Author: Drew Williams

Draft Version: 1.0

Table of Contents

1. Overview
2. Background
3. Introducing Petition NFTs
4. Use Cases for Petition NFTs
5. Advantages for Creators and Brands
6. The FANFUNDR Ecosystem
7. Taking Ideas from 0 to 1
8. Enabling P2P Cultural Curation
9. Types of Petitions
10. Scenarios and Illustrations
11. FANFUNDR Revenue Model
12. Summary

Overview

FANFUNDR is a platform for community-driven commerce that empowers Consumers to request, influence, and own a variety of exclusive events, products and content from any Creator or brand in the world. The platform leverages smart contracts to enable trustless collaboration and escrow transactions between Consumers and Creators, bringing to life the best ideas for cultural innovation and validating them through demonstrable market demand.

Background

Culture can be defined as the collective consumption of goods, content and experiences related to a common set of values or interests. Its evolution should be driven by community consensus, however today, cultural innovation is stifled by unilateral decision making. We live in a world where consumers relinquish data to huge corporations, and in exchange, receive virtually no influence or control over the products and experiences we consume.

A brand marketer or record label executive might tell you that culture is driven by the people. In reality these products, services, and experiences are informed by historical sales data and predictive analytics, not direct feedback from real people. This illusion of choice creates massive friction when met with the desire for authentic influence over the cultural aspects we associate with our personal identities. And that’s where you begin to feel the creep of cognitive dissonance as a consumer. We’re made to think that we contribute to culture as influencers on the ground. And it’s true, our data does inform what’s produced for the masses, but not our voices. Not our ideas. Not our actual desires.

The result is a subtle identity crisis involving the realization that very few things you claim to enjoy are actually intrinsic to you as an individual. You realize you’ve fallen victim to manufactured herd mentality, and that your subconscious never told you what was cool, an Instagram ad did.

When was the last time you were able to request a song from your favorite artist? Or request the re-release of a capsule collection from your favorite designer? What about that book that you and 1 million other page-turning, obsessed readers believe should be made into a movie? When was the last time that you, as a consumer, felt empowered to bring such ideas to fruition? The answer is most likely never.

We believe the Creators who will own the future of commerce are those who understand that bringing loyal customers into the fold establishes lasting positive memories and deep neurological connections leading to brand affinity. These creators will enjoy a combination of network effects, reduced customer acquisition costs, and increased revenue unrivaled by any manufactured marketing campaign.

Even though there are Creators who get it, until now, we haven’t had the infrastructure to facilitate meaningful collaboration between these innovators and their most invested brand loyalists. Twitter and other social media platforms are the only options for bilateral engagement today. Unfortunately, we can’t collaborate on these platforms in a way that makes sense for rallying decentralized communities around a unified desire to experience something.

This forces Creators to play a guessing game, using the best qualitative and quantitative data available. Some get it right most of the time, while others occasionally fall victim to public backlash. And the misses hit different when everyone is trashing your latest release on social media. We see it happen everyday. When [insert artist] drops an album everyone hates. When [insert retail brand] releases a sneaker everyone thinks is “undesirable.” When [insert film company] produces a superhero movie everyone agrees is the furthest thing from canon.

This divergence between creators and consumers has resulted in a disconnect in values and goals between the two groups [1]. This is why most of us feel powerless as consumers, despite constant reassurance from marketing campaigns telling us that we dictate the future.

Introducing Petition NFTs

Petition-driven NFTs provide a consensus mechanism for trustless collaboration between consumers and creators. The petitions are consumer generated smart contracts attached to requests for experiences to be produced by creators. These smart contracts allow consumers to pool funds in shared escrow accounts that leverage milestone based triggers to pay the Creator upon petition acceptance and delivery of the experience. When creators accept petitions, NFTs are minted for all petition participants, granting them access to the requested experience and the ability to vote on creative and logistical details.

Use cases for Petition NFTs

Petition NFTs unlock entirely new pathways to bilateral cultural influence and ownership. Consumer desires become the genesis of production when given the infrastructure to flourish. Decentralized collaboration empowers individuals to form ephemeral collectives that take cultural ideas from concept to execution, leveraging community buying power to transact trustlessly with any creator, from web3 pioneers to web2 titans of industry.

