ToC or mixed with preexisting ones such as Artificial Crystal and Fetid Talon.


  • At any point during their term, each Conclave Representative may highlight the participation, effort, or initiative of a community member they deem has positively impacted the WAGDIE project. They will formally announce this via whatever channel they choose, be it Twitter or Discord, and award them by selecting and transferring one ToC from wagdieawards.eth to that individualโ€™s eth address.


  • At the start of a new election cycle, wagdieawards gnosis safe access will be re-secured with access shifted to the appropriate new conclave representatives.


  • Each Conclave Representative reserves the ability to award one ToC during their 6 week term to another whose:

โ€œparticipation, activity, or efforts has positively impacted the WAGDIE project.โ€

This ability is not mandatory to exercise. They may choose to not award any during their term and cannot be forced to do so. No Conclave Representative is allowed to award more than one ToC. Conclave Representatives cannot award themself or another Conclave Representative.

No more than 6 ToCs will be awarded during each cycle. When the supply of ToCs in wagdieawards diminishes, assessments will be made to request a new supply dropped from the Two in a similar process as dictated above.

  • The interpretation of merit by which each Conclave Representative chooses to award a member, along with the ToC they choose to award, is up to the discretion of that Conclave Representative. Other than verbalizing their rationale when naming that member, no other justification is required.

*Veto Clause: If 4/6 Conclave Representatives formally voice a lack of legitimacy in an announced awarding, no award shall be made. In this situation, that Conclave Representative has forfeited his right to award any further for the remainder of their term.


Upon passing snapshot vote, STAGE 1 will be executed immediately, with STAGE 2 following immediately. STAGE 3 will occur as stated within the current term cycle.


-Creation and minting of new ToCs (at the Twoโ€™s expense)
-Creation of mulitsig gnosis (at communityโ€™s expense)
-ToC transfer fees (Conclave Treasury funding)

.5 eth (deposited into the wagdieawards.eth)


The virtues of generosity and gratitude are cornerstones of WAGDIE. In that spirit, individuals who expand the world and experience of WAGDIE need to be celebrated and awarded. Since ToCs are challenging to come by, and the fact that they hold less monetary value than WAGDIE while still being very desirable and thematically linked to ethos and lore, they make wonderful awards.


Tokens of Concord have been a great tool for rewarding/recognizing community members and their contributions.

I enjoy this proposal and what it seeks to accomplish.

It does put some weight on Conclave Reps to consider whom they should nominate on their way out and I am curious if there will always be 6 tokens to reward and/or how it will be handled if one of them canโ€™t think of someone and/or whether they might just force it out.

May be over thinking it. But wondering if there would be any kind of system to address this concern and make sure tokens arenโ€™t just randomly distributed because a member feels pressure to nominate.

1 Like

I agree with the spirit of this proposal. Tokens can be an effective low cost incentive, and
thereโ€™s people in this community that are doing great work but:

  1. Might not have the funds (or even want) to sacrifice a character in exchange for a token.
  2. Their work wasnโ€™t parallel to the past opportunities to receive a token in a non-sacrificial way. Or it might have been but they joined after.

The concerns I have around this proposal are really logistics and lore. Like you said, the distributed token should match the nomineeโ€™s work, eg a field note for Wiki work or a brush for art. This is going to require The Two to mint more tokens. Iโ€™m assuming youโ€™ve gotten some indication theyโ€™d be on board with this?

I donโ€™t mind giving this responsibility to conclave reps, but I think it should be semi-anonymous (eg from a shared account) to avoid any hard feelings.

All that being said, thank you opening up this discussion. While we donโ€™t know everything about tokens, thereโ€™s no denying their low cost incentive side benefit. Iโ€™m definitely for adding more/other ways to get one.


Could add an addendum that each Conclave Repโ€™s selection will need to be affirmed by at least three other reps. That would safeguard against a completely off the charts/random pick. But again, I feel like the fact that each Repโ€™s individual selection is public and needs to be justified already serves as a precautionary measure of sorts. If you pick a rando, the community sees your decision and the majority sentiment will provide adequate backlash


I donโ€™t know if the Two /Conclave Keepers will agreed which is why its a petition as much as a proposal.

A variation of the ToC selection is that the Two/Conclave Keepers can predesignate 6 types of ToCs by dropping them into the fateofwagdie address just like they did with the extra noxium brew tokens. These ToCs will be the ones Representatives can award this term. Eg., this term, they have allotted the possible awards to be: 2x frog, 2x crystal, 1x mushroom, 1x talon. This skips the whole screening process they would need to do post the decisions outlined in the original proposal.


I like this idea very much and both @TheTwins and @Dontfeedthewolf make great points. I would like to have a little bit more structure on some implications more details added.

But find this is something worth fully expanding on

1 Like

@josiah.peace this proposal was reviewed during todayโ€™s Conclave Roundtable discussion. Collectively, we feel this is an important proposal and have some thoughts weโ€™d like to share with the community.

