The core principles are already enacted elsewhere, like I mentioned.

.:.

I've actually decided to do this myself using an ERC 20 token designed for governance.

https://snapshot.page/#/ is a place that takes a glimpse into your metamask wallet, and if you hold my governance token [any token you register], you can participate in polls for free. Free polling, and free use.

So, I'm going to retroactively airdrop the token on everyone who has financially supported my work in the past, and then they will be able to participate within vote / poll proposals for an art grant.

To fund the art grant, I'm going to direct all profits from my ALICE project into a DAO on COlony.io.

.:.

So basically I will seed an art grant, and then give my patrons / collectors / backers the ability to act as governors for the distribution of that art grant through a community art challenge.

The challenge will include components like:

• kickstarter campaign
• HIVE Blog
• NFT Set [ETH / HIVE / EOS]

All within a single project.

And then the people who have bought the ALICE project, as well as my other retroactive patron / backers / collectors who have financially supported my work, will get to decide how to distribute the seed money for that grant.

.:.

I will also be able to increase engagement with them, through polls.

Something that was previously unaccessible given that they were all from different platforms / blockchains.

It will be a unifier for my audience, and increase the value of my work.

I will also be able to sell NFTs on Opensea, and accept this community currency, so I can upload sketch collections there for that purpose.

.:.

This will place me, and my artwork, and my community at the top of my priority list, and it will also make my community cryptosavvy.

Which means that work that I share on HIVE or Opensea, or Twitter, or Kickstarter, or Patreon, will all have a common thread.

.:.

This sort of approach would be incredible, if done on a systemic basis, which is why I've suggested this idea to @NFTShowroom, as well as:

• Blockchainartexchange
• Makersplace
• Memefactory
• Rarible

As far as I'm concerned, the more art grants and the higher the engagement of collectors accross the cryptoart space, the better for cryptoartists.

The grant challenges would act as a discovery mechanism for the artists who participate, given that the governance is entirely composed of patrons / backers / collectors.

wHIVE just happens to be an incredibly strong token to use for this purpose, because you can draw support from the entire HIVE community, and it already has acceptance, and economic support.

.:.

The only sacrifice here is that you need to accept that any whale who holds a lot of HIVE could transfer over that wHIVE to a governance vote, and then sway the vote in that direction, meaning the art grants could be gamed in that way.

This is why I'm using a separate governance token for my own work, and limiting the supply to people hwo have given me money for my work.

Even if I do 1:1 distribution for USD, it would still be fair, because the people who have invested the most in my work will receive the highest stake in the polls.

Whereas if I used HIVE, anyone from the HIVE community could weigh in just to game they vote.

Of course, Rarible tried doing this, and then failed, because people just bought their own work, in order to increase thier standing with RARI, and if you could use that money to vote for your own work for an art grant, then you could game the art grants.

This will not be possible with my approach, because I will only mint and distribute when people compensate me for my work.

• Per campaign.
• Per patron
• Per NFT Purchase
• Per Commission
• Per book / pdf sale

etc.

I won't hold a supply ether, so it ought to work pretty well economically.

Plus, if I do this, I won't have to wait on NFTShowroom, or Memefactory, or Makersplace, or Rarible, to take my suggestions.

I can just do the experiment, which is cool, because it might not work as expected.

Cheers.