MIP-24 - Integrating Edenhorde NFT into Merit Circle Ecosystem

Integrating Edenhorde NFT into Merit Circle Ecosystem as Staking Booster.


Henlo. My name is Drcomot, and I hold both $MC and Edenhorde NFT. As a supporter of the Merit Circle ecosystem, I have noticed that there is currently almost no connection between Edenhorde NFT and the MC token. This has led me to propose an integration of Edenhorde NFT into the Merit Circle ecosystem, whereby MC token holders who stake their MC tokens and own an Edenhorde NFT will receive additional rewards on top of the existing APY.

Edenhorde is a media franchise from Merit Circle in the form of 8,800 non-fungible tokens (NFTs), driven by collective worldbuilding and intellectual property. It is the first genesis project under Merit Circle, and it acts as the flagship NFT project of Merit Circle and a gateway to the Merit Circle ecosystem.

Photo 1 Source: https://edenhorde.world/

The artwork and character design for Edenhorde has been done by Andy Ristaino, a former Emmy award winner with Adventure Time, well known for his work on The Midnight Gospel and an incredible cartoonist and designer. Edenhorde was launched on February 14th, 2022.

Although many people bought Edenhorde to support Merit Circle ecosystem, as of the time of writing, there are only 2,197 unique Edenhorde holders remaining, which is significantly lower than the 13,013 unique MC stakers.

It’s almost a 1:6 ratio!

*Photo 2 Sample Ratio Illustration. There are also Edenhorde holders who do not own or stake their MC tokens*

This represents a wide gap between MC token stakers and Edenhorde NFT holders at the current moment. Therefore, this proposal aims to make this gap better by incentivizing more MC token stakers to own at least 1 Edenhorde NFT.

The proposal seeks a 1,000,000 $MC token allocation to be distributed proportionately based on their staked $MC token, among $MC token stakers who own at least one (1) Edenhorde NFT for a duration of one (1) year. After the period ends, the continuation can be determined later through another proposal with a community vote.

It’s also important to note that only one Edenhorde NFT is required to receive the additional rewards, and holding more than one NFT will not affect the rewards calculation.

Based on the current price, a 1,000,000 $MC token allocation is equivalent to ~1% of the total value of $MC tokens being staked. This means that holding at least one Edenhorde NFT will provide an additional 1% APY on top of the existing APY as a Staking Booster (assuming all stakers own an Edenhorde). It is a win-win situation for both $MC token and Edenhorde NFT holders.

The rewards will be calculated on a daily basis (as per current MC APY calculation) and will be vested for 1 year.

Photo 3 Source: https://staking.meritcircle.io/

This proposal also requires community feedback on whether additional allocation is necessary to provide small-sized holders, who own and stake less than 10,000 MC token, with extra allocation. Providing additional allocation to these holders can incentivize them to participate more actively in governance and potentially lead to more decentralized DAO. To prevent bots, we propose a condition that requires the wallet to be at least 1 year old.

If the community agrees, this proposal seeks an additional allocation of 100,000 tokens as a layer 2 booster, which will only be distributed to small token holders on top of their existing APY and layer 1 rewards.

Where will this allocation of 1,000,000 tokens come from?

There are 2 options to be considered:

Option 1:
One of the beauties of Merit Circle is that there are many brilliant minds in the DAO. For example, Sad Cat Capital proposed a “buy-back and burn” mechanism in MIP-7, which has significantly improved $MC tokenomics.

To fund this proposal, we suggest using 1,000,000 MC tokens that were supposed to be burned, as generated from MIP-7.

I believe the amount of 1,000,000 token is reasonable, given the history of MC’s monthly token burns. For instance:
:heavy_check_mark: Oct 2022 🡪 11.3mil token were burned
:heavy_check_mark: Nov 2022 🡪 202mil token were burned
:heavy_check_mark: Dec 2022 🡪 8.3mil token were burned
:heavy_check_mark: Jan 2023 🡪 7.3mil token were burned
:heavy_check_mark: Feb 2023 🡪 7.1mil token were burned

The funding for this proposal could be executed through various methods:

  1. One-time allocation taken from the upcoming allocated tokens to be burned, provided the allocated token is more than 100%; or
  2. Withdraw a specific percentage of tokens in phases until the funding goal is reached. For example, only 10% of the allocation could be taken out every month until we reach 1,000,000; or
  3. Any other appropriate approach agreed upon by the core team/community.

