Agreed, there’s def some trade off that should be compared. Setting each party to receive a piece of the royalty still comes with some cost.
@koloz
What if everything that would be claimed by a user was part of the same claim? Thinking of collector royalties here but also anticipate in the future that there will be more things we want to do that fall into this category of tx.
Claims from splits, royalties, rewards, airdrops, etc… would then stack up until it’s sufficient to justify the cost– combining the source of claims would in theory help it stack up quicker, and not have to pay for multiple transactions to claim from many different services.
If we use L1 then something with off-chain computation would be the most efficient (similar to collector royalties). Maybe this works more with a hybrid L2 solution. Making it solely L1 and on chain it gets tough to accumulate all of them, it would require telling the single claim user A gets X, user B gets Y which at that point might as well send out the funds rather than updating the contract to increase each individual user’s pending balance.
supporting this proposal too
1 Like
What happens next?
Post must be at least 20 characters have you tried the 
button?
2 Likes
As a business consultant who specializes in strategic partnerships, collaboration is the key element of my business strategy. I’ve been investing in this space for first hand experience, aka educational purposes. I was quite unpleasantly surprised to learn how difficult it really is to split payments, which is why I have been keeping my eye on the pulse. I am NOT a developer, not even close. My technical expertise is little to none, but I do understand business and workflow. I feel like the best solution to this would be to funnel all payments to 1 central wallet, like a crypto escrow. From there the contract can be split accordingly to every entity/stakeholder. The most interesting thing I have read lately, which seems like it would streamline this is the ZORA protocol. Enter ZORA V3 – ZORA ZINE This article may help, but pay close attention to the MODULE part as well. Because SuperRare is a DAO (which I am not a member, but trying to get into Spaces #Plywood Protest #superrare-2-0 ) this could very possibly make a whole lot of sense to incorporate.
I’m going some research into potential smart contract solutions. Once we have something that makes sense we can update the proposal with the technical solution and get some eyes on the code.
2 Likes
Agreed that having an escrow makes sense. I think it allows for more collaborators.
1 Like
A true collab option for artists is long overdue. Having trustless distribution of royalties and initial payment are huge for the artists who collab together. Also having both names listed in a more official manner is a much better look for collabs done on SR. I currently always mint collabs on other platforms since SR does not do this within the contract.
3 Likes
Thank you @Curator for sharing this link. It is the 2nd time in 2 days Tree Trunk was mentioned. A close colleague in the music industry told me to get familiar with what they are doing and I had almost forgotten. It’s very interesting but I have lots of questions. I joined their Discord and will absolutely be digging in. Have you looked into Zora Protocol? If not, start here Zora V3 I feel like if these 2 entities joined forces, they would get to where they are trying to go much faster. I can’t help it, my brain just goes to collab every time 
@DubG Thanks, I will check out Zora V3 and tell their team. I am of the same mind, always down to collab
Just chiming in here to state that this proposal cannot really be deemed complete until it has a more robust specification. Eventually the community should have the literal code that could achieve this functionality before it could go up for a vote - this should be a standard for all proposals that require executable code. I am loving the collaboration occurring in the thread though. The proposing Artist and the sponsoring council member seem to be in the best position to continue the conversation, solicit potential technical support from the community, etc…
1 Like
Thanks, I guess I do not understand what the DAO is responsible for. I have no idea how to implement something on the SuperRare code base. Is the community now responsible for the features in the SuperRare marketplace? What is the business model of SR?
What is the role of SuperRare Labs? I assume SR Labs has developers who can work on new features.
I thought we would vote on a proposal and then someone at SuperRare would add the feature. Perhaps this should just be a strong suggestion that SR should add this feature to remain competitive. A vote would signal that the community would like to have this feature.
Pooling and escrow is fine with me as long as you can deal with the tax implications.
I have no idea how to implement this feature.
I know that I would have minted a good number of pieces on SR instead of other platforms if there was a way to manage collaborations.
Even if there was an easy way for me to change the wallet address payments were made to I could create a contract on some other service that could perform the splits. As it is now the minting wallet is the only wallet payments can be made to.
Perhaps partnering with a separate service / DAO / company that would manage the pool and splits would work also. Do any exist?
Here is something I am sure the developers are already aware of How to Use OpenZeppelin’s PaymentSplitter | by mbvissers.eth | CodeX | Medium
Shouldn’t we decide to do collaboration splits before we decide how to do it.
It seems like there are a few options right now.
- Don’t make a collaboration split yet.
- Make a collaboration split that would only allow 2 to 5? collaborators.
- Make a collaboration split that has an escrow contract
- make a way to change the wallet address to be paid out on each individual artwork so that the address could be directed at a collaboration (multi-sig) wallet - is this even possible?
- study all possible options before deciding to to it at all
Do we really have to decide implementation before deciding to do it? I think SR is missing out on many sales because there is not a way to manage collaborations. I sort of like the idea of being able to change the wallet payout address on each artwork. Then I could create whatever contract I want to route the funds.
This sort of mechanic might be useful for implanting a way to pay some entity like a gallery for promotion of the art.
I think it’s not a matter of if but when. I’d love to see splits. I think it makes sense to settle on an implementation method. We’ve been doing some research on implementations and will post a recommendation asap.
My personal opinion at this stage would be pull based escrow because its more flexible and allows for more collaborators.
2 Likes
At the town hall today we discussed how this might be implemented. It seems that decision to do splits has been made it is only a matter of how.
The approach outlined would also work retroactively for V2 contracts. It would be a pull model where the erc-20 tokens for payment would go to a smart contract escrow and each member of the split would go collect the funds.
There would be two parts -
-
- One for implementing a smart contract for splits that would be an escrow contract. All parties in the revenue sharing would have access to a contract that would let them pull their percentage of the proceeds from it. In addition GUI UX changes would be made so multiple wallets could be assigned to a mint and buttons to allow the artists, charities and revenue sharing to collect the funds
-
- Two - creation of a way to sign an art piece NFT by multiple artists to mint as multiple people so each artist would be represented on the blockchain. It might be a matter of each artist signing the metadata or a custom contract for the collaboration. More study is needed.
It was suggested closing this SIP and opening two new ones when the technical approach is more solid.
But would it be helpful for community building and DAO practice to have the DAO vote on this SIP which was intended as a signal for beginning to work and think about implementing splits. It might signal to investors in RARE that the governance is maturing and that the members of the DAO have power.
