GP11 NFT Rewards - ALGOxNFT

Hey Algorand, here’s our proposal for this quarter:

Let us know what you think!

It is as lazy as it the last one was wow… why just top collector/creator? If you are a close 2nd/3rd this feels so bad and we saw the drama this period already so change it finally.

Also you mention how great those incentives worked but some of these collections just exist to farm your rewards and that’s a good thing? Existing collections have already a hard time and the only thing this focus on primary and new collections does it makes it even harder for existing projects + those new projects will just have to deal with the same problem as all the existing collection which is no secondary volume. You are doing an awful job and don’t think at all about what you actually incentivize with those rewards and what it does to the ecosystem. Listen finally to feedback or you don’t deserve rewards at all!


Definitely understand where you’re coming from.

On why just the “top creator/collector”, we are given a limited amount of funds. If we split the prizes up even more, the attractiveness and incentive is drastically reduced. Some of these creators put in months of work, so the prize has to be large enough to be commensurate there.

Also see what you’re saying about whether our last proposal excelling at the metrics the NFT Rewards Program is meant for is necessarily the best approach. Ultimately, we have to follow the program rules and make proposals to achieve its goals, which has been the case.

If there was no constraints on what the goals are, or how the funds can be used, we think there would be a lot of potential avenues to go down, but as it is, we have to follow what the program’s goals are.

We wrote a section in the proposal explaining how the feedback from social media, Algorand forums, and other sources was directly incorporated. The new changes come directly from that feedback, so we always appreciate hearing more of your thoughts!

I think the 2 week period and split between collector/creator definitely helps and is a good improvement.

I don’t fully follow the single winner logic still, or the push back you had last period to extend it to more winners - I think you’re the only marketplace looking to incentivise primary/new mints again this period… so it follows that you’ll likely capture the lions share of primary drops no matter what you do.

A three-way split could still heavily weight the top spot, but at least offer some consolation prizes, something like:

1st: 15k
2nd: 5k
3rd: 2.24K

2 week periods will likely increase the instances of two or three very deserving projects clashing in the schedule… and it’s not always the project that put in the most months of work that wins.

I’ve watched buddyman work on a drop for 3 months, only for a new larger generative project announce a drop in the same week leaving him with zero chance… with more winners per period you’d at least have a consolation prize for people that put in months of work but don’t have a drop that fits a highest volume outcome - something is better than nothing.

I’ve also watched the week previously a project win whilst not selling out half their shuffle, winning more Algos than the volume created - which feels a bit absurd and wouldn’t have happened if the prizes were split between more winners. It also indicates that a single winner prize isn’t a guarantee at bringing in new projects or buyers.

I’d account a lot of the uptick in volume simply from established Algo creators delaying their long awaited drops for this event - I’d anticipate there’s going to be less build-up of quality projects (with sometimes months long teases/marketing) going into a second period of this style reward system and it might be worth thinking how you pivot with that in mind.


I think doubling the weeks is a mistake.

I’d rather see bye weeks to give people a chance to recover funds or have 4 straight weeks.


A winner on the creator and the collector side? That was the change? I don’t know if this proposal will be effective at pushing Algorand forward.

I think the community has enough data to show your program is wildly unpopular at this point. Consider joining exa and distributing the rewards across a wider audience. It would be better for your marketplace and for the community.

Another thing you can do is 5% match. For every 5% we spend, you match 5%.


Please provide a very detailed rules about wash trading and projects/creators buying their own nfts. While your incentives are definitely working to bring volume to axn, i firmly believe that more than 50% of it is wash trading or gray zone inside buys.

I love your plan though and it’s working. gj!


Any way to paste the contents of that Notion site here to this forum?

