[Proposal] Add dxDao governance to Biffy.ai with fees going to dxDao

Link to proposal on Alchemy: https://alchemy.daostack.io/dao/0x519b70055af55a007110b4ff99b0ea33071c720a/proposal/0xc27eccf7e29d3cda9ea0169c38fcc53e7bb12c12a43a896cb555330896c10e1e
Text included below for convenience.

About Biffy

  • Biffy is a work in progress dapp who collects artworks.
  • She rewards participants with Love (ERC20 token) and Hearts (ERC721 artworks).
  • Under development by Ethereal, who created other successful NFT dapps including BitsForAi (mc $48,000) and Metaglitch (mc $31,000).
  • Biffy has a Discord community of 149 members actively participating in the development process.

Partnership with dxDao

  • Current plan for Biffy’s governance is dictatorship by Ethereal, creating centralization risks.
  • Need for truly decentralized governance by effective and active community.
  • 0.5% of all Love/Eth trades to dxDao instead of Ethereal.
  • dxDao takes ownership of OpenZeppelin upgradeable smart contracts and approves future upgrades and features.

Requested resources

  • 15 ETH to fund research and development of dxDao integration into Biffy by Ethereal.
  • 10,000 REP for future participation in dxDao by Ethereal.



1 Like

Currently updating the Biffy.ai website with basic information. Current progress is open source and on github.


What is your plan to be rid of this “dictatorship by Ethereal”?

Seems like the answer is more complex than giving you ETH.

But then you ask for REP on behalf of Ethereal to participate in the DAO?

So you’re asking to be rid of Ethereal’s dictatorship, but then you ask for this dictatorship to have 1% voting power of the DXdao.

I’m not trying to be mean, I am very confused.

You also still haven’t introduced yourself. FWIW I really do love the art.

What is your plan to be rid of this “dictatorship by Ethereal”?

Transferring ownership of Biffy’s SCs to dxDao.
Users of my previous dapps have been asking for additional features which are very difficult to add without upgrades. For Biffy I’ve made all the contracts upgradeable. Biffy includes a Love/Eth bonding curve so substantial value could be locked in the contracts. I don’t want to be the sole responsible party - it’s much better for an established Dao with a record of good governance to take ownership.

Seems like the answer is more complex than giving you ETH.

Yes, that’s why I’m making this proposal for dxDao to take ownership. This is a valuable project that I’ve spent a lot of time working on and have really great community backing. Implementing dxDao into Biffy will take substantial work.

But then you ask for REP on behalf of Ethereal to participate in the DAO?

I have a good reputation in the NFT art community for running projects. The goal is to protect the community from centralization, not to exclude myself from decision making entirely. Biffy has a lot of potential. I would like the ability to continue to contribute as a member of a community rather than as a dictator.

Is there a place where its standard to introduce oneself? I’m an NFT art dapp developer who makes post conceptual blockchain art. I wouldn’t consider myself an expert level dev by any means but I enjoy working with react and openzeppelin.

You don’t strike me as mean at all! These are very valid questions, and it may be necessary for me to alter the proposal. I created it as a starting point modeled on other proposals that were passed. Hopefully its an acceptable proposal that can get passed, but if it needs alteration I’m open.


Updated the website with basic links: https://biffy.ai/

Posting some q and a from chat, lightly edited for those that missed:
Q: How does Biffy benefit from a DAO?
A: Biffy will need a lot of future upgrades and features, so having dxDao provide governance reduces centralization risks. As currently designed I have total control over the contracts (upgradeable oz) which is a huge risk.
Q: Why does it need to be decentralized?
A: Users need to be able to trust the governance of the ERC20 and ERC721 tokens, that the dev wont just alter the system and steal funds. Decentralization guarantees Biffy can continue to be upgraded into the future. With previous dapps I resolved the trust issues by making the contracts immutable. But people requested new features and I could not easily deliver them without complex workarounds.
Q: How do we know if anyone will use Biffy?
A: People have used my previous dapps, the last two of which have mc of ~$40k and $30k respectively. There’s an active and engaged community on Discord with many core members of the art NFT community. The big limitation on growth has been governance issues for these dapps so with Biffy and dxDao those problems are lifted and growth potential is much higher.

