# JuiceboxDAO Town Hall July 26, 2022

## NFT rewards by @jango

The current state of things of NFT rewards is that we have a version on Rinkeby, thank you @JohnnyD and Peel squad for iterating on front end. I think Kenny is using it in stress, testing it with several StudioDAO projects that have been helping debug the test. I know @peri is helping also and some other folks. So that's where we want to be is testing out the schemes on Rinkeby and it seems also where Kenny wants to be, too. There's still some unsettled questions. So that's good.

Having like multiple different contracts floating around at all times, which I think is going to be more of a messy situation than if we were to just get this first version. It's hard to really know it's right and wrong，but we want to create something that lasts because even the first project using it is gonna be issuing tokens to their community in a way that's onchain forever. So we want to make sure that's tight.

I'll shout at @nicholas for pushing on this front, too. It's taking a lot of perspectives from different people who are in constant communication with the outside world and back in the inside world. We're trying to figure out what's worth prioritizing and getting rights first time around and this seems like a solid edition. My initial intuition was to hold off on adding extra stuff until later iterations, but it's gonna be nice to, especially if we have a few more days here, get it in the contract side so that we can have multiple interfaces to that stuff.

I think that's it for contract editions. I shared this spec last week, not much has changed apart from the redemption thing which is currently just using the contribution floor as the weight, as well as the ability for project owner to add tiers within a contract. So you can imagine like if you were to set up an NFT rewards contract and deploy it, it's fairly expensive that first operation to deploy a contract and also the NFT rewards. Let's say you're using the NFT rewards mechanisms to measure inventory or something, the Juicebox chains done by Mesa come to mind, which is like these necklaces that have the Juicebox charm on them. You can imagine like she wants to put up 30 of these items and creates an NFT tier so the folks can go in and purchase those. Let's say she's told half of them, but now she wants to add another piece of jewelry. She doesn't have to stop issuing the NFT for the original necklace in order to add the new one, she just adds a new tier. And then obviously on a per fuding cycle basis you can remove or replace the whole contract, but you don't have to redeploy a new contract to add a tier, you can keep things in motion as you add to it. And we'll see how that plays out.

Small changes on the contract side, but it might enable some new ideas of how this thing evolves in the front end side.

Yeah shouts DrG and 0xBA5ED and some other folks started contributing to tests and making sure that this thing feels tight in the contracts side of things.

## Versioning by @jango

So like I mentioned last week, for the NFT rewards, once we're feeling real good about it, we are gonna have to take a small step back to land everything on mainnet. The NFT rewards depends on some of these underlying contracts, the `JBController`, the `JBPaymentTerminal` etc. We have a few different versions of those that are going to be recommended for the DAO to take into consideration, which I think DAO'll approved that the ability for the multisig to actually conduct these migrations over the next few weeks. We'll deploy these new controllers and this new payment terminal which will mitigate a few vulnerabilities that the code4rena challenge competition revealed. All that information is in the versioning thread. This is the [link](https://juicebox.notion.site/Code4rena-discoveries-d036b810eade4bec98523e01bdf62752) where I shared the code4rena discoveries, so everyone can see what's going on and the reason for wanting to migrate to sturdier versions of these contracts.

So we're gonna deploy these things and then all new projects will be able to take advantage of that NFT rewards stuff off the bat.

And there's a small migration process, I think it's only a few transactions deep, but we have to sync up on funding cycles because funding cycles currently restrict a project owner's access to migrate unless explicitly these flags are turned on. So first we'll need to turn these flags on and then you can do this migration dance.

We'll finish up NFT rewards, make sure that's feeling tight and then move into this versioning dance. Hopefully we'll land everything, and then take some time off to reflect and use some of these cool new tools that we built.

**Mieos**: Does anybody have very strong understanding of the UI experience feel like there would be value in WAGMI's animated education infograph? That's something we think could be valuable and tight to get that up and running so that it lands close to feature launch.

**jango**: I think it's a great idea. I would wait till after feature launch. I'll wait till it's live and we understand how it's being used. There might be changes up into the last minute, so I wouldn't commit to any step of your buildings.

Let's get it out, let's play with it some, let's get an understanding of how it's used ourselves. Then we could start to figure out how to tell the world about it.

