Why hiring directly instead of a SIP? Is an interesting question. I have thought of it myself as I believe our NFT collection should be managed instead of sitting still.
However:
what I think does not count, I must remain neutral
A direct hire will mean salary/fees paid from the OPERATION budget l, and this position was not budgeted for.
it gives us less flexibility as the OPERATION budget is much smaller than the rest of the budget that is opened to the community, via SIP
Hiring @Arthemort directly felt like going against the community’s wishes because his first SIP got already “rejected” because of lack of quorum.
if the admin team start doing everything directly then decision making gets more centralised which is not what we are trying to do with this DAO
finally, for what it’s worth, If I would have hired somebody directly I would probably still have picked @Arthemort anyway because:
He has been recommend by the council (always reinsuring to hire recommended people compare to complete strangers)
Having met him a few times, he seems perfectly competent and conducted himself like a pro (judging from high level as I’m not an expert in his field)
Wanted to share this with you all. Google’s Notebook LM allows you to paste text and then create a short podcast episode between two AI co-hosts. All for free! I’m a big fan, it’s surprisingly really good. Learned this from our friends in Star Atlas DAO.
The SIP language may not spell out the safeguard details, but neither the NFTs nor the money made selling them would ever leave the custody of the Admin Team.
First of all, I would like to explain a little bit about my view on NFTs.
For me, if NFT has no usefulness, it is just a JPEG, Video etc. file.
I don’t think it makes sense to invest in NFT artworks except for a few artists who are good at their art.
I think the NFT collection should be managed, but I think we should go for things that are easy to buy and sell and that can be liquidated quickly. Your proposal doesn’t make sense considering the state of the market and the fact that the NFT FOMO is no longer there.
We delegates are responsible for the DAO’s budget. We have to use it properly. For me, investing in NFT artworks is not the right way to do it.
Even if the target is reached, the SIP budget is too high. I think that this SIP will in any case be detrimental to the DAO and its budget.
@DrMetaverso I don’t think it’s a problem if somebody comes from outside and tells us something. If he is good at his job, it is acceptable. After all, fund managers of a company can be 3rd party companies. That’s why DAO exists. For someone who is good at their job to come and suggest things to us.
Yes, some things need to be done internally. I think the best example is like 2 UGC platforms that are already approved for development. I was thinking that these platforms should be done within the TSB site. no one thinks so except me and a few others.
I’m sure @Arthemort is good at his job. I voted no because I don’t find NFT art very valuable and worth investing in.
But if there is a change in the way it is invested and I believe it can produce value, it will turn to Yes.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thought process behind your decision, @Biversen.
I believe we actually agree on more than it may seem.
Like you, I view non utility NFTs as digital images or icons, yet that’s precisely what art often is at its core. Beyond their decorative function, they carry cultural, symbolic, and aesthetic weight. That’s what gives them meaning.
When it comes to acquisitions, I’m not aiming to purchase just any digital artworks. I’m targeting pieces by artists who are not only skilled but are truly at the top of their field. These are meant to become keystone works in the collection, with long term value in mind.
On the other hand, the short to mid term market making strategy I mentioned is indeed aligned with your point: selecting assets that are highly liquid, easy to acquire and resell, and can be mobilized quickly to provide cash flow.
Regarding the concern about market timing, noted during SIP 9 as well, it’s a fair point, but in hindsight, that caution may have led us to miss what turned out to be the most lucrative window for liquidation in recent years. That’s exactly why we’ve extended our projection for this mission to cover four quarters. We want to be agile and responsive in a year that could prove pivotal for the entire Web3 ecosystem.
My concern is that if this SIP isn’t adopted, the DAO will remain heavily exposed to assets that continue to depreciate, especially collectibles, which rely on FOMO cycles that may never return. Our proposal aims to reduce this exposure through regular, strategic liquidation and to significantly downsize the number of assets held.
I fully understand your role in safeguarding the DAO’s finances and I respect that. But if I may, I’m struggling to see how this proposal could be considered harmful to the budget. In fact, it may be the only one that aims to directly provide liquidity to the DAO’s treasury.