  • We should consider a weekly item on the Roundtable agenda where Reps are able to nominate a community member for a ToC (vs. waiting until the end of the 6 weeks). As weโ€™ve witnessed, 6 weeks is a long time in NFTs and weโ€™d hate for someone to hold off on contributing to try and time the reward schedule.

  • Along the same lines, 6 feels like an arbitrary number and may be too inflationary for the small ToC supplies. Perhaps this should be up to 6 within a given time period.

  • For inflationary and also thematic reasons, we should consider a new ToC specifically for Conclave-granted awards (i.e. a Conclave candle for helping us see in the darkness. Or something way cooler :laughing:).

  • With either option, weโ€™ll need to confirm with the Two that theyโ€™re open to minting and sending us discretionary ToCs for this purpose.


This proposal is very good! Itโ€™s a great idea for the community to encourage itself.

I would like to share some thoughts on two points.

  1. I think we should consider the relevance of the โ€œTradableโ€ aspect of the ToCs. If we want to encourage the trading of ToCs, as TheGoldenEel comments, it is possible that giving too many ToCs has a negative impact. An alternative could be to calculate the amount of awardable ToCs based on the number of participants; for example, if there were 50 things / activities / elements eligible for participate and we use a ratio of 10%, then 5 ToC will be given; we can also add the number 6 (or another) as a max. If the point of ToC trading is no longer relevant I see no problem with the original proposal.

  2. It is possible that the winners are repeated on more than one occasion if the eligible users are very few or if the ability or appreciation between them is very different. I think it would be good to restrict the same user from being postuled twice in a row.


Thanks for the review!

The number was 6 in accordance with the 6 Conclave Representatives; each would have one nomination as outlined in the above proposal. Personally, I donโ€™t think one ToC every week is inflationary at all but that also comes from my perspective that the amount of tokens is too limited, a sentiment also expressed above.

The same goes for point 3 but itโ€™s not a hill I care to die on.

1 Like

Welcome @XRE thank you for contributing.

Iโ€™m not the best at math, but I rather do enjoy having some kind of system and think this is along the right path versus choosing random numbers for the sake of being random.

(A problem a lot of 10k collections have in general, random supply # instead of basing supply on demand or considering other factors).

At the end of the day you are the author for the Proposal and have final say. The point of Cold and us reaching out was to let you know we do like this proposal, but think it could use some clarity & more attention.

Another issue to consider is the current (6) Noxium Brews we received. These were sent to the treasury, but now it would require an additional proposal to move or distribute them. Maybe this proposal would be even better if it had a clear one-time vote delivery for tokens of concord (directly to rep wallets, or a gnosis safe setup by the Reps with Reps as signers etc.)

Also on that note. If the devs saw this proposal and sent the first (6) brews as a test, maybe they are waiting to see how we handle or respond/use those. But these are speculations and assumptionsโ€ฆ Only consider these things if it relates to how your proposal is shaped.

:thinking: Could a new Token of Concordโ€ฆ Conclave Crescent or something. Then have the Conclave wallet be Ordained to produce such things and use that as our reward mechanic?

Definitely think ToC are better for reward than WAGDIE but also think that we shouldnโ€™t use many of the current ToC for such things (as they already have a fixed โ€˜meaningโ€™).

Having a Conclave Crescent and the power to generate them solves a lot of this problem.

Edit: Iโ€™ve got no issue with using existing ToC as rewards in cases where they make thematic sense, such as awarding Artificer Crystals to devs, or Witchesโ€™ Brushes to artists.


Yea the Noxium Brews might be a different thing entirely. I wonโ€™t mention them in my final proposal.

But look, Iโ€™ll edit the proposalโ€™s final form and itโ€™ll be up to the Conclave Representatives on whether to move it to snapshot or not. Since no conclave keepers have chimed in to dismiss any aspect of this, Iโ€™m going to chart it with the expectation that they will implement should the snapshot vote outcome be in its favor.

That being said, @Icculus, is there any input you give as I prepare the final proposal form?

1 Like

A conclave specific concord is an interesting idea that we will review.

Making the a conclave wallet โ€œordainedโ€ is likely not something that would be done since that would allow the wallet/vault to mint or burn any tokens.

To put an end to the fun speculation about this functionโ€ฆits goal is to allow other contracts to mint or burn concords within parameters that can be strictly defined in their code.

This does mean that community contracts can be ordained if the situation is right but we are hesitant to allow any individuals unfiltered access to the creation or destruction of concords.


See my above post but I have just thought of a possible middle ground solution.

Note: This is only a theorycrafting and I am not implying The Two will endorse this option.

A new contract can be created and deployed allowing approved conclave members to mint specific tokens.

Time limits could also be put in place to allow each approved address to mint 1 of the allowed concords per cycle.

This new contract is ordained and some functions like approved tokens could be managed by The Two while others like approved addresses can be managed by the community to streamline adding and removing members after elections.