By using the burn token allocation to fund this proposal, we can avoid putting any additional pressure on the Merit Circle ecosystem or its token holders. Additionally, this will help to create a positive feedback loop whereby the integration of Edenhorde NFT into the Merit Circle ecosystem will result in increased demand for $MC tokens, leading to more token staking and a reduction in circulating supply.

Option 2:
Token burning represents a crucial aspect of the tokenomics in Merit Circle. Therefore, taking a portion of the tokens that are meant to be burned could potentially upset some members. As an alternative, we could consider funding this proposal through the existing community incentives budget that is available in the Merit Circle wallet. This approach would ensure that we can support the proposal while still adhering to our tokenomics principles.

As an Edenhorde NFT holder, I have often heard complaints from other holders that the Merit Circle has abandoned Edenhorde and is solely interested in making a quick profit. The number of unique Edenhorde NFT holders has significantly decreased since the initial mint date, which suggests that the community is losing faith in the project. As a community member, I understand the concerns raised and believe that it is important to address them.

Photo 4 The reduction of Unique Holders since Day 1

One of the main reasons for the decrease in Edenhorde NFT holders is the lack of incentives for MC token stakers to own Edenhorde NFT. This proposal seeks to address this issue by incentivizing MC token stakers to own at least one Edenhorde NFT. By doing so, we hope to encourage more MC token stakers to support the Merit Circle ecosystem and, in turn, increase demand for Edenhorde NFT.

Moreover, there has been a significant drop in the floor price of Edenhorde NFT since its initial launch. As an Edenhorde NFT holder, I understand the frustration and concern of seeing the value of my investment decrease so drastically. However, I believe that by implementing this proposal, we can create more demand for Edenhorde NFT and ultimately help to increase their value over time.

Photo 5 Source: https://opensea.io/collection/edenhorde-official/activity

Why should Edenhorde NFT holders be rewarded?
Ultimately, this proposal is designed to reward MC stakers who support the whole Merit Circle ecosystem, rather than providing benefits exclusively to Edenhorde NFT holders. With this approach, the ecosystem becomes more inclusive and valuable.

It will encourage more MC token stakers to participate in the Edenhorde NFT project, which can lead to further growth and development of the ecosystem.

Needed support from the Core Team

As someone who is not technically advanced, especially in web3, support is needed from the core team to materialize this proposal, in terms of development, coding, auditing, etc. If the core team / DAO finds any better way to implement this, please do so. This proposal is designed to create value for both MC token stakers and Edenhorde NFT holders, and the support of the Core Team is crucial to its success.

To summarize the Proposal:

Photo 6 Summary of The Proposal, based on Option 1 on Funding

This proposal requires two key decisions to be made:

  1. Should additional funding be allocated to incentivize small token holders who own less than 10,000 tokens with extra rewards? This requires an additional 100,000 MC token.
  2. Where should the funding come from? Option 1 or Option 2?

The integration of Edenhorde NFTs into the Merit Circle ecosystem has several motivations, including value addition, incentivizing token staking, increasing adoption, promoting cross-pollination, and providing benefits to MC token holders who support the Merit Circle ecosystem.

It’s worth noting that if Edenhorde NFT is a success, it will give a good reputation image to Merit Circle as it’s their first genesis project .

The success of Edenhorde NFT will help Merit Circle to establish itself as a credible and innovative DAO that can deliver successful projects. This will help to increase the adoption of Merit Circle ecosystem and create a more loyal and engaged community.

I hope that the core team and the community (both Merit Circle and Edenhorde) will support this proposal and work towards its implementation, bringing more success and growth to the Merit Circle project.

“This is not the end, my friends. It is merely the beginning of a new chapter” – Oru #4359

Special thanks to the Edenhorde and Merit Circle communities for all valuable feedback while finalizing the first Edenhorde proposal. You know who you are :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:



From what i see, this proposal basically only benefits EH, since it will add utility to the NFT, at the cost of more dillution from MC token itself.
Basically MC staker need to own EH to keep earning the same as everyone else, if you dont own one = you get less reward.

I would personally vote NO, unless there is a clear benefit for MC token holder as well…

1 Like

Henlo Fext,

To clarify, owning EH alone won’t entitle you to receive the rewards, as they will be allocated based on the amount of MC that you have staked.