Holding a petition NFT signifies ownership in the idea and contribution to the community effort behind making the experience a reality. Not only are you instantly identifiable as a tastemaker and curator of IRL culture, but these NFTs guarantee your access to the associated events, content and products. In addition to ownership, status, and access, these NFTs give consumers unprecedented creative and logistical influence through built-in voting mechanisms. This technology ushers in a new era of truly bespoke cultural experiences.

Consumers

A local “influencer” can launch a petition in anticipation of the 2026 World Cup requesting that Drake, KITH and FIFA drop a collaborative NFT which grants holders access to an exclusive rooftop concert in New York with goodie bags containing KITH soccer jerseys, the latest copy of FIFA, and scannables for in-game jerseys designed by KITH.

Creators

Creators of any scale and industry can leverage petitions as pipelines for inbound revenue streams, similar to the way B2B companies of any size, industry, and maturity rely on channel partnerships to supplement direct sales revenue. For example, a buzzing musician headlining their first tour can fill empty calendar dates with petitions for concerts in cities they would have otherwise skipped. Alternatively, two legends like Jay-Z and Nas can green light a petition for a live-streamed Verzuz battle that results in a bag comparable to a Floyd Mayweather fight.

Brands

Innovative brands that pride themselves on shifting culture can take customer experience to another level with design-on-demand models that produce high value, exclusive, collections influenced by creative direction from loyal customers. As an analog, companies like Nike already dabble in this today with Nike By You Custom Shoes. Petitions open the door to brands running the customization playbook at scale. For example, Savage x Fenty could design a limited collection of women's pantsuits in response to a petition championed by women in tech who moonlight as social influencers after work. With petitions, every major DAO and NFT community can have its own custom Retro Jordans or Supreme collaboration. Don’t be surprised if we see a Doodles AJ1 in the future. 👀

DAOs, Communities and IRL Social Clubs

NFT.NYC showed us that close-knit communities thrive on creating utility and building camaraderie through shared memories. Petitions give existing collectives the ability to easily design and execute exclusive, once in a lifetime experiences that engage members, increase retention, and boost network effects. With petitions, Greek organizations in the AUCC can create a summer jam concert exclusive to members and pledges. And instead of relying on someone within the community to know a person, who knows a person who knows a major artist, community leaders can rally the collective to transact seamlessly with any artist accepting petitions for concerts and private parties.

Promoters

This technology enables a fresh wave of economic innovation within the live entertainment industry. Existing promoters gain infrastructure to test market demand for unfamiliar artists via petitions that return 100% of the escrow if they fail or get rejected, and part of the escrow if the artist accepts the petition but fails to deliver the concert. Additionally, a new lane materializes for hobbyist promoters and local influencers who have highly engaged social followings. If played strategically, these individuals gain a tool for leveraging captive audiences to establish a successful track record of curating petitions for IRL and metaverse experiences that generate significant revenue for Creators and brands.

Additional Use Cases

Film: Cosplay communities can petition Disney for the ability to choose the next origin story released in the Marvel universe.

Sports: Atlanta United fans can petition the team for a game day VIP pass that includes voting on the team jersey and visiting the locker room at halftime.

Food: Foodie influencers on TikTok can petition Michelin chefs for popup kitchen tours featuring region-specific menus.

Advantages for Creators & Brands

Consumer voices and dollars beat big data every time. Petitions and community-driven commerce remove guesswork for creators and brands looking to expand into that next thing. The resulting consumer and producer dynamics unlock a new paradigm for community engagement, brand affinity, and commercial transparency unlike anything previously imagined.

Five years from now, the producer-focused value propositions listed below will seem obvious in retrospect:

1. High volume of inbound revenue opportunities
2. Financial risk mitigation through verifiable market demand and secured escrow funds
3. Increased willingness to pay in correlation with the IP’s intrinsic value to consumers
4. Experiential marketing channel with organic network effects for reduced CAC
5. Authentic customer engagement channel for boosting brand affinity and retention

The FANFUNDR Ecosystem

FANFUNDR is a community-driven commerce platform for decentralizing pop culture. Consumers can petition creators and brands for a variety of experiences, including but not limited to:

• Live events (in person and digital)
• Content (songs, albums, films, shows, etc.)
• Products (apparel, merchandise, food & beverage, etc.)

