Rethinking $PRTN Utility

PRTN Proposal # 15
Submission Date: 26 May 2022
Your Name: Deniz
Discord Handle: #dindindeniz7788
As our token will hit liquidity soon, I wanted to start a discussion on considering NFTs for membership and rethinking the utility value of the PRTN token. Please read the possible scenarios of the shifts that can happen with introducing an NFT for membership and leave your comments on which option you favor the most and why. You can also add more pros and cons for each scenario


Currently, we airdrop 5k $PRTN to accepted members by membership screeners and expect them to connect their wallets to our Discord. There are nearly 500 PRTN token holding wallets and only 260 are connected to our Discord. Also good to know, our Guest Passes are not working correctly so we cannot rely on unlock-protocol. An idea that emerged from our Membership Team was that we first issue a guest pass that expires in a month to members who are selected and design a way for them to earn 5k $PRTN.


When considering the near future where token liquidity is a reality, this is the perfect time to discuss the utility of our token and brainstorm if we want to launch NFTs for membership. Below you can find the pros and cons for each scenario extracted from the miro board we have shared with the community.

There are four ways we can approach this:

Scenario 1: $PRTN = access + value exchange + governance


  • Have a voting power from day one
  • No barriers to entry
  • Token weighted voting is easy to implement
  • Clearly defines the financial element of the DAO
  • Allows easier inward investment


  • Currently, 500 wallets have $PRTN tokens but only 298 have connected their wallets to our Discord.
  • not everybody can pay gas fees to claim token
  • Members are not earning their way in
  • Decreases $PRTN token value
  • Difficult to customize access. Each $PRTN (ERC20) does not have a unique ID
  • Whales can dominate
  • has operational costs
  • no skin in the game for membership

Example: $FWB tokens can be bought and the holder has a say in governance HOWEVER only members who applied and got selected can earn $FWB.

Scenario 2: NFT= access / $PRTN = value exchange + governance


  • easy operations
  • Easy access
  • looks nice
  • non-transferable
  • On-chain reputation
  • NFT token ID’s can be whitelisted for more ‘granular’ access
  • Enables token gated voting
  • Member has to earn the right to vote
  • people can buy the NFT with 5K PRTN
  • Can be used to raise funds
    Example: Developer DAO membership NFT can be bought from Open sea HOWEVER you need $CODE to vote.

Scenario 3: NFT= access + governance / $PRTN = value exchange

  • 1 holder 1 vote


  • Teams/people don’t have different voting powers
  • Could limit potential token-based implementations that we could provide to other members to have a voice.

Scenario 4: NFT= access + governance / $PRTN = access + value exchange + governance


  • If transferable there would also be the potential for value exchange.
  • Adding value to the NFT rather than removing value from $PRTN
  • Can grant advanced features such as full, granular access, beefed up voting rights, reciever of airdrops, etc.
  • Provides liquid $PRTN some regulatory protection by providing some basic governance and access rights


  • Adds complexity
  • Difficulty in operations
  • Can’t think of any example as a benchmark
  • Scenario 1
  • Scenario 2
  • Scenario 3
  • Scenario 4

0 voters


1 Like

Full disclosure: I presented the case for option 4.

  • For me it cleanly separates the DAO’s Financial asset ( $PRTN) from the more cultural part of the DAO - represented by the NFT.
  • Rather than stripping rights from $PRTN (and risk running into regulatory, investor, and holder issues) I think we should work to add even more value to the NFT - enabling it to become the centre of gravity for the DAO.
  • One caveat - This does assume that $PRTN reaches a suitable level of liquidity.
    If this isn’t achieved then its probably better to proceed with a more NFT centric model ( IMO)

I think I can put together my thoughts under this vision of mine:

We have to choose the people we will give $PRTN wisely so token could preserve its value. More rare or harder to earn, will gain more value by time. There is a saying I remember right now from one of my ex co-worker. “Put funds into productive people hands.” Our fund is $PRTN and not $USDC. $PRTN is our gold and only productive people can earn it.

Having this vision in my mind, I support the idea of NFT based access and also I’m a bit blurry on this because I don’t know how it will look like. Is there any other DAOs that is using the platform we will use for this.

I also have an idea in my mind what if we open certain sections of our Discord and those sections could give opportunities for new comers to earn $PRTN by contribution and as they earn, more content/channels they can see and contribute.

I think using NFTs in governance and other possible layers of the community could be the second iteration after/if we satisfied with NFTs in access.

In the long term, this approach doesn’t look sustainable since NFTs are tradable but could be a short term solution for this generous token giving for membership.

In conclusion, I would vote for option 2.

1 Like

Hi Deniz, thank you for bringing this proposal to life. I really appreciate seeing a few scenarios laid out. As a non technical person in this field, I’ll try to add my 2 cents on the fundamentals here.