1 Like

Loving the art, are some of your previous projects on opensea?

Yes they are on OpenSea. Glad to here you’re enjoying the art! I’m working with a wide variety of artists for Biffy.
https://opensea.io/assets/bitsforai - Generative artworks for the AI art collectors of the future (Like Biffy)
https://opensea.io/assets/metaglitch - Breedable glitches you can apply to participating NFT projects, like CryptoKitties and Avastars.

Hi Ethereal,

Thanks for taking the time to make this proposal. The art looks great. I also believe the DXdao will play an important roll in managing protocols with decentralized governance.

First I would like to understand better what sort of value this may bring to the DXdao. You mention .5% of trading volume, but only mention market cap and not existing trading volume. Do you have existing metrics on what those are? How has the project been funded so far? Can you do some sort of projection of what the revenues would be in the future?

Second, I would like to have a better idea of what you plan to use the money (ETH) for. Do I understand correctly that the main goal is to provide an upgrade path that is controlled by the DXdao? I am not sure 15 ETH would be needed to provide a proxy interface. It might be worth bringing this up in the development channel in keybase to see if devs already working on DXdao projects could provide guidance on an estimate. Is the idea in the future you would be the one funding the updates to the contracts, or are you suggesting that the DXdao would fund that?

Lastly, I think it makes sense to only receive the REP after delivery and not to ask for it up front. I think generally it should be proven that one has earned the REP before they get it. Also, I would recommend splitting up the ETH payment to be half upfront and half on completion, or maybe even less up front since this would be your first time working for the DXdao.

Thanks for the advice on splitting it into two proposals, one for beginning work and one for payment request on completion. That makes a lot of sense!

The Eth request was based on 4 weeks of work. Based on what you’re saying and discussion in the chat, seems that’s probably excessive - it may be closer to two weeks to develop the proxy interface and add the unit tests.

NFT art is illiquid and doesn’t trade often, so volume on the ERC721 tokens doesn’t reflect the volume that will happen on the Eth/Love ERC20 bonding curve. This is the first NFT project with a bonding curve, so the upper end projections are highly uncertain.

Low case: 25.38 Eth/year
(interest matches low end of previous projects baseline)

  • 300 eth in initial Love sales over first month.
  • 3% of total supply traded daily
  • 20 eth/month in new sales

High case: 126.9 Eth/year
(interest matches historical top NFT projects that were similarly first in class)

  • 1500 eth in initial Love sales over first month.
  • 3% of total supply traded daily
  • 100 eth/month in new sales

These projections assume no further upgrades/features added beyond those currently proposed in the README.

It’d be possible to raise the dxDao governance fee as high as 3% (spread between buy/sell on the bonding curve) but for the projects health the ideal maximum is 1.5%. A 1.5% fee would increase the annual revenue by 3x.


Thanks for the huge amount of feedback both on this thread and in chat. Here’s the plan:

  1. Don’t vote for the current proposal, let it fail.
  2. This weekend will create an “Intent to acquire” proposal. Details of REP and ETH tbd after Biffy.ai launch. No token transfers in proposal, it is statement of intent by dxDao if it wishes to acquire Biffy only after successful launch at to be negotiated reasonable rates.
  3. Will continue work on Biffy.ai with some added features for planned acquisition by dxDao in the future.
  4. Post launch will have a clearer idea of revenue streams and value of Bifffy. Once those details are clear, will discuss in chat reasonable acquistion rates derived entirely from on chain revenue.
  5. Post proposal for acquisition of Biffy.ai by dxDao. I believe this will be one of the first project acquisitions ever by a dao. Pretty cool!

After this process is complete, dxDao will get 100% of Biffys revenue. dxDao will also have full ownership of Biffy.ai, will be able to upgrade all of Biffy’s contracts, set Biffy’s configuration, and call administrative methods such as emergency pauses. For me, at this point I will have no special privileges with Biffy. Which is both sad and exciting.