1, so the proposal can be read on this forum
2, so we know if verbage changed. on an external site, paragraphs can be added
3, so everything is open and transparent
4, so terms are searchable on the forum

Thx so much. Love the new airdrop features. AlgoX is filling in the airdrop gaps of other marketplaces. Love u :heartbeat:


Added a section to discuss wash trading, let us know if you think this needs more detail:

  • Participants must adhere to the NFT Rewards program rules, including prohibitions against wash sales.
    • The creator, defined as the owner of the project, must not purchase from their own primary drops on ALGOxNFT.
    • Talent that the creator hires to create art, tech, manage the community, etc. are allowed to purchase from the primary drops, as long as they do not own the project (i.e. they are not the creator).

Adding the actual proposal text here:

Our plan is simple and effective:

  • It will consist of 4 period, each 2 weeks in length.
  • Each week:
    • The creator with the most primary AXN sales will win ~22,248 ALGO
    • The collector with the most primary AXN purchases will win ~22,248 ALGO
  • Every Monday after a period ends we will announce the winners after vetting their participation, and once cleared, we will send them the prizes.


  • There is no limit on how many times someone can win.
  • Participants must adhere to the NFT Rewards program rules, including prohibitions against wash sales.
    • The creator, defined as the owner of the project, must not purchase from their own primary drops on ALGOxNFT.
    • Talent that the creator hires to create art, tech, manage the community, etc. are allowed to purchase from the primary drops, as long as they do not own the project (i.e. they are not the creator).
  • Drops must be of new NFTs, i.e. no recycling old NFTs:
    • The new NFTs can be part of an existing collection or new one, but the ASA and associated art/video/creative must never have been sold before.
      • There is a special consideration for ASA with total counts higher than 1, i.e. multi-mints.
      • For example:
        • Creator drops a collection with 1 NFT with 100 units at 2 ALGO per unit.
        • Creator sells out their collection, generating 200 ALGO in primary sales volume.
        • The entire sales volume above (200 ALGO) would count towards the competition.
        • Any sale past the unit count would not count.
          • So the 101st sale of that NFT would not count towards the total.
      • The reasoning for handling multi-mints this way is that otherwise, a booster pack/traits style collection (e.g. “Pokemon Card like” boosters or R.A.V.E.N) would find it almost impossible to win, as most of these are implemented using a single ASA for the pack.
      • That said, as illustrated in the example above, we will only consider the first N sales of that multi-mint for the rewards calculation, where N is the total units that multi-mint ASA has.
    • This will be a powerful mechanism to help us discourage wash trades, as seen in Q1 of our rewards program.
  • Both existing Algorand NFT creators and new creators are welcome to participate.
  • No NFTs that are purely “raffle tickets” or merely coupons/entries.
    • Booster packs in the vein of “Pokemon Card style” packs are not considered raffle tickets in this sense.
      • Each booster pack guarantees something inside, whereas a raffle tic*et could end up being worthless (i.e. nothing inside).
  • All rewards are subject to review for activities that may disqualify them.
  • Sales must happen during each week’s time period (from Monday 12am EST to Sunday 11:59pm EST the next week) and count only toward that period.
  • Primary sales volume will be ranked by the creator wallet.
    • If a creator wants multiple collections to count cumulatively towards winning, they should use the same creator wallet (and different unit name prefixes if they’d like) for both collections.
    • For example, if a creator creates 10 collections with the same wallet and does 1k ALGO in primary sales within the same week, then they have 10k of primary sales towards winning.
    • On the other hand, if the same scenario happens, but with 10 different wallets , then they would at most rank with 1k ALGO in primary sales volume.
  • Sales volume will include primary sales of NFTs on ALGOxNFT through:
    • Auctions
    • Buy Now
    • Shuffles

We had the same concerns before the program about the “1 prizer per week” policy. Thankfully it does seem like this approach was pretty popular looking at the volume, and did accomplish the stated goals of the program effectively across the board. The match idea is interesting, might have seen it on another proposal.

It undoubtedly greatly incentivised a concentration of primary drops on AxN.

This doesn’t mean it was popular, it just shows that if you’re the only marketplace in the ecosystem to incentivise primary, then people will move their primary drops to your platform.

Rewarding more creators could have very well achieved greater volume as smaller collections might feel like they have a chance for example.