To evaluate which of the options to go for, we should question how members get access to the NFT and to PRTN. In my opinion, the idea of a soul bound NFT (what few weeks ago was simply called non transferable NFT) matches Good Growth. An NFT for life is a big thing though, so how do we assign them and to who. A lot to discuss here, and I think the best answer should be included in the snapshot.

After defining who gets what and how ($PRTN and NFT) it would be good to define what is the utility for both. I could image that both are used for governance, but for different purposes.
Optimism has built what in theory seems a very fair and long term oriented governance structure based on non transferable nft (house of citizens) and OP tokens (house of tokens). Holders of one or the either have different governance responsibilities, and holders of both have additional rights. Governance Overview | Optimism Docs

Hope this can help refine the proposal. Thank you for the vision and the work put in this already!

Hey @andrea thank you for sharing these. So which scenario are you leaning towards? I couldn’t get that.

I think we’re possibly skipping ahead to the ‘technology’ before answering the ‘benefit/utility’ part. It currently feels more difficult to make a decision and get alignment on which option to go for because it’s not clear enough here who the stakeholders are and what they want to do at protein community - do all stakeholders/members/holders need access to everything? does everyone want/need to vote - if so are there some things they should vote on and things they should not? if we focus first on who is part of the ecosystem and their purpose, intention it may help to design a better membership stack.

I’ve shared this doc previously, but this is a really topline version of this idea: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases. - for us to get a clearer view i think it makes sense to develop this first.

1 Like

just curious if there’s a reason there are no con’s posted for option 2? is it because people feel it’s the strongest option?

it’s only because no one wrote any :slight_smile:

IMO, removing access rights from the $PRTN token and granting it only to the NFT would be a ‘con’ or negative point
This may create ill feeling as people will be forced to move across to the NFT to regain access. …Admittedly, asking people to ‘re - commit’ can also be viewed as a ‘pro’ as it may weed out the less commited resulting in a healthier eco system.
Another potential negative is removing utility from the $PRTN token - does this remove potential value? …where does this leave us from a regulatory point of view.? Might be best to for $PRTN to retain some basic access rights, with the NFT allowing much deeper, granular access.

Thank you everyone for contributing to this proposal. After careful consideration of all the comments above and seeing that this is not a light decision to take asap, I’m proposing to moving forward with this solution:

For all of Season 3, lets all discuss the NFT membership further with the membership team and collectively decide to remove access utility of PRTN. Since this decision also is depending on the liquidity convos, it’s better to leave this decision to Season 4.


We can test out using NFT’s that are valid for 60 days so new members can have enough time to either earn a perm. membership by earning 5K token in 2 months - or have enough time to look around and see if this community is the right one for them.

We will use Passage’s new no-code platform for airdropping these NFT’s using polygon network to our whitelisted (selected) members and add it to our Guild so people can connect to our Discord.


this sounds like a sensible plan @dindindeniz and apologies for not adding my comments sooner. i feel all the important bases have been covered and as you say, this isn’t a straightforward decision as it has some pretty wide-ranging consequences. therefore, your suggestion of running a test, see if it works feels like the right way forward for us at this time and then we learn and adjust as we go :+1:

Two relevant ideas that I wanted to add here so we are all aware of it:

  1. Forefronts proposal on launching a NFT membership
    Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.

  2. I was listening to a podcast last week and this point really struck me: " we should be taking consent when sending untransferable NFT’s to members because it will live on chain forever and they might not want to be associated with having that NFT in the long run." She was stressing the fact that we should be respecting the want to be anonymous in web3.

So here’s my tough question: Should we take consent when sending untranssferable membership NFT’s to members

1 Like

another NTFmembership example that went live today and seedclub fam:

my bigger question i think is, how does an untransferable nft adhere to the ideas around decentralization? isn’t the point that a user has free will in what they do with their assets - swapping, selling, etc?
i’m not sure that consent really solves for the concern this member has around anonymity, because one might feel very positive about a project and grant that consent initially, but as the project evolves, leadership changes, etc etc etc, perhaps that user will no longer feel aligned with the new mission or values. even original consent does not provide accommodation for inevitable changes and evolutions that might cause someone to re-evaluate their initial discussion.
is it possible to arrange something like this in a timed format? a minimum holding period that everyone agrees to, dao and user alike, which after a certain point can be recommitted to or not?

Interesting point -tastes change and a particular indvidual may not want to be publicy associated with a certain group anymore. Thats why I think its important tokens can be tranferrable, but perhaps at the DAO multisig level. This way an owner can request the NFT to be removed.

1 Like

agreed, so not going down the “soul bound” route, but creating our own custom contract? are there any other examples out there of DAO controlled NFTs?

Well the soul bound whitepaper states that the movement could be centrally controlled.

Pretty sure we are on the cusp of a wave of applications that will be offereing ‘soul bound’ memberships - question is how long are we prepared to wait?

LFG dude!


Great point Sally, I also asked around to so many people if that possibility exists, but unfortunately found out that you cannot make a NFT expire.