Remove RARI Airdrops for Random NFTs

Proposal:
a. Remove all non-art related/non-Rarible assets from the marketplace/platform.
b. Remove eligibility for RARI Airdrops for non-art related/non-Rarible assets

Hey everyone,

This shouldn’t even be a topic in my opinion, but rather than just chatting in Discord, I wanted to write it down here and hear everyone’s feedback. I’m not sure why on Rarible, an art platform, that there are random NFTs, collectibles, and game assets on the marketplace… let alone getting RARI airdrops for trading random, unrelated NFTs. This is a major inconsistency in the platform and also takes away from the Creators and Collectors (mainly the creators). If you wanted to focus purely on an NFT marketplace, that’s one thing, but that’s not my understanding of what Rarible is, nor do I see a majority of the artists/creators on the platform support this. It’s only encouraging a new angle for wash trading and people milking the platform without adding true value, like the creators. I get the whole concept of having more users, activity, trades, data, blah blah, but it’s a major inconsistency in my opinion. Happy to hear other perspectives…

7 Likes

I 50% agree and then 50% disagree, this is because Rarible was never supposed to be just an ‘art platform’ but rather a marketplace, its Creators and Collectors - not Artists and Collectors. However, right now the inconsistency is huge and it may have never been an art platform but that is what it WAS and how it started out. I get we want Rarible to succeed and have high weekly volume like its 3k this week.

However we should balance it out and figure out a way before artists get annoyed about this situation, please if someone has a valid idea that won’t disadvantage others but rather give a fair advantage then make sure to say it! This is very important especially with the 10’s of ETH sold daily that is not art.

6 Likes

Agreed. I am hearing now in Telegram that apparently I was the only one who thought Rarible was only for artists and collectors. Maybe this was just my perspective and also what I wanted… the micro niche for NFT Art, not just NFTs. Thanks for your comments @loopify. If this is decentralized and there is true community governance, we will decide the fate of the platform and only way to know how everyone feels is to share.

I definitely understand where does this come from. I believe what needs to be done is a separation of categories

8 Likes

I think im with loopify on this one. Maybe they could do something where NFTs sold from the rarible contract, or contracts made via rarible could be weighted at 100% rewards. And then maybe something like random nfts would only get 50% of the reward.

Cuz it doesnt make much sense that you can just buy random nfts or game assets that have some value outside of just being art. Like you can literally buy a crypto punk or some art from super rare or something and make your money back from the rari.

3 Likes

Now that I’ve heard back from everyone and having a more clear understanding of Rarible’s goals, I agree and think that adding categories would help resolve this, along with refining the RARI Airdrop criteria. If Rarible continues this direction, I do believe there’s a great chance Rarible could surpass OpenSea and be the #1 NFT Marketplace

7 Likes

I also thought Rarible was a NFT art marketplace, and the categories do need to be fixed but more importantly a way to distribute RARI

2 Likes

I agree with this, I personally think it is in the platforms best interest to keep artists at the forefront because these are the people building connections with their fans and onboarding more artists and possible collectors. I think it would be more than fair to implement some sort of reduced distribution percentage for non-art items like ENS domains, game assets, etc…

2 Likes

same… it can also kill the other nfts values when you are gainging so much just from buying them… maybe once more users come to rarible it will be less of an issue since you would recieve a lot less of a reward

While I would love to see a continued focus on art, I can understand the wish to expand to other types of NFTs. I think the categories as indicated will resolve that issue. Make art the default category people see when they come to the site and you’ll likely keep us artists happy. Plus it’ll look prettier! :wink:

As far as distribution of $RARI goes, it would make sense to weight the tokens created by Rarible contracts more heavily than items minted elsewhere. This would encourage more people to create contracts on Rarible perhaps.

6 Likes

Now we have the issue of insurance. RIP

Proposal B, still in full effect. :innocent:

@AlexSalnikov is it you all’s plan to still reward users for trades of all NFTs on the Rarible platform?

We exclude wash traders from the distribution. If the insurance is a legitimate sale then it will receive an airdrop

But let’s keep track on how much was paid to the insurance guys. Maybe if it’s too much we can find a way for everyone to live under one roof

2 Likes

Not just Insurance but in general we need to track all collections and balance it out one way or another whether it be in percentages or max limit.

1 Like

I can already tell you that it is going to be way too much, I have been seeing 50-150 ETH sales all day long.

1 Like

Correct, it’s not a matter of it potentially being too much, it already is and will only get worse. Rarible is rapidly changing and expanding and that in general is great, but there need to be readjustments and balances.

The original proposals put in through @Neon and even @pak, where it created tiers for airdrops is more reasonable and imo a mandatory move at this time for fairness, just need to agree on the numbers. If you thought washing was bad before, just look to the past week and wait for what’s coming…

PS: I can’t wait to see filters/groups of art because Rarible homepage looks awful now with little no to art. Sad to see, but I understand that isn’t Rarible’s main focus.

3 Likes

How would you know it was wash trading? Based on surge of volume? Me and many others were not affiliated with Yumiko Creator and yet we were excluded from the airdrop…

Governance here is a joke if you choose to airdrop to whoever you deem fit, without proof

1 Like

I only learned about Rarible through recieving the airdrop, I think air dropping to NFT holders will drive more people to rarible, learn about it and grow the marketplace if that is the goal. Lowering the amount of the airdrop per holder of non rarible nfts should be considered. I didnt sell/trade any of the rari I received but I did receive a handsome ransom of rari for all the other NFT’s I have.

Hi there. I am new here. I am one of the yumiko nft purchasers. I have been trying to find someone to talk to about this. I filled out the distribution inquiry with no response. I also tried to have conversation in the telegram. I did not want to drag the chat down so I left. I am average guy who purchased a highly collectible nft. I still have all the purchase. I am not nterested in making enemies. Someone that is an artist here said I should have asked someone at rari if I would get airdrop. This is clearly not good advise. Think about this what if everyone asked about every nft whether there was reward for purchasing or not. I am not in anyway affiliated with artist and not the first clue how to wash trade. Overall I am wondering if everyone that bought this particular nft are being punished because one wallet purchased 4000+ of those nfts. Something just does not seem right. If there is supposed to be different categories. Ok no problem.
Best regard,
Advanced

yes … it is better to stop the airdrop or slow it down, until a better distribution system is adapted