Parties assume various roles in the FANFUNDR ecosystem. The primary forms of participation are as follows:

• Petition Owners (consumers) can create and launch petitions by holding our native FANFUNDR token in their wallet, and then staking 1-5% of a Creator’s fee in FIAT, depending on network congestion.
• Petition Signers (consumers) can join petitions by staking the minimum signature amount in FIAT, which is an amount resulting from a formula that includes the Creator’s fee, number of existing signatures, and the TVL in the petition at the time of signing.
• Petition Owners & Signers (consumers) become NFT holders when creators accept the petition. NFTs grant access to the experience requested in the petition and give holders the ability to vote on its creative and logistical details. Individuals responsible for launching and accelerating successful petitions earn a distribution of platform fees generated from the network, paid in the form of our native FANFUNDR token.
• Creators (artists, brands, influencers, etc.) can accept and decline petitions. Once creators accept, they’re able to mint NFTs that give petition participants access to the experience, along with voting rights. Creators are paid by consumers in FIAT.
• Live Event Logistics Operators (promoters, talent buyers, etc.) are a globally distributed network of independent contractors who facilitate the planning and execution of live events that originate from FANFUNDR petitions. They earn a distribution of platform fees generated from the network, paid in the form of our native FANFUNDR token.
• Infrastructure Partners (ticketing platforms, ecommerce sites, streaming services, etc.) help facilitate NFT utility by providing gated access to digital and physical experiences, products and content. They are compensated through a traditional revenue share model.

Taking Ideas from 0 to 1

For the sake of simplicity, we’ll explain the petition process using plain text formulas and an ideal scenario with a few basic assumptions:

• Assume (1) FANFUNDR COIN (FFC) = $1 USD
• Assume 1 consumer = 1 petition signature = 1 wallet address = 1 NFT minted
• Assume this petition has a max limit of 10,000 signatures, as determined by the creator
• Assume the term “stake” = pledging funds to escrow
• Assume every petition signer stakes the Minimum Signature Amount

The Scenario

• Megan Thee Stallion has a concert price tag of $500,000, also know as her Minimum Petition Price (MPP)
• Angela wants to create a petition to bring Megan to Atlanta for a show
• To create a petition, Angela must hold 10 FANFUNDR coin in her wallet (10 tokens per active petition)
• To launch the petition, Angela must stake 1% of Megan’s $500k petition price ($5,000) using $USD
• Once Angela stakes the $5,000 required to launch the petition, it becomes available for other consumers to sign
• Brad is an Atlanta native who also wants to see Megan perform in the city
• To sign Angela’s petition, Brad must stake the Minimum Signature Amount (MSA) using $USD

The formula to determine MSA is:

So, if Brad is the first person to sign Angela’s petition, his MSA is as follows:

The 2nd person to sign after Brad has an MSA of:

Assuming wallets 3 - 99 stake close to the MSA of $49.50, the 100th person to sign after Brad has an MSA of:

Below is a diagram that illustrates the process at a high level:

FANFUNDR COIN - The Petition Creation Token

Users are required to hold FANFUNDR tokens in their wallet if they want to create petitions, but they do not need them to sign other people’s petitions. The number of FANFUNDR coins a user must hold in their wallet is dependent on the number of active petitions the user has launched in parallel. For example, to launch one petition a user will need 10 FFC in their wallet; 20 FFC for two simultaneous petitions; and 30 FFC for three simultaneous petitions. Users can acquire FANFUNDR coin through various means including:

• Purchasing FFC on an exchange
• Earning FFC by staking more than the Average Signature Amount (ASA) when signing a petition
• Earning FFC by promoting other people’s petitions

As we consider progressive decentralization over the lifecycle of the platform, the FANFUNDR token may also be used for various governance purposes.

Petitions as Building Blocks of Culture

As previously mentioned, petitions provide a consensus mechanism for trustless collaboration between consumers and creators. The petitions are consumer generated smart contracts attached to requests for experiences to be produced by creators.

Petition owners are required to:

1. Tag a creator
2. Select from a list of experiences offered by the creator
3. Describe any specific details related to the desired experience
4. Designate a geographic location if the experience is an IRL event
5. Stake 1-5% of the Creator’s MPP, with fluctuation depending on the number of active petitions the Creator is tagged in

These smart contracts allow consumers to pool funds in shared escrow accounts that leverage milestone based triggers to pay creators upon petition acceptance and delivery of the experience.

