GIP 13: GhostsProject X PARAVERSE partnership

Title of the Proposal : GIP 13: GhostsProject X PARAVERSE Partnership

Category: Community support & decision: Others

Kudos: Ghost#6875, four4d#0613


  • This proposal is about partnership with PARAVERSE

  • PARAVERSE is an AR metaverse project that connects the virtual and real world. While “The Sandbox” and “Decentraland” exhibit items in game lands with VR metaverses, Paraverse exhibits digital NFTs in real estate lands with AR metaverses.

  • We will provide various benefits to ghost holders through the partnership event.

  • Top tier Land NFT (the largest area, major location in Seoul) of PARAVERSE AR land will be provided for Ghosts Project. It will be used as a GhostsTown(tentative name) in PARAVERSE.

  • For ghost holders, 10 OG role (confirmed WL) of the PARAVERSE AR LAND NFT project and 200 WL role (competing WL) will be provided as a raffle event.

  • For celebrate this collaboration, Airdrop 100 Physical sweatshirt that PARAVERSE X GhostsProject-Themed.

(Click) Ghostsproject X Paraverse Teaser Video :


  • Rationale:
    • What is PARAVERSE?
      • PARAVERSE is an Augmented Reality (AR) metaverse project that connects Web3 virtual and Web2 reality. Through PARAVERSE, various web2-based brands are connected to the Web3 world, and web3-based NFT projects are naturally connected to the Web2 world.
      • Official Website :
      • “PARAVERSE AR Land NFT Project” divides real estate into AR land forms based on GPS and mints them into NFTs. Starting with Genesis City Seoul that divided into 3,333 AR land, major cities around the world will be sequentially augmented into AR Land and minted as NFTs.
      • AR Land NFT owners can summon their own NFTs or 3D objects to AR and place them permanently in specific location. Also, user can earn profits from land staking, rent, and advertisements. Various events will be held to connect Web3 and Web2 in the form of NFTs or token collecting, such as treasure hunting, in the augmented city.
      • Team IMAGINEERS, the operator of the PARAVERSE NFT project, is a startup from KOREA that has partnered with more than 30 global companies, including Lotte Department Store, iloom, Tamburins, and Frame Montana. Team IMAGINEERS specialized in 3D AR metaverse, they have proven high level of AR performance and technology over the past three years.
      • (Demonstration image)

(Click) Ghost AR demo :

  • Proposal Details

    • Ghosts town in Paraverse land : Paraverse Land provided, we will support the production of AR Land exclusively for Ghosts town.

    • AR production to commemorate collaboration.

    • 10 OG roles : Winners will be chosen by GhostsProject & PARAVERSE

    • 200 WL roles : Winners will be chosen by GhostsProject & PARAVERSE

    • 100 Sweatshirts airdrop : Winners will be chosen by GhostsProject & PARAVERSE

    • GhostsProject and PARAVERSE Project promote this collaboration news on Discord and Twitter in the form of cross-marketing.

    • PARAVERSE is planning to use the IP of Ghostsproject’s official title, logo, emblem for the cross marketing.

  • Benefits for GhostsProject from PARAVERSE Collaboration?

    • To commemorate this collaboration, GhostsProject will get a land for Ghost Town, one of the highest tier in Genesis land, Seoul. Here, GhostsProject may plan various events related to IRL events and augmented reality.
    • The PARAVERSE NFT project has high scarcity by mining only major cities around the world sequentially. In addition, the project will be expanded to provide various rewards to Genesis Land owners and PAVAVERSE community members through active partnerships with Web2 companies around the world, as well as NFT projects.


  • Marketing Period : Start within 5 days of the proposal being passed. Run for 2 to 3 weeks.
  • Winner Selection Event : Select and assign OG, WL roles and Sweat shirts within the cross-marketing period
  • Top Tier AR Land(GhostsTown) Airdrop Period : Within 7 days, after completion of PARAVERSE NFT minting.

Ask: N/A

Accountability: four4d#0613, shangcas#0711


Yes - accept the collaboration

No - reject the collaboration

※ The first proposal was 3D Ghost production and airdrop and Ghost Project X Paraverse partnership.
There was ambiguity as two topics were included in one proposal.
So, we separated the two subjects. This proposal is only about partnerships.
Regarding the production and airdrop method, we will prepare more specific plan and we’ll upload it as a separate proposal.