After deducting our fees, the project is still expected to return a net positive of at least $250K to the treasury. Moreover, all new acquisitions would be funded from liquidation proceeds, not from the DAO’s funds, ensuring the treasury remains untouched.
Since your main concern seems to be the budget requested, may I ask: what, in your view, would constitute a reasonable budget for a mission of this scope?
My Master’s thesis in Art Market studies was titled “Why Is Contemporary and Modern Art an Underperforming Financial Investment?” In it, I compared the performance of art funds throughout the 20th century with the stock market over the same period.
While platforms like Masterworks.io may boast triple-digit returns using benchmarks like the Artprice 100 index, my research showed that over the long term, the stock market consistently outperformed these art funds.
To put it simply, art can be a profitable investment—but only if you are fortunate enough to acquire works from top-tier artists of the time. Blue-chip artworks may outperform the stock market, but their entry price is significantly higher than any traditional financial instrument or structured fund.
If you’re looking to invest between $10,000 and $100,000, you’d statistically be better off putting that money into the stock market than into contemporary art.
So why do people continue to invest in art?
The answer often lies beyond pure financial returns: diversification, fiscal advantages, cultural capital, and social signaling all play major roles. It’s no coincidence that many billionaires—especially in France—are heavily involved in the art world and the art market.
I developed these points further in SIP 9, which focused more on acquisition strategies at the time and did not include any liquidation component.
The point I want to emphasize here is: I’m fully aware that generating profit from art is a complex endeavor—but it’s also my area of expertise.
I agree that it’s not 2021 anymore. Back then, practically anything you bought turned a quick profit. Today, you have to be far more selective. That’s why we focus on established, blue-chip digital artists like XCOPY, Beeple, Tyler Hobbs, Dmitri Cherniak, and Refik Anadol.
The DAO, through a smart liquidation of part of its current holdings, has the capacity to gain exposure to these high-demand collections—collections that function similarly to the Artprice 100 index in the traditional art market.
Take XCOPY, for example. If the DAO had invested in The Cope Salad release or other works from his past drops, it could have seen double or even triple-digit returns within six months. There’s an upcoming Refik Anadol drop next month that I’m closely monitoring—these are exactly the types of opportunities we want to seize.
That said, it’s important to keep in mind that the liquidation strategy takes priority. The quarterly payout is our primary goal. The acquisition component is secondary, relatively modest in scale, and primarily designed to extend the financial runway of the liquidation proceeds over time.
What I bring to the table is deep knowledge of the art and NFT markets. That said, I’m also curious: what other investment vehicles would you like to see us integrate? DeFi? Altcoins? Real estate? Contemporary physical art? Metaverse-related NFTs? Traditional equities?
Hello @Arthemort big congrats for the successful approval of SIP-26!
Your proposal has gained support from the community and is now officially adopted.
First, I want to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to participate in the forum discussion, whether you supported the proposal, challenged our ideas, or simply cast your vote, regardless of whether it was a YES.
I’m also incredibly excited that we’ve reached quorum with a majority of YES votes! I’m eager to begin working on this project as soon as possible. I’ll remain active in this thread and in the dedicated Discord channels, and I’ll make it a priority to answer any questions about the mission as it progresses. @Delegates will continue to serve as valuable resources for raising concerns or suggestions.
Finally, we’ll keep you updated through our quarterly reports, and I hope we’ll be able to demonstrate that your trust in us was well-placed.
Looking forward to the reports! I’m not even sure how to process what you do but I am very much interested to learn from how you do it. I remember when you first introduced me to the word provenance back when we did the interview. I’m keen to understanding what it means to be a NFT collection manager.
Slowly but surely the operational framework is being established and refined with TSB DAO Team.
We are rolling up listing transactions.
We’re already 1/4 of the way toward our 100k quaterly objective.
Feel free to add to this thread for any questions, you might have. A little pod with Kunta will be out soon but I’m also available on here, X and Discord. Just ping me whenever it’s convenient.
