DAO - Expanded Voting Power: Include Unicorns & Land

Following up on the idea from @JonnyFiat

We should expand the voting power of the DAO to include Unicorns and Land.

I do think that to make this happen, a lock period needs to be initiated, with a weighted multiplier, just the same as RBW.

I think this can be accomplished by adding an additional contract layer to the game lock that is already built into the contract.

This would need analysis by the CU team, prior to moving to the proposal phase. We would need some more information on the potential impact (number of lands/unicorns, and growth over time), contract costs/feasibility, and anything more I may be missing.

Feedback and suggestions are welcome!

Please vote to signal interest in having the CU team conduct an analysis.

  • CU Team, please conduct further analysis so a proposal can be written!
  • We like the DAO the way it is! No more votes!

0 voters


This is a great idea. In addition to quadratic voting, this should provide a second lever to LG to give power to the players.


Thank you for running with this idea. Taking a page from Decentraland, they include all valuable assets because the Community is not just token holders. I personally would prefer to have my money in the game in the form of Unicorns, Shadowcorns, and LAND and consider those assets worthy of voting power (VP).

I don’t necessarily agree with the lock period on the assets, but happy to hear more on that.


Thanks for the feedback JonyFiat!

One of the big reasons I see for implementing a lock to have voting power, is to help mitigate vote manipulation. Without a lock, a vote would be a lot more susceptible to manipulation, in the form of someone sweeping assets - voting - dumping assets. Perhaps the snapshot “snapshot” that is taken when a proposal is created is enough to mitigate this.

I also like the idea of having a lock period, simply to add a multiplier variable (as said previously, another lever for CU to balance with). Having an unstaked asset, with voting power, I think is a very feasible option still, even with having lock add a multiplier and I would support having a tier of unstaked getting X power, assuming we have mitigated the above stated risks.


The biggest difference between NFTs and the fungies is that you can’t dump NFTs like you can dump tokens in an AMM. If there’s a sweep for voting power, they likely will be stuck with those assets. I’m good either way, but it might be overkill to have that function.

This is true, and maybe its not a bad thing if somebody feels inclined to do so.

1 Like

Thanks for writing this, nftgibby! We believe it might be possible to apply a 1:1 NFT to voting power relationship without disrupting the RBW tokenomics if this gets enough support from the community. We’ll be checking with Snapshot on its applicability.


Great, thank you for the response.

If this gains enough support, will the team be able to conduct a study into both weighted values, and potentially locking assets?

1 Like

For now, we’re looking into a 1:1 relationship. We feel that it’s what will best apply considering our tokenomics. As for locking assets, I don’t think that would be possible with Snapshot. What we’re doing right now is coordinating with Snapshot regarding having different concurrent strategies running for a single vote! :slight_smile: In general, voting power is not retroactive as snapshot bases it on what you have at the time the voting was queued.


Are you suggesting that 1 NFT = 1 RBW?

I think what you meant is 1 NFT : 1 voting power, but yes, that is what we believe we can work with. That’s the very basic idea but we’ll be looking into this further.

1 Like

If 1 NFT = 1 VP and 1 RBW = 1 VP… frankly that would be a waste of time to even move forward with that. I’ll pull some more data on how Decentraland does it.

Decentraland and Crypto Unicorns have different tokenomics so it’s not ideal to compare them directly. Currently, what we see as viable is having a 1:1 relationship. We’ll be looking into this more closely and sharing more information if this gets enough following or if the author decides to push through with the proposal.

1 Like

I do think it would be of value to continue to look closely at a 1:1 relationship.

This would be a start, and could always be modified down the road, but I do think it would be a step in the right direction.


I’ll communicate this request with the team and we’ll look into this more closely. @nftgibby, do you know when you want to write a proposal?

I assume I should wait for the analysis first? I’m ready anytime!

Feel free to start writing! We’re just currently preoccupied due to the most recent tuning changes but I’ll get back to you with the values so we could just plug it in if ever!

Sounds great, and no worries on the delay, I know you and the team have bigger fish to fry!

I would like to update that the person who’s meant to do the initial study on this is on paternity leave and with the winter holiday around the corner, it may take a while for us to get this back on the pipeline even upon his return. Rest assured though that this is not forgotten. As this didn’t really get enough DAO support, we will prioritize the more urgent and critical tasks upon return. Thank you for your understanding!

Thank you for the follow up Nanessa!