Thanks for the follow-up. Going forward, will share any revisions involving Snag prior to posting a final AIP. Prefer to wait until later in the draft period so-as to avoid any rework on my end.
Re: your follow-up points, a few questions / points of clarity in the interim:
- AIP-98 confusion for me. Let’s use ETH for the example. Is this correct?
-
Gross marketplace fee paid by seller: 0.50%.
-
ApeCoin DAO revenue to multi-sig: 0.25%.
-
Snag net: 0.25%.
-
Comparatively, NFT Embed Gross: 0.50%. ApeCoin: 0.20%. Universe net: 0.30%. All trustless.
For Snag, is the finder’s fee known as “burn”? This term confused me.
Further, payment to multi-sig on a “monthly-cadence” infers a trust pain point with tailing price risks. The proposal implicitly lumped this into “opaque multi-sig”. There’s a lot of risk hiding in there for Snag and NFT Embed alike.
For Snag, the key question is: who has access to gross fees before monthly remittance and what are gross fees denominated in? For both, assuming the multi-sig needs $APE based on treasury management referenced within the proposal, how and when will these amounts be converted, at who’s cost, and who takes the risk of gain or loss on the exchange? The difference and perhaps administrative difficulty (risk) for NFT Embed is this can only happen at the multi-sig level, assuming finder’s fees to multi-sig is the preferred approach. Regardless, these risks exist with or without a clarifying AIP and from my vantage point it’s not appropriate for the DAO to figure it out later. Thus, the comparative is rooted in risk mitigation and suggests that a possible union resolves these issues and more.
-
Easy update in terms of functionality. Looks like this is explicit in v1 of your proposal and I missed it.
-
Can you provide public documentation repositories (e.g., github), mainnet contract, and the audit report? This will help the comparatives be more objective.
Thanks for the time.