## veBanny report by @Jmill

**Jmill**: We got some exciting news. So we got it like 99% of the way to Mainnet, we have one final PR and all we have to do is merge it in the Mainnet and it'll be available on Rinkeby. But now what I'm gonna be showing is a preview deployment of what we have.

*screen sharing with @Jmill*


It is basically feature complete now. We need to make it so you can add this to your own project, but this is like basically ready to go for the juicebox project now, so I'm gonna drop [this link](https://juice-interface-rinkeby-jiqo9tavj-peel.vercel.app/v2/p/1) into the discord, if you want to play around with it, we're definitely interested in any of your feedback.

**jango**: Huge this is incredible. I think it's going to be really nice to even play with this in production like on mainnet with other projects, maybe even before Juicebox DAO commits to the scheme. So I love how that's on the to-do list after this feels tight for juiceboxDAO. I can imagine looking up a project to demo this on Mainnet, with a project that may have not much utilities other than a governance experiment.

**Jmill**: For sure. And since all the data's indexed in the subgraph, we have all these like governance data to play around with and build visualizations on, so you can see what your community's multiplier looks like and what this lock position is doing for you. The data we have now opens up a ton of like interesting things we could build to look at and to play with.

**jango**: It's essentially we're coming out with two really substantial new accounting primitives for Juicebox, which are now what we're in the business of with the tokens.

- First the fungible tokens (JBX),
- then the NFTs upon payment (NFT rewards),
- now the NFT is upon locking the fungibles (veBanny)

So projects can really choose their own version of governance. There's no right or wrong way to do that kind of stuff, it all depends on what you want and what outcomes you're looking for. This is awesome. The UX looks so clean.

**Jmill**: Just shout out to @tankbottoms and @Natasha's designs for what I was working off, it's like building on really great stuff to start with. I'm really excited to get into the deployment flow and customize the NFT contract to fit your own needs. So that'll probably be the next step.

**Question**: Super cool. I think maybe this was discussed before but the idea that the longer you stake the more of this voting? Can you earn from assuming that's the concept?

**Jmill**: yeah, it's a multiplier, it's the lock duration you choose divided by the max lock duration. You'd have a 0.3 multiplier for 28 days and a 1 multiplier on 84 days. It does the calculation for you there. I'll type 150 and so at 84 days it's giving me the full 150 vote power, but then if I drop it to 28 days, it's cutting it to a 1/3.
And then it also decays linearly. From my understanding of it, maybe the contract foloks would speak to this, if you're in a 28-day position and 14 days have passed, then you'll have a half decay on that also.

**Question**: Okay, and then you can set up Snapshot vote based on this NFT contract?

**jango**: You can go to snapshot or you can do onchain voting. It's the cool thing about these NFT things. But the NFT rewards in these is that we sets at least an option forward that's more onchain based for governance, which we'll assess over time. I think we have some ideas out of moving forward in a cautious way in that direction, but it removes liability from the multisig which is our singular point of fragility with regards to making decisions as a DAO.

**Zeugh**: This is awesome. Really like this, looks so great. To get all those updates in this last week is amazing. Congrats guys, really. Oh @Jmill, can you try to put 10,000 on the JBX lock? I just tried here but it broke me. I don't know it's my computer or it's a bug.

**Jmill**: It's probably a bug, I'm wondering, if you go over the JBX you have. I didn't run into that. That's the tech demo curse, so I'll look into that after this. But yeah good catch. I'm not sure what that is. It might be a big number overflow.

**Mieos**: I need to claim the JBX as ERC-20 before I lock, is that correct?

**Jmill**: Yeah, that's a really important step. Maybe we should make those more bold, but for now only project tokens claimed as ERC-20 can be staked. If you hover over this. It'll say that.
But I think maybe it's worth having a callout or something just because it's really important. You can't use unclaimed tokens to stake.

**Mieos**: Yeah, I put it in the module when you click 'Stake JBX to NFT', it should just be right there. I mean, I assume that because I understand that my JBX starts locked. But it gives me the PTSD of the first few months of Juicebox when there wasn't enough notation in the UI and people were freaking out. We can get out in front so that make sure we don't end up with a ton of support requests.

**Jmill**: Yeah for sure. That's a good call. Originally we had it as a call-out box here and then we moved it to a tooltip, but that's really important and it's not gonna work without the tokens being ERC-20, that's good feedback. If any of you all like playing around with this after Town Hall or during Town Hall whatever, all feedback is valuable. So just find a way to get it to me or to people on the field team and we're iterating on the UX over the next week or two.

