Discussion: Special Fragments in Treasury, Burn or Keep?

Hope everyone enjoyed the beauty of Special Fragments! It was long journey and would have not been possible without DAO and core contributors’ support.

While we are being entertained by the greatness of all fragments and ghosts themselves, our dear Avant shared an agenda about what we are supposed to do with unclaimed special fragments that are inherited to the GhostsProject Treasury, which are total of 1,749.

There are several options that we may consider

  1. Burn all of them - We can simply send all SpecialFragments to the null address where NFT’s can’t be reverted once sent.

    Potential Outcome: Value of Special Fragments rises due to the less supply.

  2. Burn some portion and keep others in Treasury - Just like #1, we can burn portion of SpecialFragments and keep others for future usage such as giveaway events.

    Potential Outcome: Value of Special Fragments rises due to the less supply and remaining pieces can attract future holders.

  3. Keep all of them - Keep all SpecialFragments for future usage.

    Potential Outcome: If the value of Special Fragments scale as Mr.Misang and GhostsProject DAO keep expanding, our treasury value will also rises and SF will be great assets to utilize.

My 2 cents is that keeping them in treasury basically generate same effect of burning since both cases won’t increase circulating supply in the market anyway. Also I am bit skeptical about how significantly lessening supply of SF will affect the value of it.

Anyway, it’s just random murmuring of myself so please share your thoughts!

People who bought it in the secondary market should get it, hopefully better.

1 Like

I think it depends on if there could be any utility applied to the special fragment in the future. If they’re just 1749 pieces of artwork then they currently have no/little value of which I’m happy for a burn or a hold.

However if it was announced that, for instance, could be used a WL (or similar) to a new future collection then they have value, however even in this instance, burning them makes the rest of the supply more valuable.

1 Like

Hey Gho Gang,
Any work of Misang is fantastic to have and if the artist is no longer is continuing with more work under GhostsProject then I suggest updating the 1155 multi-editions to the official Mr. Misang Editions.

The artist would have the ability to share his first multi-edition collection which is quite popular to do with the artists on superrare and objkt. It’s a great way to keep collectors happy and expose the artists to hundred or even thousands. There has been major success using Manifold editions, example: The Memes by 6529, deekaymotion - Let’s walk, or Nyan Cat. All who have had tremendous success with multi-editions.

With 1155 you can have other utility and options as the contract is agile to handle more mechanics.

Other additional options could be burning special framents for future editions. The 1155 burn swap is quite easy to do.

Looking forward to the next chapter!

1 Like

List all of them on market places

I have seen many NFT projects choose burning item for some reason. But the results of them were mostly bad. buring could’t make nft price rise.
In the future, I think it would be better to choose method 3 while looking forward to the time when ghost project team will do good operation and marketing.

Tonight PRGuitarman aka Nyan Cat creator broke a record in multi-series sales. Check it out: https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x286e531f363768fed5e18b468f5b76a9ffc33af5/1

This could be Mr. Misang’s breakout editions. It’s must needed in this space to get his name out and to bring awareness.

I also think the title should be updated with the artist’s name, Like Ghosts Project by Mr. Misang (Artist name is a huge importance)

No one really cares about him or the project anymore according to engagement rates on his Twitter so changing the name of the collection wouldn’t be a thing in my opinion.

Adding an artist name is always important to the work or project, regardless if the artist is trending or not. It shows how proud they are of the work. In this space, It’s a huge red flag if the artist doesn’t want their names added to a project they were involved with.

Talking about a red flag, when this project founders withdrawn 80% of mint fund and secondary fee, and say it’s now running by a DAO with that little money left, that is a red flag. Deal with it, this project is over. I’m not sure if Mr.Misang has done this with noticing that but his Web 3.0 career is pretty much done with that. only those people who don’t know about this fact and people in VCs and start-up industries in Korea care about the project and him. Putting his name on the collection? Seneca who is the core artist of BAYC, ain’t even there in even bio, Psych of DeadFellaz, Doug of Toy Boogers, Burnt Toast of Doodles, Clon of Cool Cats, none of them above put their name next to the collection.

You named a few that don’t while I can name hundreds of projects that do. Either way, I’m not sure what your reasoning is for arguing with me when I’m suggesting ideas.

Those are TOP 30 PFP projects and only two that put the name of artist are Clone X with Murakami and CrypToadz by GREMPLIN. So I’m just trying to say not putting artist’s name isn’t even a huge red flag that’s it. I’m not arguing or trying to argue with you, We’re here to discuss about how to handle 1,749 supply of Special Fragments, that’s it.