FANFUNDR NFTs

When a Creator accepts a petition, NFTs are minted for all petition participants, granting them access to the requested experience and the ability to vote on creative and logistical details. NFT utility is facilitated by our integration partners, and involves the generation of QR codes for IRL live events, and numeric web access codes for all digital and ecommerce related experiences. Additionally, the voting mechanism for creative input is pegged to ownership of the NFT, and only becomes available during time-bound collaboration periods. NFT holders have the ability to resell their NFTs on a secondary market if desired.

POAPs to Demonstrate Tastemaker Status

In addition to receiving NFTs upon creator acceptance, petition participants are airdropped POAPs to commemorate their involvement in bringing ideas to fruition. The POAPs allow consumers to maintain recognition for cultural influence in the event that they need to sell their NFTs on a secondary market. For instance, if Brad from the Megan Thee Stallion example wasn’t able to attend the concert due to a scheduling conflict and needed to sell/transfer his NFT to a friend, his POAP would remain to illustrate participation in the petition that created the concert.

Users who accumulate POAPs through petition participation can leverage them to redeem access to future FANFUNDR sponsored events. Additionally, Creators can target super fans based on POAPs held in wallets, and engage them with ultra-exclusive perks and direct communication.

Lastly, POAPs provide a mechanism for consumers to identify and engage like-minded individuals in order to jumpstart innovative petition concepts. Due to the financial incentives associated with NFT transferability, POAPs serve as the foundation of P2P social currency on the platform.

Enabling P2P Cultural Curation

Buying into the concept of community-first is core to the ethos of every successful network participant in the FANFUNDR ecosystem. Ideal users understand that there are times when selfish motivations must be put aside for the greater good of the community, and for the sake of advancing cultural innovation. FANFUNDR provides the trustware necessary for P2P collaboration within communities of like-minded individuals, however it is the cultural tastemakers themselves who infuse the socialware [2] needed to successfully execute on otherwise impossible petition ideas.

In a perfect world, everyone who signs the petition does so immediately, and pays around the same price for their signature. In this scenario, the only hero is the petition owner required to stake 1% of the Creator’s price tag. Using the Megan Thee Stallion example, Angela would be the lone people’s champ, shouldering the heaviest financial load for the greater good of the community.

But what if instead of staking the minimum signature amount of $49.50, Brad decided to stake $3,000 for his signature? Brad would be rewarded for his above-average financial contribution with above-average voting power on petition governance decisions, and during the NFT holder collaboration period for creative input. Additionally, Brad would receive a distribution of FANFUNDR coins on the backend once the petition is accepted by Megan Thee Stallion.

The maximum amount Brad can stake is summarized below:

Angela’s Signature Amount > Brad’s Signature Amount ≥ MSA

Here’s how that would’ve played out for the second person who signed after Brad:

So $0.29 knocked off the MSA for the 2nd signer... Not a big deal, right? Not initially, but as more consumers join the petition with motivations for increased creative control, the cost to sign the petition for each successive user will reduce exponentially. Ideally the last person to sign the petition may sign for only a fraction of Brad’s cost, and their voting power will be commensurate with their lack of risk exposure.

This is the ethos of community-driven innovation on the FANFUNDR platform. Some users make sacrifices for the community by staking the initial amount to launch petitions, while others demonstrate their commitment by accelerating the TVL in a petition, making it cheaper for the next person to sign, and thus increasing the petition’s chances of success.

Voting Power

Voting power (vP) is relevant when petition participants must make decisions concerning the petition itself. Examples include voting to accept or reject change proposals from Creators, and deciding to uncap the signature limit as a way to increase TVL in the petition. Additionally, the voting power established during the petition phase is transferred to the creative input that takes place during the collaboration period for NFT holders after the petition is accepted.

(vP) is a factor of how many votes (or what percentage of votes) an individual user has in comparison to other petition participants and NFT holders. The total number of votes allocated to participants is equal to the number of petition signatures, however votes may not always be distributed to participants using a 1:1 ratio. To illustrate how a user’s signature amount affects their influence over the petition and the NFT collaboration period, we’ve included the formula below:

The formula to determine Voting Power (vP) is:

So, if Brad has one of the highest signature amounts behind Angela, his vP is as follows:

Expressed as a percentage of the 10,000 total votes allocated to all petition participants, Brad’s signature represents 0.6% of all votes, compared to Angela’s 1%.