๐”‰๐”ž๐”ฐ๐” ๐”ฆ๐”ซ๐”ž๐”ฑ๐”ฆ๐”ซ๐”คโ€ฆ

๐”—๐”ฅ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ ๐”ฌ๐”ฏ๐”ก๐”ž๐”ฆ๐”ซ๐”ข๐”ก ๐”ž๐”Ÿ๐”ฆ๐”ฉ๐”ฆ๐”ฑ๐”ถ ๐”ฑ๐”ฌ ๐” ๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ž๐”ฑ๐”ข ๐”ซ๐”ข๐”ด ๐”ฑ๐”ฌ๐”จ๐”ข๐”ซ๐”ฐ ๐”ฌ๐”ฃ ๐” ๐”ฌ๐”ซ๐” ๐”ฌ๐”ฏ๐”ก ๐” ๐”ฌ๐”ฒ๐”ฉ๐”ก ๐”Ÿ๐”ข ๐”ž ๐”ฏ๐”ฆ๐”ฑ๐”ฒ๐”ž๐”ฉ ๐”ฌ๐”ฃ ๐”ฎ๐”ฒ๐”ฌ๐”ฏ๐”ฒ๐”ช ๐”ด๐”ฆ๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ฆ๐”ซ ๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข โ„ญ๐”ฌ๐”ซ๐” ๐”ฉ๐”ž๐”ณ๐”ข ๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ญ๐”ฐ. 4/6 ๐”ช๐”ฒ๐”ฐ๐”ฑ ๐”Ÿ๐”ข ๐”ญ๐”ž๐”ฏ๐”ฑ ๐”ฌ๐”ฃ ๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข ๐”ฏ๐”ฆ๐”ฑ๐”ฒ๐”ž๐”ฉ ๐”ฑ๐”ฌ ๐” ๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ž๐”ฑ๐”ข ๐”ณ๐”ฆ๐”ž ๐”ค๐”ซ๐”ฌ๐”ฐ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ. ๐”—๐”ฅ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ ๐”ด๐”ฌ๐”ฒ๐”ฉ๐”ก ๐”ญ๐”ฒ๐”ฑ ๐”ค๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ž๐”ฑ๐”ข๐”ฏ ๐”ด๐”ข๐”ฆ๐”ค๐”ฅ๐”ฑ ๐”ž๐”ซ๐”ก ๐”ฆ๐”ช๐”ญ๐”ฌ๐”ฏ๐”ฑ๐”ž๐”ซ๐” ๐”ข ๐”ฌ๐”ฃ ๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข ๐”ข๐”ฉ๐”ข๐” ๐”ฑ๐”ฆ๐”ฌ๐”ซ ๐”ฌ๐”ฃ ๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข ๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ญ๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ฐ๐”ข๐”ซ๐”ฑ๐”ž๐”ฑ๐”ฆ๐”ณ๐”ข๐”ฐ.

1 Like

Until thereโ€™s an answer from The Two for either of these Iโ€™m unsure how @josiah.peace will be able to put this to vote. Someone please correct me if Iโ€™m wrong.

FWIW, I am a much bigger fan of @KingOfflingโ€™s idea of a conclave specific concord. Commissioning art for a new token may be the more expensive option, but I think it cuts down on a lot of unnecessary complexity.


My only concern with creation of a Conclave specific Concord is that I DO NOT want to disrupt the story plans of The Twoโ€ฆ We know that once we reach 30 Tokens of Concord we get to sear (or learn about it)โ€ฆ if we are creating a token that somehow gets us 1 step closer to 30 and it wasnโ€™t part of their plans, then they have to readjust or compromise story for itโ€ฆwell I dont want that.

If it doesnโ€™t disrupt their plans or things that is fine.

One thing I will point out that I noticed is that we currently have 1-18 TOKEN IDs and then token ID 20 (Molten Talisman) is the 19th Token of Concordโ€ฆ

So we are currently missing Token ID:19 and that is bothering my OCD lolโ€ฆ so if we do add a new token, make it Token ID:19 unless there is plans for that already

1 Like

@TheTwins @josiah.peace @KingOffling

The Two like the idea of a token of concord specific to the conclave. If this proposal passes it will be created.

The only outstanding question is how distribution is handled. The simplest is for a set amount to be minted to the desired multisig to be distributed by the representatives.

If existing concords are preferred these could also be minted to the multisig for distribution.

I believe a reasonable initial supply would be 36 which provides enough supply for 6 cycles of distribution.

This would be the configuration I would suggest if an intermediary contract is deployed to allow the conclave representatives to mint. Ordained was never designed to apply to external users or multisigs. I do believe 4/6 multisig is ample to prevent malicious actors but with permissions to burn every token of concord its not something I would ever want to do when we have better options.

An ordained contract that allows defined and limited access while maintaining flexibility is simple enough to create and prevents any โ€˜worst case scenarioโ€™ situations.


With the considerations I have listed above around ordained I believe this can move to a vote to support the creation and distribution of a conclave concord.


@josiah.peace a lot to consider and much to go off of for how to construct this proposal. Thank you Icculus, Merlin, Twins and everyone who got involved in asking questions and opening these doors for this proposal.