  1. How about estimating the cost of production for 3D Ghosts, spending it from ghoststreasury.eth (0x3d072376EcD1D64dC3bDdCe66086EA1F5b5b161e)
  2. and attaching the 3D Avatar Utility to the current 10K GhostsProject collection?
  3. And also I assume that a separate partnership is required when using it in Oncyber as an avatar, And in Decentraland. Correct me if I’m wrong.
  4. With this method above, I think it can prevent the dilution of the token value compared to 3D Ghosts NFT token airdrops.

For # 2 is definitely something interesting. Can you elaborate more how technically it will be feasible? As you said, it could be another method to prevent the dilution if possible.

For #3, from my understanding, I think he meant to say that 3d Ghosts can be “technically” integrated to those platforms once created. He may explain more about it for further clarification.

1 Like

Can we expect obj files (or any kinds of 3d project file) like clone x did?

Or are we getting only some 3d avatar on certain platform?

1 Like

ayy sojadao lessgetit

1 Like

In the case of #2, Paraverse can provide the utility and just use the token-gated function by using the existing 10K Ghosts contract instead of the 3D Ghosts Token Contract. This works between many metaverse platforms and PFP collections (e.g. Clone X, BAYC, etc. using their own PFP collections to use Voxel Avatar on The Sandbox instead of minting new NFTs).

And when collaborating with third-party platforms such as oncyber and Decetraland, etc GhostsProject can simply provide the 3D file to them and let them use it with the current 10K collection as a token that’s required. This is up to the utility provider, I don’t think there will be any major difficulties. (However, Oncyber they’re testing the Avatar function, is still under internal testing. And that Decentraland currently only supports wearables NFTs minted by them as far as I know. For this, claiming NFTs for Decentraland after consultation with Decentraland is the most likely method.)

1 Like

We had a lot of worries about this. When calculating the production cost during the test process, the actual cost required a large cost and a long production period.
We didn’t want to burden the treasury of GhostsProject as much as possible. So, We came up with a method that the PARAVERSE team pay for the production first and then cover it from the creator fee.

In addition, individual 3D NFT collections have advantages in not only costs but also usability.

  • It will be given “3D NFT” format, not just 3D files, and is proprietary in itself. It recognizes ownership in itself.
  • Thanks to this, it can be automatically used as your own asset when you connect your wallet on various metaverse such as Oncyber, Decentral land, and PARAVERSE…
  • In other words, it can be used in conjunction with any future metaverse environment without a partnership, customization, or further development.
    On the other hand, the way that additional 3D files are provided to existing 2D collections does not automatically work with platforms. Therefore, there are disadvantages that it is needed a partnership with each platform and a manual customization process.

If there are more people who agree to use the Ghost Project’s treasury fund as a production cost than a current method, it would be good to discuss and vote on which method to take at the time of the snapshot.

  • Oncyber, Decentral land not currently support for avatar function but for use in placing and decorating your land.

  • There may also be concerns about dilution of value. if we’re increasing the quantity for the same purpose, there’s a possibility of dilution.
    However, in this case it will expand its utilizations in different applications and areas. Therefore, we expect to create new values and add them. This new value is delivered to existing holders in the same proportion through 1:1 airdrop.


It is planned to be produced so that it can be used on various platforms like Clone X, and there is a high possibility that it will be provided in the form of an obj file.

1 Like
  • Due to the nature of the GhostsProject, which is CC0, That means owners can’t control IP Rights. That means the importance of ownership of tokens, including utilities,Therefore I think it is risky for the token’s utility to continue to be distributed and divided into other tokens. Imagine new holders have to buy PFP, 3D Ghost, and all the other types of NFTs to collect, to match and their digital identity.

  • Using itself (3D Ghosts NFT) means a form of ‘exhibition’, and I think this is far from the ‘3D Avatar’ that Paraverse talks about. In order to use it as a 3D Avatar, collaboration with Decentraland and Oncyber is needed, and in this case, We could let them just using 10K Ghosts as a token is more intuitive and desirable in terms of interoperability.

  • Depreciation due to value dilution can also occur with an motivation for holders to sell. People who don’t want to use the 3D Avatar can easily sell it, which also affects the price of the 10K Ghosts token. The price of the current token may be the sum of the price of the token after the airdrop and the price of the 3D Avatar token, but I think it is more likely to be less than that. In addition, due to the nature of GhostsProjecrt, which currently has no revenue model except for secondary transaction fees from marketplaces, a decrease in 10K Ghosts token price may lead to a decrease in the value of the project itself.

