# Discussion notes: Token- or Address-based funding projects?

Ele, Igor and Jason had quick discussion on this topic — this aims to summarize the arguments that came up ahead of the next team weekly, where we can all discuss and hopefully reach consensus!

First, we thought about various concerns raised about NFT-based funding profiles and discussed some potential counter-arguments.

- *Token-based funding profiles makes multi-network fundraising more complicated; you have to maintain a profile per network.*
- We won't be live on that many networks, and we are fully in control of which ones.
- Making people "fundable" via their address by default on all networks is very dangerous in the case of non-EOA (contract) addresses, which are not the same across networks, so it's probably better to require an explicit interaction for enabling fundraising on an L2.
- We could provide a tool for quickly porting a profile between networks, and even link an L2 network funding profile to the L1 profile's metadata, so that you only need to ever edit a single profile.
- *We need a smooth onboarding, and just adding an Ethereum address to a repo would be really smooth.*
- We have a rough idea of enabling splitting to repositories / packages directly, which would make for an even smoother onboarding, and we believe a solution could be found to enable this with NFT-based projects.
- Even if we *want* people to somehow mark their repositories as fundable, we could use the same approach, but require adding some kind of specific file or key to their funding.yml still.
- Our potential users can not always be expected to understand the implications on project transferability when using an address-bound profile. People new to crypto are very likely to assume that ownership transferability is a given, since it pretty much is in web2.
- *There could be a way to rotate keys or "redirect" funds to a new address-based funding profile.*
- This would make it really challenging to retain supporter counts and real-time crowdfunding stats in the UI.
- Once suppporters are streaming to an address-bound funding profile, the profile owner can never redirect these streams away from the address.
- *You could set up a 100% split from the old funding profile to the new funding profile*.
- The new owner would always have to trust the old owner not to remove this split.
- For every key rotation, the number of necessary calls to `receive` and `split` for collecting earned funds would increase by one, because older supporters will continue streaming to your old funding profile(s) for a potentially long time.
- *Identity linking is complicated if funding projects are NFT-based. We don't know if linking external identities with NFTs is / will be possible using GC Passport.*
- We believe that initially supporting identity linking only on the address / profile level, and cascading these linked identites down to any NFT funding projects held by that address, is sufficient for trust anchoring.
- Orgs could hold their funding project NFTs from a multisig, and social-link the multisig address with their org's external accounts.
- *Developers would have to maintain at least 2 profiles to raise funds — their address' profile (ENS?) and a funding project.*
- This is only true in two situations: 1) the developer is controlling fundraising for one of their *projects*, or 2) the developer wants to raise funds for themselves as a person. If the developer is just participating in or part of some project that funds are being raised for by another identity (another developer or an org multisig), they don't need their own funding profile — the other funding profile can just add the developer's address straight as a split, and they'd receive funds straight to their AddressDriver acount.

Further, we found a few more arguments for NFT-based funding projects.

- Allowing people / multisigs to own multiple projects opens the door for many interesting experimental usecases, like creating "meta funding projects" that simply redistribute funds to other projects (think "awesome lists"). NFT-based funding projects also don't in any way prevent individuals from raising funds for themselves. It's the more flexible option, and we liked the idea of letting people come up with their own interesting usecases given a framework that allows experimentation.
- Juicebox, one of the main projects gaining traction in this space, represents projects as NFTs.
- Our concept of a "fundable entity" very much maps onto exactly the usecase that NFTs are made for – non-fungible, transferable items.