Maybe hold a poll on twitter to find out if people enjoyed the 1 prize per week policy or would prefer more prize winners per week with a smaller reward each?


Yeah I understand what you’re saying, I’d recommend checking our ARC-49 if you haven’t to see what the goals of the program are:

There’s always going to be different approaches, but looking at the objective results this quarter, our proposal had:

  • Highest number of new wallets
  • Highest number of active wallets
  • Highest amount of sales
  • Highest volume
  • Most collections launched
  • Most social media impressions and engagement
  • (this one is arguable) Most cross chain users

From that viewpoint, that carries a lot more weight than a Twitter poll, since it’s actual results rather than the sentiment of whoever jumps on that tweet.

On the point about whether 1 prize significantly discourages participation, it just wasn’t what the data actually showed. Even your example of the past week… multiple collections launched knowing that there’s only 1 winner. So from the actual results, “one winner” did not have a significant impact in dissuading people from participating.

1 Like

Thank you for sharing this info here. Insightful. I didn’t knew about this ARC

1 Like

If you’ve found the absolute best incentive first try, then all marketplaces should also run single winner primary rewards and we can really see the ecosystem takeoff.


Agreed! All this ecosystem needed this entire time was just to pay creators to sell NFTs!

To the moon!

Notion is nice for organizing notes and such but if we already have a Forum, the information should just be directly available on the forum. Tangent aside, I’ve summarized the proposal from Notion and I am providing it below.

Current Proposal TLDR:

  • Rewards are now given out every two weeks
  • ~22.25kA for the collection with largest volume from primary sales
  • ~22.25kA for collector with largest volume from primary buys
  • Wash trade rules in place: project creators (excludes project team members) can’t buy their own collection from primary

My Thoughts:

The reward distribution method is weak and short-sighted. The only major difference between this proposal and the last proposal is that there is an additional collector reward category. Neither category (collection and collector) rewards benefit the ecosystem in the long term.

The issues are as follows:

  1. Only new projects are eligible so the platform incentivizes a lot of pump and dump projects (even if there are also good new projects) while neglecting older projects that are still around.
  2. One winner for each category means those that are close seconds/thirds get nothing. There should be some sort of consolation prize.
  3. If we do entertain the platform’s one-winner-takes-all proposal (which I am against), it’d probably be better to just have the competition duration be a week instead of two weeks. The competition length being longer causes more clashes between collections in a small ecosystem. In addition, smaller collections lose right from the get-go against larger collections with the longer duration competition IMO because larger collections have more that they can sell for a longer duration.
  4. You get artificial “Objective Results” that are not sustainable nor truly beneficial for the ecosystem. Looking at the charts, has the platform meaningfully retained the active wallets post-drops? I don’t believe so… During primary drops, unique active wallets (UAWs) are around 200-250 and when there are no primary drops, UAWs drop to ~50-100.

At the moment, I don’t know what can be done to better the NFT ecosystem BUT I can 100% assure the platform that this proposal is not it. Better to save those ALGOs for some better solution.


Honestly, the only real criticism I have here is the two week periods. Seems too long and since volume is typically measured in 1D, 7D, and 30D increments, I think having the volume spikes closer together makes more sense overall.

I would like to see a bye week thrown in between instead, just so people can cooldown and load up for the next drop.

Appreciate your feedback, but please be kind. We want to include both creators and collectors, as both are vital to the NFT ecosystem. We will continue to enforce the proposal and ARC-49 rules in this rewards period and the next.

1 Like

Looks like an improvement. I also want to make the argument that splitting the winnings 85/10/5% for 1st/2nd/3rd could further increase activity. Personally i dont compete in winner take all style competitions as i know my/my capitals limitations. However, going for third place on a quiet round might be a little tempting. Anyway, I’m really glad to see your platform is adding rewards for collectors this round. Initially i wasnt a fan of only rewarding primarily and not secondary but it does seem to have worked, so congratulations on sticking to your guns on that one.

1 Like