1 Like

This is technically a service provider job, not a token holder or the contract owner’s, GhostsProject. When exhibiting NFTs on platforms such as Oncyber, images and 3D files that exist on IPFS are loaded. But that doesn’t mean it’s 3D Avatar.

For example, if you want to use Voxel Avatar in The Sandbox, using PFP as a token is not about putting any new utility or code into the token, but rather allowing the service provider (in this case, The Sandbox) to use the PFP NFT as a token and permit the Voxel Avatar on their platform.

In our case, we can guess that using 3D Avatar on Oncyber may require collaboration with them. If so, it can be worked by having them use PFP NFTs as tokens, and we’re providing 3D files from Paraverse.

1 Like

This could be a good example.

This is RTFKT X TAKASHI MURAKAMI BLADE :cherry_blossom: NFT, Which is a 2D Video artwork.
Even in the metadata, IPFS, There are only an image of 2D thumbnail and a 2D video file.

But in Oncyber, this is exhibited in 3D form. It is because a partnership between RTFKT and Oncyber, so Oncyber decided to output 3D files provided from RTFKT, as a service provider.

1 Like

Is this porposal for the partnership or the product (3D NFT)?

People asked attaching this 3D Avartar Utility to the current 10K ghosts because this proposal is quite ambiguous in terms of the ownership of this 3D NFT and the partnership. After reading this proposal, I do not even think that attaching this utility to our ghosts is on the table to discuss. Pleas correct me if I’m wrong but what’s the boundaries where we can discuss under this proposal?

Who would own the ownership of this 3D product?

Beside the cost and technical issues, it seems like this NFT is totally independent from the ghosts project. To attach this utility to our ghosts, this project must be subset of our Ghosts Project. However, this is just a totally new and independent PARAVERSE’s project where 3D modeling NFT based on Mr.Misang’s artwork : ghosts project.

Since Ghosts project is CC0, PARAVERSE teams do not require partnership to use images of the ghosts, but it seems like Mr.Misang would take the lead of 3D modeling design and probably that’s why PARAVERSE try to make a partnership with ghosts project and airdropping their products to ghosts’ holders.

Correct me if I am wrong but if I am correct, PARAVERSE team must work hard on defining the partnership and emphasizing the fact that these two projects (Ghosts Project and PARAVER project) are totally different collections and they both independent from each-other. Hence we can not mimic what Clone-X did with their 3D and other products.

Difference between Clone-X and Ghosts Project
I’m not here to do SWOT analysis but design the difference to make it more clear

  1. Clone-X
    Clone-X NFT is the core of all the other subset projects, so all the air-drop and additional utilities are attached to the Clone-X NFT.
    Probably that’s why Clone-X has a strict copy-rights so that they can control and continually produce subset projects and attach additional utilities.

  2. Ghosts Project
    Ghosts Project is the genesis of Mr.Misang’s art-work but unlike Clone-X, Mr.Misang is the core of all the other projects and Ghosts Project is just one of the collections.
    Ghosts Project is CC0, any additional projects do not need to be a subset of the Ghosts Project. all the projects are independent from each other.


CC0 is one major keyword that describes GhostsProject, but that doesn’t detract from the brand umbrella concept. GhostsProject’s official logo is still owned by GhostsProject, and a derivative using based off only artwork, lacks a narrative to be a product with brand value.
(This means that Paraverse can create 3D avatar NFTs without GhostsProject’s consent, but it is difficult to be convincing in the market.)

Therefore, whether it will be an official partnership and logo usage rights, additional issuance NFTs, or using the existing 10K PFP Collection as tokens can still be on the agenda.

And here’s my thoughts to your summary comparing Clone-X NFT and GhostsProject.

  • Clone-X NFT isn’t the core of all the other subset projects, In fact, RTFKT ecosystem originally existed and was just expanded in collaboration with Takashi Murakami. Which is Clone-X. Therefore, PFP IP-related utilities such as 3D Avatar and Voxel Avatar attached in PFP tokens, and non-PFP IPs such as Space Pod are airdropped as separate NFTs.

  • This works just same as for other CC0 projects like Goblintown, Moonbirds, and CrypToadz. Regardless of the IP’s commercial rights, the narrative always exists. That’s the whole point.


I do totally agree on your viewpoint where adding more NFT collections contain down-side risk. Eventually it might decrease the value of Ghost Projects. However, I still think this is the optimal choice where our project can make.