This means that when it comes to any petition governance decisions made by the collective, or any creative/logistical decisions made by NFT holders, Brad and Angela have significantly more influence compared to someone at, or below, the average signature amount (ASA).

Influencer Score

Influencer score is another mechanism for quantifying a user’s contribution to the petition’s success, and indicates how much creative input the user has in the underlying experience. Similar to voting power, influencer score is a factor of an individual’s signature amount in relation to the average signature amount. Along with POAPs, influencer score provides another method for users (consumers and creators) to identify tastemakers when looking at user profiles. It’s a rating that changes over time by tracking the average influencer score from every petition a user has joined, similar to how an Uber driver’s rating changes with each new passenger review.

To determine Influencer Score (iS) we use a simple relative change formula:

Assuming most people staked close to the Minimum Signature Amount (MSA), the Average Signature Amount (ASA) would be ~$50. With Brad’s $3,000 contribution, his Influencer Score (iS) is as follows:

This means that Brad’s signature is 59x more influential than the average person’s signature, also demonstrated by his notable voting power. To compensate Brad for his influence over the petition’s success, the platform will distribute FANFUNDR tokens to Brad in proportion to the influencer bracket he falls into based on his score (similar to a tax bracket).

Types of Petitions

The petition mechanisms described below are designed to cater to multiple ideals within the spectrum of community-driven commerce, and can be layered to enable a variety of outcomes for exclusivity.

Public vs Private Petitions

FANFUNDR allows Consumers to launch petitions for public participation, as well as private petitions for high net worth individuals and members-only communities that exist outside of the FANFUNDR ecosystem.

Petitions for 1/Many NFTs vs 1/1 NFTs

In addition to public and private petition options, Consumers can elect to create petitions that result in experiences meant for communal consumption (1/many), or experiences meant only for exclusive access by a single person and whomever they choose to share with (1/1).

Public Petitions for 1/Many NFTs (most common)

Public petitions for 1/Many NFTs enable complete strangers to collaborate trustlessly when pooling their money together. For IRL experiences, these petitions are most likely engaged by Consumers who live within or near a specific geographic region. Petitions for digital content and consumer goods tend to be less tied to location and more about a shared interest for a specific Creator. Angela’s petition for a Megan Thee Stallion concert in Atlanta is an example of a public petition for a 1/Many NFT.

Public Petitions for 1/Many NFTs with MultiSig

When a Consumer wants to capture the inclusivity offered by a public petition but lacks the personal finances to stake 1-5% of a Creator’s MPP, the Consumer can enable a multisig option for pooling the money required to launch the petition.

Using the Megan Thee Stallion example, if Angela didn’t have the $5,000 required to launch the petition, she could have generated a new public wallet address for her friends to contribute money. In this scenario, the petition owner is actually a group of individuals instead of a single person, and the wallet address representing the collective must contain enough FANFUNDR coin + FIAT to launch the petition. Although the newly generated public wallet is associated with Angela’s account for the purposes of petition creation, the platform ensures funds can only be transferred into the petition or back to the original contributing wallet addresses. Additionally, the aforementioned frameworks for voting power (vP) and influencer score (iS) are applied to user dynamics within the new shared wallet.

While the collective’s shared wallet would represent 1% of votes among all petition participants, the vP distribution within the shared wallet is determined by the following formula:

Likewise, the collective would be represented by a single influencer score (iS) among all petition participants to account for the distribution of FANFUNDR coin to users who stake above the average signature amount. The allocation of earned FANFUNDR coin between multisig contributors is determined by the assignment of influencer scores within the shared wallet, and can be expressed by the following formula:

The number of contributors to Angela’s shared wallet is subtracted from the petition’s max signature limit to determine the remaining signatures available for other Consumers upon launch.

The number of NFTs minted upon Creator acceptance can be expressed as:

Multi-sig staking lowers the barrier to entry for launching a petition, ensuring that the best ideas always find a path to materialization, even if the idea’s author doesn’t have the capital required to execute independently.

Private Petitions for 1/Many NFTs

Private petitions allow members-only communities such as collegiate fraternities, DAOs, and close-knit friend groups, to pool capital into requests for ultra-exclusive experiences, products and content. The example of a Doodles AJ1 collab demonstrates how these communities might leverage private petitions for high-touch member engagement.