**jango**: Is the game plan to make the non-ERC-20 usable here, too? Since a lot of projects aren't issuing ERC-20.

**Jmill**: So @0xBA5ED said that unminted should work if you give the contract permission. At some point, I was told that it would only work with the ERC-20s. That's what I did, but it would be pretty straightforward to choose which token you're approving. So like approve the ERC20 or approve the unclaimed. But for right now when you do the one time set up like approve token for transaction, it's using the project ERC-20. It would be straightforward if it's possible in the contract to approve the unclaimed token also.

**jango**: Yeah, let's add that to the scope for the next iteration of this, too.

## Visibility by @brileigh

**brileigh**: We have booked @kentbot for our next podcast episode about StudioDAO, we're really excited to also discuss a use case for the NFT rewards, and we'll have an article to go out alongside of it.

We're also in touch with @Seanmc from JokeDAO for a deep dive on onchain governance and what they're building. This will be a podcast article duo.

And we also are working on an interview with @Ellieday about their work with AOL.xyz while they're thinking about Juicebox as an alternative to VC funding.

Then we also are thinking about doing a one-year anniversary podcast episode, which @Matthew and I are unsure about and we would like your feedback, because on one hand the episode could seem a bit too internal facing, but on the other hand if we look at the metrics the Jango episode is actually the highest ranked episode and continues to receive plays each month. We could discuss the protocols evolution where we see it heading and perhaps general mental models for Juicebox. And if we did go ahead with that, we thought it'd be good to have two people on the recording, say @jango with @Mieos, or @jango with @nicholas. So we're wondering what you guys think about that.

**filipv**: I think it might be cool to have repeat guests and have very pointed discussions. A lot of these episodes are very good general overviews, but it may be cool to have episode with @jango with his takes on some certain things or some updates on Juicebox, a very pointed-in-topic episode.

**Mieos**: Fireside chat @jango

**jango**: Down to whatever, though I only have so much to say. I feel like I am sponging everyone else's ideas, but happy to give thoughts on the regular.

## Live stream with The Defiant

**jango**: Speaking of podcasts, we're going to do a live stream with [@supermassive](https://twitter.com/iamsupermassive) from [The Defiant](https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDefiant). It'll be fun to get some kind of external podcast, which has done a lot of insightful deep dives into all kinds of stuff in DeFi and whatnot for a while, to ask us questions. I think @nicholas and I are going to be live answering questions and talking about Juicebox. I think they've done a lot of research and have been digging into Juicebox. So hopefully we get some cool thoughful engagement there.

(The interview happened on July 28, 2022. For archive purpose, the replay of this Youbute interview can be found [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ObYlVZfO3sY&feature=youtu.be))

**Mieos**: I'm a big fan of that dude, actually I was watching one today and he was doing a quick little breakdown on Zapper. And that's why I popped over to [Zapper](zapper.fi) and it's sick because they allow you to look at the DAO space in a way that nobody has really done it yet. It looks great and you can click in and see like all these DAO what their treasuries are and who's in them. And Juicebox is on the short list of DAO Tooling service DAOs.

**jango**: Yeah. Thanks @0xSTVG for setting that up. Apparently you had the intuition to reach out and then Robin was coincidentally also digging into Juicebox at the same time so it worked out to just quickly spin up the meeting for Thursday.

## Juicebox High by @Felixander

**Felixander**: We're gonna be working largely out of the visibility channel, working up now some wild frames and figma organizer. If those of you are interested, please pop in from time to time look around. I'm really liking this idea of a school aesthetic. I think there's a lot we can do there also, in terms of that kind of recipe angle on highlighting projects as a recipe book, in a school there would be a cooking class. So I think there's a lot of fun ways to go.

I want to also work very hard at a newsletter. I might team up on with some people to make one every couple months, instead of a weekly one. For a newsletter that might recap major stuff and also really exciting new projects, we can curate all these awesome new projects that come up and highlight them. We want to have a way of maybe on a pace of five six publications a year and put a little more effort into the curation there.

## Quizz time:


the corret answer is @brileigh

***

:bulb: Archives of JuiceboxDAO Town Hall can be found [here](https://hackmd.io/@zhape/jbx_town_hall_archive)

###### tags: `JuiceboxDAO Town Hall`