PVFD Odious PFP Royalty

Lets start taking some steps on the pfp. Lets set the royalty.

We, the FoundersDAO community, needs to agree upon a royalty for our upcoming Odious pfp. But what should that royalty be? Lots of ideas. But what is the purpose of the royalty? Do we need to have a purpose right now?

I think we all agree that we want the FoundersDAO, Pixel Vault, and Odious to all have a share of the royalties. I think its obvious why the FoundersDAO and Odious (artist) will get a share, but to just remind everyone, we are expecting Pixel Vault to do the technical part of this – which makes them very deserving of a share of royalties.

What we need to decide is what are the individual percentages of the royalty.

Do we set the fee low? Do we make it extremely high? Do we get really creative and do some sort of dynamic royalty that adjust based on time held?

And what is the purpose of the royalty? Imho, I see the royalty of all the products that the PVFD creates with various artists as revenue for the DAO. Revenue streams!

Lots of fun ideas, but I think for our first project we keep it simple. I propose a 2.5% royalty each for all three parties - 7.5% total. Simple. Not to complicated. We don’t need to be to adventurous or risky on this first product. Lets keep it simple.

What are some other ideas? Is there a reason to do something crazy and different? What are our goals for the pfp royalty?

I kinda like the idea of a dynamic royalty depending on hodl-time. It doesn’t have to vary by a lot, fees could default to 3x3% and then drop to 3x2% in the course of let’s say a year.

Does anyone know if that has been tried?

PixelVault has always been about innovating technologically alongside its content. We should keep that spirit.


I really appreciate your take. Particularly your enthusiasm for innovating on royalty options. Would love to see us co-create with PV an experimental idea. I mean, it could even be something crazy like 50% for the first week, 25% on week 2, all the way to 3% when it reaches 1 month. Lots of ideas on this tho. And would love to hear them! anyone have ideas/resources on dynamic royalty options based on time held?

The total fee shouldn’t be more than 5%, IMO. Even that is still high. 2.5% is ideal. 1.25% to odious 1.25% to founders DAO.


Furthermore as a DAO we should promote using Looks Rare. There is no reason why opensea should still have a 2.5% fee.


I do like the idea of the 3 parties getting royatlies being that PV is helping on dev side, however, I dont think it should be equal to pvfd and odious’ fee, I think PVs should be a bit less. I just dont know what it would be.

1 Like

Appreciate your input! but in your plan, who is executing the technical part of releasing our NFT? I imagined PV would do it, and if they do, then I think their professional execution, skill, and brand deserves a share of the royalty. OR who do you think is going to execute the technical part of this release?

This aspect was not discussed in the previous snapshot. It was described as 50/50 by odious. He should weigh in on what he meant by that. And if PV does the contract then they also own the contract. The contract should be deployed by foundersdao.ETH or by odious’ personal wallet.

You bring up another good point - we should have an official FoundersDAO deployment contract. This contract should release all our products, imo. Would love if we had a DAO owned deployment contract, etc. A great opportunity for a community dev to create a proposal for doing the work.

I think the 3way 2.5% (7% total) is fair and reasonably for the first period of “X” time. PV should be compensated even if only a small way as shows a good gesture and character of the FD community. I would suggest that after the “X” time has passed, could be 3, 6, 12months that the PV royalty has covered initial technical work and the royalty drops back to Odious 2.5%, FD 2.5% (5% total).


Don’t mind the idea of dynamic royalty

1 Like

Great compromise idea! Is creating this type of dynamic royalty structure is a technical challenge? devs?

Hello guys,
first, i totally agree that the total fees shouldn’t exceed 7,5%.
Second, PV, Odious and the DAO should get a part of it.
Third, i like the idea of something new/exotic in the field and i wnat to suggest you this :
Why dont get a fourth party involve “the hodler”:
with 2% fee for Odious, 2% for PV and 2% fo the DAO, for the last 1,5% fee we get a different mecanism > the 1,5% is initially for the DAO but the first holder to hold the NFT during 1 year in his wallet win it.
For example, you own a PVFD, and receive the PFP, you hold it 1 year, the contract say that now and till the end you’ll get 1,5% of each transaction on your PFP
Example 2, you own the PVFD and receive the pfp, you sold it after 6 months, the 1,5% goes to the dao the new buyer, hold it one year, he is now the one who get these 1,5% fees…

this gives us the ability to directly incentive holders to keep it for at least one year…


Hi everyone.
I’m inclined to favor a simple approach over a more complex/technical one.
With that in mind, I would support a middle ground on the fee, with a total of 5%, split 2-2-1.
2% FoundersDAO, 2% Collaborating artist/creator(Odious in this instance), 1% PV.

As an alternative, if a higher fee and more complex contract is preferred, we could do the following.
3% FoundersDAO, 3% Collaborating artist/creator, 1% PV and 1% to the OG minter in perpetuity.

Regardless of the fee total we settle on, I want to highlight the two main ideas i’m pitching here.

  1. That as a gesture of gratitude and respect to Pixel Vault, from the FoundersDAO for it’s creations and inspiration, a standard 1% goes back to PV from all future FoundersDAO products.
  2. That a standard 1% goes to the OG minter in perpetuity on all secondary sales of FoundersDAO nft’s.
    I have a pretty solid belief in no.1. I’m not married to no.2, though I do like the idea it was just a spontaneous one.
1 Like

“Revenue for the DAO” - what does that mean? How will the members benefit? A LOT of money and assets are being held - when do we benefit from being a holder? This is another revenue stream - will I see any of that revenue?

I am also in favour of low royalties. I would not imagine higher than 5% but potentially even 3%. @WestCoastWalker you make a great point on the technical piece - This doesn’t necessarily need to be paid for by royalty, it could be a one off piece of work done by PV (or anyone else under SOW). If you take this approach you only have to deal with 2 parties Founders DAO and Odious under a 50/50 split at a range of 1.5-2.5%.
Very excited about this and appreciate everybody’s engagement and ideas! :pray:

1 Like

The idea of dynamic Royalty sounds good, this would encourage holding the PFP for longer period of time

1 Like

I like the idea of keeping the royalty structure simple - just a set percentage for each of the different parties receiving royalties. While it would be a nice gesture to give PV a %, I think we should keep the royalties just between PVFD & Odious. We’re going to have to repay PV for all the legal wrapper work & personally don’t think it’s the best/smartest business decision to give up a portion of what is our first real revenue stream for the DAO. Additionally, I’ve been under the impression that as the artist, Odious will be receiving 50% of the royalties, so anything we’d hypothetically give PV will come out of the DAO’s 50%…

1 Like

Great forum topic @westcost… I could go for 1 of two things:

  1. even split where all 3 parties get a set % somewhere between 2-2.5.
  2. for innovation purposes it would be great to do a dynamic royalty but with a few goals:
    - Don’t steer people away because it seems “too complicated” etc
    - Do enough to make people interested and maybe even share out with other communities
    Example: something simple like 2.5% each for 1 month, 2% for 3 months, 1.5% ongoing.
1 Like

Ideally, royalty proceeds flow into the DAO in the form of ETH. As a PVFD holder, you have a claim to all the assets in the DAO. I suppose if the DAO voted to sell all assets and then divy among holders then we could do that. But I think most here want to build up the resources/revenue of the DAO so we can continue to add new items and build new things.