GP7 Measures DRAFT - NFT Rewards Pilot

For an intro about all GP7 proposed measures, please see this post.

Measure 5 - NFT Rewards Approval

NFT monthly trading volumes in February and March 2023 on Algorand have been reducing compared to the previous year – likely due to the continuation of the bear market and the MyAlgo hack, which impacted many NFT creators and collectors. In comparison, the impact on DeFI volumes has not been as strong.

NFTs are a significant part of the Algorand ecosystem and we may consider measures to boost Algorand’s NFT community and create growth across the NFT ecosystem.

The goals of this measure are:

  • To increase the number of users trading assets on NFT marketplaces
  • To increase NFT sales and volume* on Algorand (KPI = Volume)
  • New users to NFT marketplaces

*Volume refers to the amount of currency (ALGO, USD…) exchanged within the NFT ecosystem over a set period of time.

Criteria and other requirements for this program are available in [Terms of the Program](NFT Rewards T & C - Google Docs) (Please ensure you read the terms of the program before voting).

Measure 5
Should the NFT Rewards program be created with its pilot allocation starting in the next governance period?
Option A - Yes
Option B - No
The Foundation supports Option A.

Measure 6 - NFT Rewards Allocation

This measure is conditional on Measure 5 passing. Governors must vote on this measure, even if they voted “No” on measure 5.

If Measure 5 passes, Measure 6 proposes an allocation of either 250K or 500K ALGO to the NFT Rewards program pilot.

Measure 6
How much should be allocated to the NFT Rewards program pilot?
Option A - Approve 500K
Option B - Approve 250K
The Foundation supports Option A.


How will marketplaces be chosen? I think that it is important to have marketplaces that enforce creator royalties to help boost the ecosystem as a whole.

1 Like

Hey @LoafPickle did you read the criteria?

We’re taking feedback on that as well. Thanks!

No criteria in regards to Royalties being mentioned. Per the EXA lootbox structure, people will wash trade NFTs with no royalties set in order to pay the least amount of fees possible. Without proper incentive to take care of active projects, you will see rugged projects with 0% royalties set on EXA getting large amounts of volume, skewing the stats, while also pissing off the broader community.


Has the foundation given guidance into why rewards in the US is no longer allowed?


Start at (C): Disclaimers | Algorand Foundation

1 Like

Which marketplaces have legal entities in US, Canada and India?
Thinking specifically about Rand, AxN - are they ok?


I’m also curious why US companies are excluded from receiving funds. It seems extremely unfair to get an advantage based on geographic location. What happened to a borderless economy?

If there is some reason the Foundation can’t help US companies that should be made clear. Also, is there some distinction between receiving USDC and ALGO?

NFDomains will not be eligible based on this criteria even though we’ve done ~5m ALGO in volume.


Seems to be avoid issues with US Securities laws. Gensler strikes again. :pensive:


NFTs are a critical component of the ecosystem, and while this pilot is a good start it doesn’t go far enough.

NFTs drive adoption significantly. If the platforms are going to survive and grow in this space, they need volume. While 500k isn’t a small sum, in relation to how much is provided to the DeFi space, it is miniscule.

This is a definite Yes/A for me, but this should be increased significantly. Especially considering this will possibly be split between multiple platforms.

I don’t see how it will provide enough incentive to potentially draw people into the Algorand ecosystem, which should be the real goal here.

Again, good start, but we need to go bigger.

  • rewards should be somehow dependent on royalties since without those creators and their active work on their projects this wont help the ecosystem at all. imo no rewards to traders when trading 0% royalties listings and a gradual increase in rewards for trades dependent on the royalites (more royalites more rewards)

  • as LoafPickle said we need to make sure that dead or not active projects are excluded. just volume doesnt help the ecosystem, we need volume on active and ecosystem supporting projects


Great point on royalties based rewards.
Second point is harder, how would one define a dead project?


yeah its hard to distinguish dead projects from just less active projects right now. there could be a “trading volume” component and maybe something like social activity (discord, twitter, …?). the NFT council could look into the projects more and give opinions too

Yeah I was thinking it would be hard to classify “dead” projects. You can track volume over time I suppose, but that has a lot of complexity to consider. Especially considering the current NFT market. The royalties part is something that should definitely be considered though

This adds lots of complexity and workload for the council.

What of there was a way for a project creator to sign up for this program? A simple txn from creator wallet just to let everyone know the creator is alive and still follow the ecosystem. Of course the great rekey, and lost account issues due to the exploit would add some hurdles.

Taking my own project as an example, volume is very very low, but I’m super active in the community.


I think a lot of this will sort itself out. We saw the wash trading with dead projects on EXA because they force creators to set their royalties. If the bare minimum is a royalty has to be set, people will gravitate towards the active series anyways since they would probably like to still hold an active NFT.


There can be a way of adding in a new provision for rewarding users who have paid a minimum % of royalties / marketplace fees which should prevent wash trading


This is also an obvious yes for both.

This is so little money - at current valuations - that it’s worth a try even at 500k. Big difference though between 25MM for DeFi and this - maybe some consistency somewhere?