As mentioned in the proposal:

This proposal is designed to reward MC stakers who support the whole Merit Circle ecosystem, rather than providing benefits exclusively to Edenhorde NFT holders

In essence, the idea is that if you own MC and actively participate in the MC project, you will get more rewards.

1 Like

Yeah… just like what i said, it will force every MC staker to buy EH, which is good for EH.

But it doesnt benefit MC holder at all, since the benefit is at the cost of more dillution of the token itself. You need to buy EH to keep your earning in % the same compared to everyone else.

Basically you buy nft, or you get punished with less % compared to everyone else who own one. Its not a benefit imo

I saw very hot discussions around EH during months but refrained from participation so far - as mostly they were quite toxic. There was really the serious gap between expectations of EH holders and plans of MC DAO. And this gap wasn’t identified and managed properly and timely.

I don’t want to discuss who is right and who is wrong but the simple thought I have is - failure of EH would not benefit DAO’s reputation and right now EH is perceived as failed project (or at least not far from that). Each time DAO will start new initiative there will be voices like “will you abandon it same as EH”. If DAO remained a pure investment fund we could ignore and forget that but DAO is much bigger - Beam and Sphere are probably not the only great projects to be expected. So we need to care about reputation and we need to invest into reputation.

That’s why I support this initiative in general - without digging too much into numbers proposed (maybe will analyze and comment separately).

Disclosure: I own little number of EH and of course would prefer it to have value, but that’s negligible compared to my MC holdings - which is what I really care about.



Thank you Drcomot for the interesting proposal. Cutting to the chase I am in general agreement with bringing value back to EH and integrating back into the MC ecosystem. In response to Fext’s assertations, the way I read the proposal is that owning an EH means you receive slightly extra staking rewards, if you don’t then you get the same rewards as before…

When I joined the EH community, I was totally convinced that it was a core/integral MC project and would be valued within the ecosystem (on the basis of the road map from the MC team themselves and the hype they created). There was even talk of it receiving a proportion of fees from the game (that never happened). The way it’s turned out has created a negative vibe for me which looks bad for MC (I am invested in both projects).

I don’t see anything wrong with owning an EH giving small perks if you also invest in MC, this proposal is one way of achieving it, and any negatives seem small to me. I don’t think it significantly devalues the MC token or project in any way, any dilution would be negligible and evened out over a 2 yr period. A different amount could be agreed for the staking route, or it could be integrated into the new BEAM subnet somehow, through sphere, or the AMM.

Supporting EH is supporting MC. I’d like the DAO to get behind this and work out an acceptable way forward for the benefit of all holders of MC and EH.



First of all thanks for taking the time and putting in the energy to write a very well written and constructive proposal. Second of all a disclaimer, I stake ETH/MC and I own EH NFT’s.

I like the fact that this is one of the very few, maybe even first, idea to bring EH and MC comunities closer together and align them more. For that reason alone I’m gratefull. I will support the proposal and vote in favor as the upside for EH holders is there and for the MC dao and holders as well as it shows the dao will not just abandon a project when it gets rough. Not that it’s needed by the fact the EH card game is in full development but it will shut up fudders as well. For me the proposal is well thought through and constructed which i also compliment.

Thanks again for the prop and i say “AYE”


This proposal surprised me in a good way, because to me its just a great idea. It doesn’t devalue MC at all, and it brings EH closer to the ecosystem, its not just a “pump my bags” idea, its a really well thought out one. So congratulations to drcomot for this.

I may be a little biased, because I am an EH holder, but what I’m not is an MC staker. I honestly don’t know if more people staking or more MC staked benefits the DAO or not, but this proposal got me interested in getting more MC and stake it (I’ve just been trading it, buying and selling it for profit on binance) but this sounds interesting and might get me to buy MC on chain and stake it.

So I think its a win-win situation, and for the current price of EH, its a no brainer to get one if you have MC staked, if you already own both, then you just get more MC.

1 Like


I like the proposal! But I have some thoughts:

  1. Make it so only real accounts with activity throughout history is a requirement to avoid bots, P&D, hit-and-run, super whales, fake accounts
  2. Require both MC (how much?) and 1 EH
  3. Look at the weights of the needed MC. Let’s not overly reward super whales disproportionately (think of the little ones!!)
  4. Is there a way for real people to get more than super whales? I think there are people with like 500 EH who just did a flip trade and are very salty due to market conditions. I have ~20 myself, but I want to be seen as 1 for example as that is more fair overall and rewards real people and not flippers.