For example, are you suggesting the logic of burning [Special Fragment] and receiving one [reward artwork] in the future? Instead of using current point system? That’s interesting idea. I’m not used to ‘Manifold edition’, but I’ll take a look and study how does it works.

But even in case of I decide to use that logic, I feel it still doesn’t affect that much at this subject - burn or keep treasury’s SF-. :thinking:

I think the key to discussing whether to burn or keep SF is how to control its liquidity in the future. If I were to use the logic you suggested, it would absorb some of the SF liquidity of users regardless of the treasury’s SF holdings.

Anyway, I’m still in very early planning stage of Phase-2(and GP reward artworks), so I can consider about your suggestions. Thanks for your idea.

It will be really helpful for me if you could share some articles or detailed specific use case of manifold edition. :pray:

A. Keep.
B. Burn.
C. Burn some and keep remains.
D. Sell(as you suggested). - with what price? and why?
^Because MrMisang’s web3 career is doomed^ as you mentioned? It’s your freedom to believe so but Even if you believe so, it can’t be enough reason for choose option D.

Instead of it, You’d better to make suggestion like below :
D. Let’s sell(all/some) treasury’s SFs with (n) prices. Because selling will make good effect for GhostsProject for ( ) reasons.

My thoughts on Mr.Misang’s career was a comment to disagree on what Godwits said, That is it could be considered as a red flag just because the collection did not include Mr.Misang’s name. It wasn’t against Davidd’s suggestion or nothing related.

Overall, my suggestion is D. Sell, About how, and the price could be discussed later also. e.g. We can also consider accepting all offers and listing them on the floor. With that the treasury can be filled up with sales.

And this is my thoughts on Burn, Keep, below.

Burn- I don’t think this will help the price given the volume already listed or traded.

Keep- I don’t think it’s appropriate to use it for marketing purposes because the value formed in the market is too small, and I don’t think there’s any economic benefit compared to selling it directly if it’s distributed.

The Special Fragments becomes a key minting token to mint future editions by Mr. Misang. ERC-1155 for a future Mr. Misang Editions (1155). It can be an open edition for SF holders. Check out: https://opensea.io/collection/tjoeditions / Editions are a favorite among the community because multiple people can own the same edition. This was very popular with HIC on Tezos.

In terms of what treasury has, You can use it for the same purpose and hold Mr. Misang’s future editions. Editions give the freedom for the artist to mint anytime without the pressure via Manifold. This trend will continue.

Visit here for manifold: https://manifold.xyz/

In terms of my response to Yammo’s. I think there was a misunderstanding of what I was saying. When I search for artwork, I type in the artist’s name and considering Mr. Misang’s name is not on GhostsProject, It’s hard to find. We had the same issue with the launch of Refik Anadol’s collection but we updated it and activity has soared.

I’m not saying that all collections without the artist’s names are a red flag. I’m saying there are collections without the creator’s name and many turn out to be a scam. Mr. Misang is a SuperRare artist and many of the SR artists are creating collections with their names which does give weight and knowledge.

There are also artists that don’t want to be associated with past collections or works especially if they did not perform well. The burden should be carried by the creator and team but most may distance themselves which will kill any hope of the project.

At the end of the day aren’t we trying to improve with shared ideas? My suggestions are just that.

Yeah personally I enjoyed collecting Luis Ponce OE and watching these ERC-1155 burning mechanism to redeem new artworks. But at the same time, Are all Mr.Misang’s personal work fully related to GhostsProject DAO and treasury? That’s my first question at this point.

Of course if the community wants to put his name in the collection, it could happen though. But since the team and Mr. Misang himself repeatedly said the collections of GhostsProject are not investment worthy, So not sure why it should be discussed in the DAO. That’s my second question.

Team OFF and Mr.Misang, Instead of decentralizing ‘authority’ and ‘resources’ (Mint fund and secondary fee), they decentralized ‘responsibility’.
In this situation the whole DAO working for himself and his reputation, I’m not sure if it’s the right thing.

the DAO is supposed to focus on handling treasury if the project is “Decentralized” instead of working for ‘Someone important’. If he needs advisors for his upcoming works, He’d better hire someone using his own money. This whole DAO structure is totally misunderstood.

Yes we are here trying to improve situations because we pretty much got rugged. So at this point I’m not sure if that we acting like the project is still owned by Mr.Misang himself is an improvement or the right thing.

1 Like