Rarible DAO Elected Representative Governance Experiment (v2)

Previous Reading

This is a continuation and refinement of a previous thread here. The scope below is intended to refine the scope ahead of a Snapshot proposal.

See these slides!


How to ensure alignment of interest between RARI and NFT Holders?

  1. Contributor NFT holders could include DAO workers, applications building on the protocol, and even possibly NFT creators and long term RARI stakers. This group is intrinsically motivated to be part of the DAO, and the alignment with the DAO comes from the fact that they want the DAO to succeed so they can keep working and growing with the community and project they are part of.
  2. Requiring a minimum amount of staked RARI for Contributor NFT holders would help align interests. This amount could change over time, but starting at ~$1K equivalent could be a good start, and we could always increase this requirement later if we feel it is necessary.

What are the requirements to receive an Contributor NFT?

  • Only valuable members of the community should be receiving these NFTs. This includes full time workers, and other individuals that might not be full time, but could add a lot of value in various areas.
  • The most important criteria is that this group of people should be making good governance decisions for the DAO, and helping the protocol increase adoption through effective governance.
  • The initial two Contributor NFT holders will be Eric and Alex

What are the requirements to keep a Contributor NFT?

  • Ongoing participating in Discord, in our Forum, and in our calls.
  • Adherence to our social norms, guidelines and values.
  • If it is deemed that a NFT holder has not added value in the last 6 months, the membership NFT could be confiscated. Examples of value added contributions includes:
    • Working for the DAO
    • Building a valuable product on the protocol
    • Super users of the protocol (creator, buyer, or seller)
    • Participating in governance decisions
  • Over time, removal could be automated (for example using Coordinape): in this model, we could have quarterly rewards. Every member allocates points to other members, and we could eliminate the bottom of the barrel to ensure an ongoing churn of members.

Once you lose a Contribution NFT, can you get one back?

  • It’s up to the Contribution NFT holders

Can you buy a Contribution NFT?

  • I don’t think we should allow the buying of these Contribution NFTs. The criteria for receiving a Contribution NFT will still be to contribute value to the community and DAO.

How many Contribution NFTs are minted initially?

  • 10K (because, why not?)
  • Alternatively, we could give the DAO or Multisig the ability to mint / burn NFTs on-demand instead of pre-minting. I personally just like the idea of making this a 10K collection.

Where are the Contribution NFTs sent?

  • Contributor NFTs will be sent to a multisig controlled by the Contributor NFT holders
  • The functionality for Supporter NFTs can be added afterwards, and this part would be more automated


Delegation will still be a part of the governance process on the RARI token holder side of the equation.

Later, we might also want NFT holders to be able to delegate their voting power to other NFT holders (apparently Nouns DAO already built some tooling for this).

Scope of work for MVP


Potential Variations

Instead of having 50/50 split between NFT holders and RARI holders, we move to a 100% NFT based system. If RARI holders stake for a minimum period of time, they get an NFT.

We would need to ensure this couldn’t be sybil attacked, so it would either need to be tied to identity with a manual NFT distribution process.

The nice thing about going in this direction is that everything is unified under a single governance process, as oppose to splitting 50/50. On the other hand, having RARI holders have 50% of voting power in a way acts like a security mechanism in this early phase possibly.

There is with this model is that not-aligned with RARI NFT holders could easily keep increasing in number, resulting in a group of governors which aren’t aligned with the RARI holders. To ensure alignment, we could keep a single variable in the process centralized: the amount of RARI that NFT holders must have staked (in addition to the NFT ownership). Over time, this variable could be changed to tweak alignment.


Hey @Rarible,

As a long term-term contributor @indexcoop I’m interested in Rariable DAO for a number of reasons, but this governance discussion is fascinating and inspiring.

A question: how did this discussion move from here - with a) pRARI and RARI being discussed alongside RARI and b) R MEMBERSHIP - to here with just one option? I read this deck but may have missed a link or few in the journey.

I very much appreciate the direction of thinking though. Indexcoop has straight token voting at this time - with the plutocracy issues cited here - as well as some potentially problematic tokenomics as far as the community (especially core) is concerned.

This is coming along nicely! Of course, still just an experiment, but I’ll think we’ll learn a lot from it.

I like the meme of a 10k collection! It makes them feel special and also helps build the narrative that there could be multiple generations of contributor NFTs.

I’d suggest the design of this should allow the DAO to efficiently distribute many of these at once – we don’t want the DAO to have to manually send out these NFTs one by one. Similarly, an efficient way to “destroy” contributor NFTs could be with a denylist that marks NFTs as not counting for any voting power.

I think a bunch of people have had individual conversations, but really this post by Eric is just a suggestion to go with one of those options. If you’d prefer some variation of one of the others, would love to hear your thoughts!

Closing this to continue the discussion here: Rarible DAO Elected Representative Governance Experiment (v3) - #2 by Dev