As this is effectively an airdrop (with vesting), is it really needed to make some fancy smart contract for this, or can it be done in an easier way? I’d argue that making a separate page, dapp, contract costs more than even the 1m MC itself. My 2 cents.


1 Like


Wow, I’m so happy to see everyone’s feedback on this proposal. Thank you so much!

Firstly, I would like to reiterate that the main intention of this proposal is to encourage MC holders to fully support the ecosystem. We know that EH is the MC’s first baby, and at the moment, I see almost no connection between MC and EH. The proposal aims to create a stronger connection between the two and also encourage MC holders to contribute to EH’s growth and success.

This proposal also to inspire more proposals from the EH community.

Based on the feedback I received from here and Telegram:

Whales concerns
To avoid the whale game, the proposal suggests allocating rewards based on staked MC, meaning that splitting MC into multiple wallets just to get more rewards will not be beneficial. There is no point in splitting them into different wallets with more EH in each wallet to enjoy the same number of rewards.

But still the whales get more rewards in terms of the quantity of MC?
The answer is definitely yes, but it follows the current APY design where there is no weightage formula based on count stake.

How can we solve this issue imo?

  • One solution (as proposed) is to give extra allocation to small holders (proposed definition: with <10k MC), with an additional budget. To put it into a different perspective, if we total up the budget, it can also look like putting weightage in the distribution formula.
  • Another solution could be changing the allocation, for example, only allocating 800k as the standard allocation for all with 300k allocated only to small holders, giving higher weightage to small holders in totality.
  • Or we could cap the maximum distribution per wallet, for example, only up to xxxx MC per wallet. But this may lead to a risk of the whale game, where they will split the staked MC into multiple wallets to maximize rewards.

Why give MC as rewards instead of airdropping any other things that connected with MC?
Getting more MC as rewards is the most attractive way to encourage MC holders/stakers to support this initiative. Some holders may not really interested in other projects, so airdropping other products may not be impactful. We’ve tried before where you get whitelist (some are free mint) of NFT project as part of a community incentive, but it turned out to be a failure. Some of the giveaway projects (like Sprite, Lorem NFT) completely lost their value (almost zero).

MC holders like myself are always looking to increase our MC holdings by either buying, staking, or supporting the ecosystem. Hence, I think MC is still the best reward for this proposal.

There are many projects in the pipeline, and we should let the developers focus on big impact projects like Sphere or BEAM.
I completely agree with this. This proposal does not request immediate implementation. The core team and core community members could discuss and agree on which projects should be prioritized. It could also be done together with the next APY implementation in November (even though I hope it’s not that late, haha).

Lastly, I always portray EH as the oldest brother in the family. Typically, the oldest brother face greater challenges, feel less loved, and work harder to ensure their siblings can live comfortably. I don’t want EH to be a worthless brother - I want it to become the kind of brother that everyone is proud of.


Hey @drcomot, thanks for the proposal!

First I would like to say that it’s great to see you putting in time and efforts to create a proposal with Edenhorde in mind.

Although I’m all for ideas that make Edenhorde great (personally I’m a big fan of EH) I have one major legal concern which unfortunately is a deal breaker for me (I also mentioned this to you in DMs before the proposal was published and which I don’t see you have mitigated or otherwise taken into account).

The proposal in essence proposes to make you eligible to “yield” by simply passively holding EH (in combination with already staking MC). If there’s anything regulators are cracking down on, it’s these types of yield bearing arrangements and I don’t want MC DAO or Edenhorde to take on this risk. You can try to be smart around it and call it something else, but I don’t think the argumentation will fly in the event of enforcement action. “Staking” NFTs like this (which is not really staking) and obtaining “yield” is not the way I think.

If you want some form of yield relating to your NFT, the way is probably to obtain this through the IP, namely through royalty (like e.g. creators typically get through mints and secondary sales). If you own IP, you could license it out to “x” for use case “y”. The structure on this is however not easy as it needs to take into account NFTs shifting hands on the secondary market all the time, so I’m still unsure about how to do it technically. I’m however looking into exploring that further. We also need to find what that use case “y” might be for EH (i.e. rationale for licensing it out to someone) – it might be something game related in the future or otherwise.

I hope that this post is not received as written in bad faith or similar; I want both MC and EH to be around for a long time and I really think both are just at the start of their journeys. That’s also the reason I would like to steer away from risky regulatory moves like this likely is.