  1. Clone-X
    RTFKT / Clone-X team creates PFP IP-related and non-PFP IP NFTs and they manage everything.

Pros : Strong narrative, eco-system friendly environment, create place, character, items by themselves to not only leading the market but also creating the new culture.

Cons : Costly, requiring strong IT devs

  1. Ghosts Project
    Mr.Misang makes partnership with IT devs to create projects (NFTs)
    Ghosts Project : Mr.Misang design the PFP then MYTY build the PFP
    PARAVERSE Project : Mr.Misang design the PFP then PARAVERSE build the PFP

Pros : low maintain costs and implementation cost (maintain cost of the utility belongs to the dev company not Ghosts Project), earning extra cashflow (PARAVERSE NFTs 50% transaction fee goes to Ghosts Project treasury), and no IT devs burden exists.

Cons : each projects create additional NFTs which might damage Ghosts Project NFT price. weak eco-friendly system (each project is run by different company and they are independent from each others).

I also do agree with the point where creating additional PFP IP-related NFTs is just playing with the devil but under this endless bear-market, excluding blue-chip NFTs, partnership with IT devs to outsource the costs might be the only way to expanding Mr.Misang’s universe.


MYTY has already withdrawn most of the minting amount and exited already after they hand over the contract to GhostsProject DAO. They are now just members that holding a lot of GhostsProject PFPs as it’s DAO token. They’re no longer responsible builder of the project. In fact Mr.Misang either.
Means GhostsProject DAO is in the same position as the RTFKT Team. We can use our funds to create any IP related AND non-IP related contents and NFTs if we want. The only other difference is that they are rich and we are poor financially.

PARAVERSE is close to service provider positions such as MYTY and The Sandbox. Do they use a separate Pass NFT when using Doodles motion capture in MYTY? Not really. If you don’t understand this, I’d recommend you to learn more about interoperability of NFT eco-system.

Also, if the PARAVERSE ecosystem expands, they will be able to adopt more projects. Shall they mint 3D Token each time? It’s not like that.

And unfortunately, this is not an advantage. If the token is split anyway, the value of the original PFP token will decrease, so the royalties generating here with PFPs will also decrease. And many marketplaces are moving towards 0% creator royalties. It should be noted that the current royalty model is a temporary phenomenon. Also, if they would use 10K PFPs as a token for 3D Avatar access in PARAVERSE, people will have to buy GhostsProject PFP anyway to use Ghosts in PARAVERSE. Therefore, the method of minting a new 3D Avatar NFT is not to create a new cash flow, but only to transfer some of the existing cash flow to PARAVERSE.

1 Like

I think these are all reasonable opinions. thank you Here’s a summary of my thoughts.

1. Using 3D Ghosts in other metaverses:
I think we need to define ‘use’ a little more clearly. Currently, only MYTY can guarantee that 3D Ghost can be used as an ‘avatar’. On other platforms, it seems possible to ‘exhibit’ in the form of a kind of digital 3D statue. Making 10K ‘avatars’ usable on other platforms in their data format would be a completely different task.

2. Files.
I think that the 3D files of the 10K ghosts to be produced will be provided to users with a high probability. I think it will probably provide both high quality files for PFP renders or user customization, and low poly files for live tracking and so on.

3. [:a:Airdrop of 3D Ghost as NFT ] VS [:b:Attaching ‘Function’ of 3D ghost to current ghost]

:a:3D Ghost NFT Airdrop:
3D Ghosts can be created with little to no Treasury budget.
Expanding community members (if a future proposal grants voting rights to 3D Ghost as well).
Treasury revenue may increase due to increased trading volume.

In effect, the circulation of Ghost is doubled, and there is a concern about the decline in the value of the original Ghost.
-If you talk only with market logic, you can expect that the value will increase until just before the snapshot and then decrease after the snapshot.
-There is a possibility that the value of the 3D Ghost that will be airdropped can offset the decrease in the value of the original Ghost, but it cannot be predicted.

:b:Add ‘Function’ to original ghost without issuing 3D Ghost as NFT.
It can enhance usability without compromising the value of the original Ghost.

Treasury budget should be used heavily.
The originality of 3D Ghost cannot be claimed through the NFT method. (It will be provided as a usable digital file, but it is not an NFT.)

:o:Pros for A B both: Extending Ghost’s usability. Will be available at least in MYTY.
:x:Cons for A B both: Creating a 3D Ghost does not guarantee its use as an ‘avatar’ on all other metaverse platforms.]

