As a user, I want to list my artifact in the marketplace so I can make $$$ from it.

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on May 22, 2018 15:3

User Story

As a user, I want to list my artifact in the marketplace so I can make $$$ from it.

How it Works

As a user, I want to list my artifact in the marketplace so I can make $$$ from it.

In this view of the world, which is an augmentation of #21, each TokenCreationRequests has a list_in_marketplace (bool) and num_clones (int) attribute.

If list_in_marketplace is True, then num_clones artifacts will be listed in the erc 721 marketplace.

num_clones will affect the rareness score of an artifact.

When a user purchases an artifact from the marketplace, 80% of the revenue will go to the user who created it. 20% will go to Gitcoin Core.

Description

Type:
Feature

Copied from original issue: gitcoinco/gitcoin-erc721#22

[octavioamu]

From @PixelantDesign on May 29, 2018 2:57

Is this an artifact I commissioned or an artifact that I earned?

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on May 29, 2018 4:26

could be either.. maybe for now we start with the just hte former?

[octavioamu]

From @PixelantDesign on May 29, 2018 12:49

My instinct is commissioned.

I also stubbed in this ticket which I think is related.

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on May 29, 2018 21:30

what do we like more. commissioned or minted?

[octavioamu]

From @PixelantDesign on June 12, 2018 16:37

minted works.

I don't think users should be able to sell artifacts that they've earned. It would be like selling your reputation.

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on June 13, 2018 21:23

I don't think users should be able to sell artifacts that they've earned. It would be like selling your reputation.

i agree. so maybe we just allow people to just sell clones of artifacts they have minted

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on June 13, 2018 21:24

this is interesting.. so if you mint a token then you are a distributor of Kudos (which can be highly profitable)

if you receive a Kudos, then there is no profit motive. maybe we should allow those users to send those tokens to others though, kind of like a pay it forward thing?

[octavioamu]

From @PixelantDesign on June 14, 2018 20:24

I think allowing people to sell clones of it - I'm not sure about, but regardless of how many times something is given, it should trace back to the original person who earned it. What do you all think?

[octavioamu]

From @mbeylin on June 14, 2018 20:29

Just to add my 2 wei here, I think that if people who receive a given kudos want to send it to a peer, they should be required to buy it (the same as anyone else) rather than have some free ability to do so.

I also don't think minters should have too much control over this otherwise you'll end up in a weird situation where people are "claiming" popular kudos to give, only to constrain supply or set a high price in order to benefit themselves.

[octavioamu]

From @PixelantDesign on June 15, 2018 5:2

Just to add my 2 wei here, I think that if people who receive a given kudos want to send it to a peer, they should be required to buy it (the same as anyone else) rather than have some free ability to do so.

I like the above, it is important.

I also don't think minters should have too much control over this otherwise you'll end up in a weird situation where people are "claiming" popular kudos to give, only to constrain supply or set a high price in order to benefit themselves.

@mbeylin can you elaborate on the control part? What abilities should minters be restricted to?

[octavioamu]

From @mbeylin on June 15, 2018 13:56

Basically I think that minters should be able to commission whichever kudos they want, but they should not have control over the price of re-minting their kudos, or similarly the quantity of their new kudos which should be minted.

I think early on you guys should have all kudos sell for the same price, and see what happens. Supply should also be un-capped to start with. Once you see how Kudos is used in the market, you may then decide to fix prices or supply.

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on June 15, 2018 16:12

Just to add my 2 wei here, I think that if people who receive a given kudos want to send it to a peer, they should be required to buy it (the same as anyone else) rather than have some free ability to do so.

i'm of two minds on this. on one hand, if you're an 'infrastructure ninja' youre likely to know other infra ninjas
on the other hand, i can see why making them buy another token to send could be powerful. it depends on if the long terrm value of this project is for reputation or if its people buying/selling tokens

[octavioamu]

From @jasonrhaas on September 27, 2018 15:16

As we approach the V1 deadline, I'm thinking into the future a bit. As we know, once the Kudos.sol contract is deployed to mainnet and it goes live, there's no going back from there. So I'm going through these tickets again and trying to make sure we have the flexibility to implement all the features we want in the future.

When a user purchases an artifact from the marketplace, 80% of the revenue will go to the user who created it. 20% will go to Gitcoin Core.

This one is interesting. Currently 100% of the cost of the Kudos clone goes to the original minter of the Kudos. If we want to take 20% out of that, probably need to build something into the contract to account for that.

num_clones will affect the rareness score of an artifact.

Right now rarity is set, but I think it might make more sense for it to be a derived value. We can do something where the rarity score is normalized between 0 and 1, and base it off the number of clones in the wild.

[octavioamu]

From @jasonrhaas on October 2, 2018 16:50

I think comment above is important to discuss as well, regarding the cost structure. Also need to think about how we want this will work in the marketplace. Once a user has their own kudos token, there is now a 3rd party market for it. Why pay say .5 ETH for it in the Gitcoin marketplace when someone is auctioning it off on Open Sea for .1 ETH?

[octavioamu]

From @jasonrhaas on October 2, 2018 16:51

cc @owocki @PixelantDesign @octavioamu Also this one I think is important to discuss and figure out before launch. Somewhat related to #136 in terms of contract planning.

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on October 4, 2018 1:52

This one is interesting. Currently 100% of the cost of the Kudos clone goes to the original minter of the Kudos. If we want to take 20% out of that, probably need to build something into the contract to account for that.

ticket for this is here: gitcoinco/gitcoin-erc721#149

We can do something where the rarity score is normalized between 0 and 1, and base it off the number of clones in the wild.

I like this. Here is a ticket gitcoinco/gitcoin-erc721#152

Why pay say .5 ETH for it in the Gitcoin marketplace when someone is auctioning it off on Open Sea for .1 ETH?

I may want a Gen 0 Kudos, and those aren't available via Gitcoin Marketplace (yet)

It'll be interesting to see if anyone does arbitrage the Kudos on Open Sea.. We're so far away from this, that I can't even begin to think about the pricing mechanics in a lucid way yet. Long term, I think that we'll probably see arbitrage very high among common kudos, but that for unique / legendary rare kudos, you might see prices even higher on Open Sea!

[octavioamu]

From @owocki on October 4, 2018 1:53

Also this one I think is important to discuss and figure out before launch

I think that #149 and #152 are probs the only two things worth doing b4 launch. I commented on the upgradeability smart contract