MonkeDAO Vote
Q49. A month ago, the MonkeDAO pressed the Solana Monkey Business team for various changes to be made to the royalty and NFT structure to foster growth for the collection. Ultimately this resulted in the first NFT on-chain vote on Solana to accept or reject the SMB team's proposal, with a 'no' likely resulting in a separation of the two groups. In the end, the MonkeDAO voted to unify with the SMB team and to grow their relationship together. Track the wallets that voted yes and no for the SMB proposal. What were people's voting preferences based on the number of SMBs that they owned? What have these wallets done with their SMBs since the voting? Was the nearly unanimous voting a bullish event? Have wallets that voted yes bought more monkes? Were those who voted no more likely to sell after the fact and on which marketplace? What percentage of all monke sales involved a selling wallet that voted at all?
Introduction Monkees go ape
In February 2022, an intense debate took place between the NFT Project Solana Monkey Business (SMB) developers and owners grouped in the community-run MonkeDAO over the royalty funds from secondary market sales. The older royalty model was a 5% fee of which the community received a 0.5% cut, being a 2% fee for the creators and the remaining 2.5% for NFT Gen1 holders. The DAO community perceived that much of the current value of the project was driven by them.
Methodology
Voting results
To obtain the voting results, a query based on the sample given in the bounty was made to find the addresses that voted, how many votes they casted and when as well as the sign of the vote (YES or NO). This was done selecting the following variables and using the following constraints on the solana.fact_transactions
table:
signers[0]
as address votetx_id
as vote transactionARRAY_SIZE(inner_instructions)
as casted votes in each transactioncase instructions[0]:data
for YES ('Yjf5DvKUCfa2bPkYz4AiWs'
) and NO ('Yjf5DvKUCfa2Rh5YBEg7FM'
)where instructions[0]:accounts[6] = 'BD9XQhU1DXA9V4GLdgTq7xdQY5UBnShfq4caTSEL9Lr'
as the SMB proposal account for votesand instructions[0]:programId = 'Daovoteq2Y28gJyme6TNUXT9TxXrePiouFuHezkiozci'
as the programIDand succeeded = 'TRUE'
to take only successful tx into account
A maximum of 5 votes per transaction was identified from the results, but some addresses casted several transactions. So to add the relation between number of SMBs owned and vote, I made an additional query, aggregating the casted votes by address and obtaining Figure 3 and 4.
Voters-Purchasers
To obatin the voters that purchased a SMB after the vote, I created 2 CTEs.
The first one queried the solana.dim_nft_metadata md
and solana.fact_nft_sales sale
tables using:
- condition
on md.mint = sale.mint
to join both tables contract_address = ('9uBX3ASjxWvNBAD1xjbVaKA74mWGZys3RGSF7DdeDD3F')
for SMB NFT Projectprogram_id in ('J7RagMKwSD5zJSbRQZU56ypHUtux8LRDkUpAPSKH4WPp','M2mx93ekt1fmXSVkTrUL9xVFHkmME8HTUi5Cyc5aF7K')
for SMB Marketplace and Magic Edensucceeded = 'TRUE'
- selected
block_timestamp
,purchaser
,sales_amount
andmarketplace
Results
Election day - Landslide
Figure 1. shows total votes emitted. The almost unanimous voting results were over 95% YES emitted votes to the SMB proposal.
Figure 2. shows the votes over time. Voting took place between February 25th and March 4th 2022 and most votes were emitted the first two days followed by the last.
Voters-Sellers
To answer if the voters which opposed to the proposal sold their SMBs after the voting, I queried the solana.dim_nft_metadata md
and solana.fact_transfers_ft
tables with the same structure as in above section "Voters-Purchasers" but using the addresses only of NO voters as instructions[0]:data = 'Yjf5DvKUCfa2Rh5YBEg7FM'
.
The results are shown in Table 8.
What were people's voting preferences based on the number of SMBs that they owned?
Figure 3. shows the distribution of votes by number of SBMs owned normalized. Only owners of 1,2,3 and 20 SMBs casted negative votes.
For owners of 1 SMB, a similar distribution to the total votes happens (94%-6%).
For owners of 2 and 3 SBMs, distribution leans towards positive votes (97%-3%), meaning voters in these groups prefer to support the proposal more than the average.
The owner of 20 SMBs voted NO with his 20 votes, being a outlier of a rather strong correlated relation: The more SMB owned, the bigger chance of voting YES.
As a note, this single owner of 20 SMBs casted around 30% of all negative votes.
Figure 4. shows the same data in number of votes. If not looking carefully one might even miss the votes casted by the owner of 20 SBMs ('E29Q3rqQg3KXMtiDMUoajAkW6sU5Juc4SVk3j3MdRh9b').
Was the nearly unanimous voting a bullish event?
Figure 5. shows the sales happening since February 15th. Voting ended on March 4th and immediately after there is no clear reaction but on March 19th a upward trend ends up increase the floor price to over 200 SOL from over 100 SOL pre-voting. Also an increase in the SMB sold is in place.
The trend is now losing some momentum, but the virtually unanimous voting at least provided a small bull-run that I don't think it will go that easily given the engagement of the SMB creators with the MonkeDAO. Still looks bullish!
Have wallets that voted yes bought more monkes?
Table below shows the stats for all addresses that purchased a SMB after voting. A total of 27 purchases by 25 distinct owners happened after they voted. The earliest purchase was 2 days after voting, the latest 35 days after.
Figures 6. and 7. show the distibution by marketplace of these purchases for number of purchases and sales volume. The dominance of SMB Marketplace is clear in both cases, over 90%.
Were those who voted no more likely to sell after the fact and on which marketplace?
A total of 5 NO voters placed their SMB for sale on SMB Marketplace after voting. Only three of them sold their NFT because there is a duplicated result in the Sales from NO table.
Apparently, #SMB 2154 was sold from a NO voter on the 25th to '2yefuHU8j9Z5Yxn4VVjD8AHRsJZJ53aDU5GzfFk4JxfH'
who then sold it 2 day later to 'EuXWkwsHU9Bctkovv5PF1w3WiAmMAfAyM72H49pPFKBR'
(which voted YES on the proposal :D).
So only 3 out of 5 NO votes eventually sold their SMB.
The second one followed the same structure as in above section "Voting Results".
Finally, I joined both CTE on the condition VOTERS.voter = PURCHASERS.purchaser
to obtain all voters that purchased a SMB after the vote.
Additionally, a new query was done using the first CTE to obatin sale prices ober time since February 1st for Figure 5.
Conclusions
After a big controversy in Crypto-Twitter, things were not so dramatic in the end. 95% of SMB owners accepted the proposal from SMB creators and are set to keep working together to keep up the SMB brand. The virtually one sided voting also drove the floor price of SMB a couple of weeks later.
25 from the 955 positive voters purchased a new SMB after the vote and 5 from the roughly 50 negative voters sold one of their SMB after the vote. It seems the oposers of the proposal had a bigger incentive to sell than the positive voters to buy more but around 90% of the negative voters decided their SMB was worth holding.
Acknoledgement
All in all it was a very challenging bounty which triggered me to learn more about NFT and governance (DAOs) in Solana. Thanks to the discord users which engaged in the discussions and special thanks to GJ | Flipside Crypto#1919 and Kellen#2425 for providing two sample transactions.