Leave Me Alone
- Contract
- 0x3cf57cc9cf5263748c6f926ff498ac0c6f95b26e
The primary purpose of this site is to preserve everything related to Leave Me Alone NFTs. It's second goal is to continue the team's original purpose: To build the "Library of Alexandria". However I don't agree with the team's approach to creating it. Today's compression algorithms were not designed to store data on the blockchain. We need an entirely new one that leverages the immutability of existing blocks. Decoding should require querying any existing stored data to ensure nothing can be removed. I will be building said algorithm but just like the previous team, I'm not a "timeline" sort of person. In fact I'll take it further to say there's no guarantee I'll ever finish. In the short-term, my priority is to make sure all possible assets are preserved. I'll sufficiently compress and archive what I can then share it for others to download and share as well. Ideally I would like everyone to store them on many diverse platforms: ipfs, torrent, mega, arweave, etc. Since the nfts need to be wrapped, it would be *nice* to have an onchain version for the 2nd version imo but without the original pdfs, the possible solutions are not great. Regardless one of the very first things I would like to use the library for is the nft's metadata itself.
As for the NFT wrapper, my priority is to make sure there is always liquidity regardless of the price. Therefore we need our own marketplace. One with no royalties, no fees, and automatically adjusts price to create volume. It needs to accumulate a treasury as well but the treasury should only be used to create volume. Another issue with NFTs is the fact that they are non-fungible. We need a system that provides liquidity for non-floor nfts as well. The system I propose is to have a lending protocol where the collateral is the nft and if the money is not eventually return, the nft is resold to the marketplace. In the past this didn't work because no one wanted to lend money for nfts. So this system has to be highly scalable and flexible to the actual value of the nfts. This a lot of infura but it's necessary not just for LMA but for all NFTs.
In order for the NFT's price to go up, there must be some sort of demand. That demand will have to be voting power. Some ideas are the voting power to decide the metadata url or other links. It's possible that some money might need to be put aside to pay for costs. Although the treasury is to be used for volume, voting power could ultimately decide to use that money for various things. However setting up such a system is incredibly difficult. For the time being I'll probably be the benevolent dictator for the contract
Need for new contract
Primary problem
Cannot change contract owner. Ownership is required to change royalties, base token uri and modify marketplace profiles. Community unwilling to contribute if founders can delete everything and takes in passive income.
Contract deployer is currently holding 400 NFTs. This can be used to dump the market. We might consider blocking these specific nfts from future contract until ownership is transferred. Sadly a lot of innocent holders might get hurt from this action if they unknowingly buy from 3rd party marketplace. I'm leaning towards not blocking. Another option is to do an airdrop. Airdrop would be based on holding duration and specifically to remove the deployer. This way there's no incentive to buy before a snapshot. It would however effectively cut the existing contract's floor in half. The optics might look bad but the holders would not be cheated. I think it's a worthy compromise. The airdrop can also be set to give to original contract owner upon handling the ownership over to the new contract which would then forever act as proxy.
Owner switch
Ownership should have dead man's switch so that we don't have this issue ever again. The community should be able to vote in a new owner when the existing owner stops responding as a last resort. The vote weight should be done by staked nfts for 10yrs. This would be an incredibly important vote that so happens to be difficult to do in a gas efficient manner. It would basically require a traditional auction with 7 day extension when the current bid is beat. They also need to beat it by 15%. Once the winner is declared, the owner is set to whoever the winner set as their nominee. Then another 10yrs have to go by before the owner can ever be changed again involuntaringly. Since we're quanitifying nfts for a vote, it's naturally only going to be floor nfts. A lock system could be used with rare nfts using a loan system for better return but the super rares will never be fairly weighted unless it uses the harberger fee system.
Secondary problem
Secondary concern is the lack of makers. If there's no makers then the project will die and would take an incredible amount of effort to revitalize. Most people don't see this as a problem because they are more use to traditional collectibles where the supply going down is a good thing. However people don't realize how long things are in circulation. If the supply goes down too quickly, there will also be no demand. The following features are designed to provide maximum support when liquidity is low. This is done by having a native secondary market and finding ways to bring nfts to that market.
Holder switch
Holders should have dead man's switch. The nft is available on secondary when it triggers. The pulse check should be done only once every decade and could be triggered by anyone. This should be considered last resort and done using a global pulse check contract. Another option is flaunch with their harbringer fee. However I propose to incentive this feature, we treat the migration as a collateral for a loan given to the migrator. The eth being lent could come from buying nfts from the native floor dutch.
Floor dutch
NFTX is a good option for this as well but the benefit of a native floor dutch is skipping the approval transaction.
Main issue I have with NFTX is the same issues I have with LPs. They both suffer from impermanent loss. The current solutions are all bandage solutions to it's fundamental design that it does not consider time variable.
Bartering
NFTs don't need a medium of exchange. At the very least it just needs the ability to swap a set for another. This is a specific feature that NFTs have that ERC20s does not. It allows people to compare the value directly without the value escaping the community.
Althought this a secondary problem, it isn't really optional. The gas cost does not justify only solving the primary problem.