Free TON

Contest proposal: NFT marketplace

Hello everyone!

This is our submisson.

It was a month of drive, emotions and sleepless nights.
I present our marketplace for the competition - grandbazar.io

Good luck to all participants!!!

1 Like

I welcome everyone!

I’m glad to present our competitive work. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the development of Free TON ecosystem.

We have tried very hard and are ready to go on. Our submission №14
We would welcome any feedback.

Our main goals:

• NFT technology deployment and infrastructure development;
• Development, promotion, and cooperation of NFT marketplaces:
• Develop, launch, and popularize collaborative use cases;
• Attract target audience, both celebrities and helping to develop and support new talent in NFT;
• Growth number of transactions with TON Crystal and NFTs;
• Finding contacts, forming a pipeline, make materials to engage target audience, building relationships.

Good luck to all participants.

3 Likes

Hello!

Here is Augual.TEAM’s submission to the contest: GitHub - laugual/nft-marketplace-contracts

1 Like

what working marketplace are there now, where I can buy NFT?

1 Like

https://grandbazar.io/ works now

Attention to all participants!

To ease the work of the jury as well as to get a proper introduction of your submission/project, it’s recommended to record a short explanation video (5-7 mins tops), upload it to YouTube and share the # of submissions and link in this thread. It might help your marketplace to be judged better.

Good luck to all participants!

1 Like

nifi.club now fully functional, uses dev.net. Next week - after voting - will be in main

What is the deadline?

NFT marketplace AMA session video, June 01, 12pm MSK

Aren’t they also should have a solid understanding of the proposals, or at least visit the marketplaces of contestants?
As I see right now it’s not obligated.

2 Likes

Excellent work of the jury! The judge did not find any auctions on our website :slight_smile:

There are some valuations so far, and one remark somewhat embarrassed me: Why does marketplace description have the ticket DeBot?

Am I right, that selling NFT tickets is outside NFT marketplace concept?

1 Like

Juries who put ‘reject’ where some work was done. I.e. do they think that non-completed NFT marketplaces are not worthy of a reward at all?

:fire: Hi everyone. We have a bit of confusion over the proper reward structure in the NFT Marketplace contest — contest #142. Here is the PDF of that contest: https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/ton-labs.appspot.com/o/documents%2Fapplication%2Fpdf%2F8dk2dyobsm8kmarvf3o-Contest%20proposal_%20NFT%20marketplace.pdf?alt=media&token=8af45334-b7f2-42eb-8fe0-1e815bce5bd3

The Rewards section currently reads as follows:

Winner 1: 150K
Winner 2: 120K
Winner 3: 100K
Winner 4: 30K
Winner 5: 30K

Those are all the rewards available.

If you scroll down to the section labeled “Rewards” and then scroll further down to “Prize Payout & Vesting” you will notice that the language isn’t clear about how much is up front and how much should be vested. The description says that the first reward should be “no more than” 30K, which does not imply that it should be 30K, but only not more than.

This is causing a debate.

I propose drafting an amendment to the Prize Payout & Vesting description before any rewards are sent out. I propose one of the following 3 solutions, although everyone’s thoughts are welcome if someone has a better idea.

Option 1: Some expected that they will simply get 30K with the balance vested (affects winners 1, 2 and 3), but that doesn’t compel winners 4 and 5 to keep working for 6 months since their total prize is 30K, which in that case they would have no vesting. Option 1 would just pay all winners 30K with a vesting schedule for the balance applicable to only winners 1, 2 and 3 with winners 4 and 5 fully paid out on a one-time basis.

Option 2: There is also the argument that everything should just be split across 6 months as follows:

150/6
120/6
100/6
30/6
30/6

However, this does not follow the language in the contest.

Option 3: Arithmetically, and if working backward from winner 5 up to 4, 3, 2 and 1, it can be argued that the math can be done on the following basis:

Winner 1 – 150K winner: 30K TONs now. 20K/month for 6 months thereafter
Winner 2 – 120K winner: 24K now. 16K/month for 6 months thereafter
Winner 3 – 100K winner: 20K now. 13,333.33/month for 6 months thereafter
Winners 4 & 5 – 30K & 30K winners: 6K now each. 4K/month for 6 months thereafter.

The math and logic behind option 3 works as follows:

Winner 1 is top, so = 150K prize with MAXIMUM 30K up front, means only winner 1 gets 30K up front with the balance of 120K vested at 20K/month for 6 months

Winner 2: 150K/120K = 30K/X… X = 24K up front with 16K/month vested for 6 months

Winner 3: 150K/100K = 30K/X… X = 20K up front with 13,333.33/month vested for 6 months

Winners 4 and 5: 150K/30K = 30K/X… X = 6K up front with 4K/month vested for 6 months

I submit that option 1 makes no sense, because it absolves winners 4 and 5 from having to vest, which is in direct contradiction to the contest description; however, this is only my personal opinion. Instead I am a fan of both options 2 and 3, but it’s up to all of you.

Need your feedback please so we can create a proper rewards amendment proposal. Until this is cleared up, rewards cannot go out in the interest of not allowing an unjust token distribution.

Please comment ASAP!

2 Likes

As a member of the 3rd place finish team, I believe that option # 3 is the best match for the ‘broken’ conditions and common sense

2 Likes

Lets follow original contest rules.
Option1

1 Like

Option 3 definitely makes a lot more sense than Option 1. But Option 2 is okay-ish.

That’s the whole point. The original contest rules are unclear. Option 1 is not how it is written in the contest. It’s written as no more than. No more than implies that it can be less than. That’s why I drafted this proposal. It doesn’t matter to me which option to take, I just want to make sure there’s consensus.

Вариант 3 самый оптимальный

I vote for Option 1 - why invent vesting where it is not needed?