As a final note, I’m not sure if I agree that there is almost no connection between the Edenhorde NFT and the MC token; an apparent connection is that you can utilize the MC token to govern the MC DAO treasury, which for instance could imply funding developments directly within the Edenhorde sphere. I think that generally is a strong point for EH for the future, as many MC holders do genuinely want EH to succeed.

1 Like

Yo Cryptolawyer

I think you missed my response in our DM regarding the security concern. As I did not receive a response from you, I assumed this matter had been addressed. haha sorry for the confusion!

Regarding potential security concerns, would it be possible to ride on existing MC staking, instead of saying it provides dividends directly to the NFT? Just to clarify, owning EH alone won’t entitle you to receive the rewards, as they are allocated based on the amount of MC that you have staked. This currently operates in accordance with the existing staking design (not sure about potential security concern on existing MC staking).

This proposal is just simply a special condition that is set to provide a booster on top of the existing APY.

If I can take another scenario for example (which I have observed elsewhere), linking your social media (eg Twitter or Discord) can increase your level, and subsequently lead to better rewards. I don’t think this approach would make Twitter/Discord a security.

Happy to hear more feedback on this issue.


I think I might have forgotten to give you a response to that latest DM (sorry about that), but there was unfortunately nothing there that changed my response to you then or now.

I understood the part that owning EH alone won’t entitle you to receive rewards, but that will in all likelihood not matter. It’s not about EH being or becoming a security; the crypto asset in itself is likely not, although some regulators might disagree there as well depending on the jurisdiction. It’s the yield arrangement that is structured so that it will likely be comprised by relevant securities (or similar) regulations in various jurisdictions where various EH holders reside.

Sorry, but I don’t see how to mitigate the risk here (wish I did), and therefore the risk/reward doesn’t add up to me. Not meaning to take anything away from your proposal or efforts into making this work - hope you keep that up whatever the outcome of this proposal.


Thanks so much for the feedback. It’s crucial to have input from various perspectives within the community for this proposal. This ensures that not only will it benefit everyone, but it will also comply with any legal requirements and guidelines.

Although I still don’t see any security risks associated with this idea (with justification it simply an extra condition for obtaining a higher level of rewards on top of existing staking design, which also could be anything, not necessarily owning an NFT), probably due to my limited knowledge on this particular area. I greatly appreciate this feedback and will certainly take it into account.

Trust me, this proposal has been developed with the intention of not violating any laws, and I 100% agree that we should not jeopardize Merit Circle’s future success in any way.

I would love to hear further input from the community, especially from OrangPill, on this specific matter.

Cheers mate

Thanks @drcomot. As you still don’t see any risks associated with this, please let me elaborate. There are mainly two risk elements from my point of view:

  • Risk of the MC tokens offered through this arrangement to be construed securities offerings in certain jurisdictions
  • Risk of EH being construed securities in certain jurisdictions

As I see it, what you’re proposing here is a yield program where you obtain “yield” (in the form of MC tokens) by virtue of holding the NFT – as I said, you can call it whatever you want, but the regulator will apply a substance over form approach when looking at it (the laws are construed so that it shouldn’t be easy to bypass). The act of the tokens being distributed through buybacks are likely also the more risky approach compared to the one where you utilize non-bought-back tokens, although I don’t find the choice of the two decisive.

The tricky bit is that there is really no limit as to which jurisdictions’ securities laws may be relevant, because EH could be held by anyone at this point; it has been trading on-chain for a while and is not controlled by the initial issuer. The securities laws vary between jurisdictions and some are stricter than others. To be fully confident in the risk with this, we would in essence need to assess all securities laws (and other relating laws). That is however not feasible of course, so a more sensible risk-approach would be to at least assess the risk in the larger jurisdictions and the ones with the most aggressive regulators to date.

If we look at the securities laws in the US for example (clearly the most aggressive), the “investment contract” test (Howey test) would be one of the more relevant to consider. This has lately been applied in lawsuits from the SEC in relation to yield bearing arrangements on CEXs (Coinbase wells notice, and Kraken case, where yield derived from “true” staking for validation purposes was argued to be an investment contract). Based on the case law to date, I’m not fully comfortable that the test’s four elements are not met. Note that it’s the “offering” through the yield arrangement as such that is likely to be considered as an “investment contract”. This doesn’t imply that the token in general becomes a security; the Howey test doesn’t require that the token itself is construed a security - it’s sufficient that the “investment contract” (the implied transaction – here the yield arrangement) qualifies as one. Even Bitcoin can be offered as a “security” as part of an investment contract.

