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?
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.
Again, this is only a part of the misinformation in this post, and I’m not comfortable sharing githubs etc. in the forum right now. This will all be shared with the community ahead of launch, and we’ll have an update on implementation, audit, etc. coming soon.
Can you please remove the comparison on Snag entirely OR reach out to me so we can discuss revisions live? It’s not my responsibility to ensure accurate information, and I’ve alerted you that there’s misinformation in this post that needs to be addressed + provided contact information to rectify.
Competition is good for everyone, but this AIP is bad both ethically and legally as currently drafted. I’ve always been available to the community am happy to chat privately so you can incorporate accurate information and get this ready for a vote.
@Marklar has updated their Draft and it is in our review once again. You can check out the changes by clicking the pencil icon at the top right of the post.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
New draft removes all references to Snag. The threat of legal action against the author of a draft proposal made in good faith as a member of two communities and the tailing lack of transparency are, quite frankly, incredibly confusing and concerning. We build better together. Godspeed in your web3 endeavors.
I was just upset that with how open I’ve been on communication this was posted without checking to get the right info. I apologize for including legal ramification in my initial response - that was unwarranted.
Best of luck on the proposal - NFT Embed seems like a terrific self serve solution.
re: follow-up questions, yes, of course I have some.
context:
the github link in audit report is 404.
no github search results for “snag solutions” or “snag-solutions”.
open comparative and operative questions:
1. Documentation. Where is the referenced github documentation?
2. $ape. When will the marketplace have $ape functionality as specified in AIP-98? What needs to be done to facilitate this functionality?
3. Contract risk. When I “List an item” on https://www.apecoinmarketplace.com/, which specific marketplace contract am i interacting with (rights and listing)? Based on some paper-napkin diligence on cryptochicks, Snag branded listings actually interact with reservoir proxy to OS and sales thereof pay fees to said marketplace. If “List an item” uses reservoir proxy to OS or other external marketplace, how and when does snag get paid? If it uses snag marketplace contracts, please provide documentation and contract audits.
5. Etherscan. If you have etherscan links to “List an item” transactions on this or other marketplaces you reference (e.g., cryptochicks, goblintown), can you provide those if they offer helpful clarifications here?
Per #1 we use the reservoir order book and indexer/router, not our own. We collect fees ONLY when native apecoinmarketplace.com listings on the Reservoir order book are filled. If we process an aggregated order through LooksRare, opensea, etc. we make nothing
@Marklar has updated their Draft and it is in our review once again. You can check out the changes by clicking the pencil icon at the top right of the post.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
After review, this Topic submitted by @Marklar is ready for vote under AIP-118. The proposal will be posted on Snapshot at the next weekly release date and time, which is every Thursday at 9PM EST.