If you summarize the A, B pros cons a little more briefly, it looks like [keeping the Treasury budget VS preserving the value of the original ghost].

4. Why are you trying to make 3D Ghost?
This is to expand and strengthen the ghost usability of ghost users. This is its sole purpose. Usability refers to use in the MYTY app in a small sense, and users to use the 3D assets themselves in a broad sense.(Custom, make own 3D scene or ect)

5. Conclusion.
I’m working on a design guide for 3D Ghost, but there is no difference in my resource usage either way A or B. I think Paraverse, which is a real worker’s position, will also be like that. So I suggest the following way.

  1. First of all, let’s hold a new separate proposal vote on whether to partner with Paraverse and produce 3D Ghost.
    → We can check whether the community wants 3D Ghost or not. We can start from this point.

  2. If ‘yes’ for 1, then, whether to use 3D Ghost as an NFT airdrop (A) or a non-NFT method (B). Let’s discuss and vote again.
    The decision-making process will take a little longer, but I don’t think there’s any rush. Since it is a work that takes a year+@ after the start of production anyway, it would be good to make a decision carefully before starting.

Thanks and have a nice weekend.

1 Like

Looks like a feasible solution from my point of view.

1 Like

Whether 3d ghosts go through airdrop or token gated function, both has pros and cons anyway. So I rather think it depends on how we see the essence of 3D Ghosts’ existence as Mr.Misang said.

It is all about opening the “further opportunity for people to play or create with Ghosts”. That’s a simple and sole purpose of it. However, focusing on solely “playing part” is not the most practical way of approaching for now as whether 3D ghosts are airdropped or token-gated, a separate collabo/partnership with 3rd party platforms are needed anyway for 3D ghosts to be utilized within them. Then “creating part (3d files)” can be the big thing we can focus which will expand the more rooms for creators to do something with Ghosts (which can be led to the additional utility when cooperated with 3rd party platforms later such as Games).

There can be a potential price effect on ghosts when 3D ghosts are airdropped as the original ghosts itself don’t carry the 3d function once airdropped but I believe the effect on the price would very trivial. (If we can get numerical value on how other collection have been impacted by airdrops in terms of price, then we can discuss further)

So I believe the direction where Paraverse will produce 3D ghosts first (as 3D files can open way more opportunities) for this initial partnership proposal where Paraverse and Ghosts will partner for long term goal then later do the separate proposal of how these 3D ghosts should be implemented is the ideal approach we can take.

*Market condition/trend can be very different at the time when 3D ghosts are ready as it will take around a year to be finished.

1 Like

Thank you for your good comments.
There were parts that I hadn’t thought of before, but I understood them well after seeing the detailed comments.

  • At first it felt like a derivative project.
    However, I agree that the 3D version risks diluting the value.
    This is a situation we don’t want either.
    (Our purpose is also the prosperity of the GhostsProject and an invitation Ghosts to the Paraverse 3D world.)
    In the first airdrop, the dropped NFT will be 1:1 matched with original ghost, but after the second transaction, a decoupling situation will occur in which users have to match 3D ghosts separately, which seems to cause inconvenience.
    (On the one hand, matching may not be necessary from the point of view of it’s a separate project.)

  • Yes, that’s right. It is not intended for use as an avatar. The current metaverse service can be displayed as an item on your land.
    In order to use it as an avatar, it is necessary to cooperate with the metaverse and proceed with customization work.

I think we need to think and discuss a lot about how to make it.

1 Like

Thanks for everyone’s comments.

I also agree with yammo’s comment “The risk factor for the possibility of diluting the original ghost’s value.”
I also agrees with Tony’s opinion “An advantage in terms of resolving the risk of production costs by GhostsProject”.

There will be pros and cons.

As a Ghost holder, I am also making efforts to promote the prosperity of the GhostsProject and invite Ghosts to the 3D metaverse world.
So I don’t think there should be any risk in this process.

I think the topic of distribution method should be decided carefully over a long period of time.

I agree with mr.misang’s opinion.
So, how about discussing the proposal by clearly dividing it into two parts?

  1. Vote on GhostsProject X Paraverse partnership (various benefits provided)

  2. Discuss and vote on how 3D Ghosts will be created and distributed

There seems to be confusion as the contents of partnership and 3D production are mixed in one proposal.
Then, I will amend the proposal.

There will be a variety of methods for production and distribution. And I think each has its pros and cons.
There may be a better way that I haven’t thought of yet.
Let’s find a good way.