If we look to other jurisdictions than the US, we have limited case law, as they haven’t been as aggressive in their enforcement. We certainly have jurisdictions with fairly similar securities tests as the US with the Howey test, such as e.g. Canada.

As for the EU, the assets as such would in all likelihood not be construed as “financial instruments” (i.e. securities) under the legal definitions used in the current legislation, but that doesn’t automatically mean that you’re necessarily home free. MiCA was just approved on 20 April, and as part of MiCA, it has been decided that the securities authority in the EU, ESMA, will be issuing guidelines on the criteria and conditions for when crypto-assets should be qualified as “financial instruments”. It’s not clear what these guidelines will look like (they won’t likely be available until late 2024 or early 2025 - EU is luckily more sensible in that they are approaching this by way of legislation first rather than enforcement). We can however look at earlier MiCA drafts that include added text with hints of what ESMA will be looking at. The following is taken from the 17 March 2022 draft version of MiCA and its “preamble”:

Moreover, crypto-assets that have the same or very similar features to financial instruments should be treated as equivalent to financial instruments, insofar they provide profit […] or a claim on a future cash flow. Such crypto-assets should be subject to Union financial services legislation and not to this Regulation. In order to achieve legal clarity regarding which cryptoassets fall under the scope of this Regulation and which crypto-assets are excluded, ESMA should specify the conditions under which a crypto-asset should be treated as a financial instrument based on its substance and regardless of its form.


this Regulation should apply to non-fungible tokens that grant to its holders or its issuers specific rights linked to those of financial instruments, such as profit rights or other entitlements. In those cases, the tokens should be able to be assessed and treated as security tokens, and be subject, together with the issuer, to various other requirements of Union financial services law.

It should be noted that it’s unclear what the applicable law is at this point, so I can’t give a certain conclusion based on the above (personally mostly worried about the US). Nothing in this space really is clear either, so it’s a matter of looking at the risk (which is there in this particular instance) and considering what risk anyone is willing to take on.

A potential solution would be to block certain jurisdictions from participating, i.e. the jurisdictions where you, after a risk assessment, land on the conclusion that there is a likely risk that this will be in breach of relevant regulations unless registered.

These questions are difficult and the applicable laws and regulatory situation is uncertain. In my opinion, more clean cut yield arrangements have been subject to enforcement actions, and therefore I’m not comfortable with voting yes on this (the risk/reward doesn’t justify it for me).

Thanks for bringing this topic.

Staking booster is a good idea, 2 additional suggestions:
[1] Adding additional lock-up period to those tokens which are accumulated by adding EH NFTs.
[2] Regarding to potential legal issues, after staking the EH NFT (Locked in a certain period), airdrop a SBT to represent the Booster (Can be burned when EH staking revoked by owner). Staked NFT->SBT->APY increase.
Since SBT is untradeable and untransferable, this might be helpful for DAO to avoid potential legal issues.

Wish you all the best.


We have read and digested the proposal and would like to thank Drcomot for this well-written piece.

We, as Orange Pill, recognize the problems you, Drcomot, describe regarding Edenhorde.
This has been shown through our extensive communication a couple of weeks back on the state of Edenhorde, our plans for it, and the fact that we keep investing in people helping to build products for the ecosystem.

Internally we have had some initial discussions on your proposal and responses are divided. However, given the response from Cryptolawyer, we are convinced that this simply is not the right move to make. Given the risks associated with the implementation of this proposal, and the tightened regulations across the board, this move seems to unnecessarily raise alarm bells.

Therefore, we want to mention that we are not in favor of this proposal. Don’t get us wrong, we, as Orange Pill, are actively working to improve Edenhorde daily and we are happy to see a new proposal.

However, we are doing this through looking for people willing to spend time and energy in building fun experiences for Edenhorde holders and believe that by doing this long term the demand for the Edenhorde NFTs will increase. At the same time, as announced before there are projects being developed right now for the benefit of Edenhorde NFTs

Hi, it is certainly an interesting proposal but I don’t think this is the best use of time or resources for the DAO. It will take a lot of time and I think that time could be spent better elsewhere. The team will continue to work on Edenhorde so I don’t think this in necessary. Appreciate the proposal and thought but I will be voting no.

Thank you

The proposal is now up for voting here.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.