Private petitions for 1/Many NFTs function similarly to their public counterparts. This includes petition signature limits with MSAs, the option for multi-sig staking, and the application of (vP) and (iS) frameworks.

Private Petitions for 1/1 NFTs (least common)

Petitions for 1/1 NFTs have the most unique process compared to the previous options listed. Instead of staking 1-5% of a Creator’s MPP to launch a petition, an individual requesting a 1/1 NFT is required to pay the entire amount up front. Additionally, concepts like Voting Power and Influencer Scores are not applicable here. Put simply:

Believe it or not, there are occasions when requesting a 1/1 NFT makes logical sense (depending on your reality 😮‍💨). For example, a crypto whale planning a surprise engagement for his girlfriend could pay Adele $1,000,000 to serenade her in the backyard of his newly purchased Italian summer home. Jokes aside, Wu Tang’s Once Upon A Time In Shaolin is a great analog for this type of consumption pattern.

Scenarios and Illustrations

A note about petition signature limits: When a Creator declares what experiences are available for Consumer petitions, along with the prices for each, they must also declare a maximum signature limit for each experience. For example, Megan Thee Stallion may allow 10,000 petition signatures for live concerts, but only 100 signatures for in-person meet and greets. Likewise, KITH may only allow 1,000 signatures for petitions requesting the re-release of a capsule collection due to the inherently limited inventory and/or production capacity.

Scenario #1: Petition reaches goal with less than the maximum signatures, Creator accepts immediately

When a petition is able to reach the goal (Creator’s minimum petition price) with less than the maximum number of signatures, it indicates that multiple users staked well above the minimum signature amount. Using the Megan Thee Stallion example, if the petition was completed by 2,000 people instead of 10,000, the result would be 2,000 NFTs minted for a 2,000 person concert, not 10,000. In this scenario, earning significant voting power and a high influencer score is more expensive due to the saturation of “whales” inflating the petition’s average signature amount.

Scenario #2: Petition reaches goal with less than the maximum signatures, Creator requests more money

There will be situations when a petition reaches the goal yet the Creator requests more money before accepting. This typically only happens when a petition details parameters of an experience that fall outside the boundaries of a Creator’s standard operating procedures. Using the Megan Thee Stallion example, she might negotiate an increased MPP of $750,000 instead of the list price of $500,000 if Angela’s petition were to request that she perform in another language, like Spanish. Realistically, Megan would be equally as likely to just reject the petition in that situation.

In a scenario where the Creator requests additional money from a petition that has successfully reached its goal with less than the maximum signatures, a few things happen:

• The petition re-opens, and new users are allowed to sign the petition
• If desired, existing petition participants can increase their signature amounts for more voting power and a higher influencer score
• The minimum signature amount (MSA) increases for all existing users and new users who join the petition

• Existing petition participants whose signatures are below the new MSA are given 24 hours to increase their signature amounts or risk having their signatures liquidated
• Existing petition participants can vote to request that the petition owner disable the setting which prevents anyone from staking more than them. This results in the petition owner relinquishing the right to the largest percentage of voting power

Once the petition reaches the new MPP requested by the Creator, it closes again and the Creator is given another opportunity to accept or reject the petition. The number of signatures in the petition at the time of final acceptance will determine how many NFTs are minted.

Scenario #3: Petition reaches goal with the maximum signatures, Creator requests more money

In contrast to the scenario above, there will be occasions when a Creator asks for more money from a petition that has successfully reached its goal but is already maxed out on the number of signatures. In this situation, a few things happen:

Existing petition participants are given 24 hours to vote on 1 of 2 options:

1. Uncap the petition signature limit and let new users join
2. Keep the petition capped at the current signature limit and raise the minimum signature amount, similar to scenario #2

If Option 1 is selected by the collective:

• The petition re-opens, and new users are allowed to sign the petition until the new MPP is reached
• If desired, existing petition participants can increase their signature amounts for more voting power and a higher influencer score
• The minimum signature amount (MSA) for existing petition participants does not change, however the average signature amount (ASA) of everyone staked in the petition becomes the MSA for all new signees.
  • Meaning if there are 10,000 signatures when the Creator requests more money, the MSA for signature #10,001 is the ASA of signatures 1-10,000

• Existing petition participants can vote to request that the petition owner disable the
  setting which prevents anyone from staking more than them

Once the petition reaches the new MPP requested by the Creator, it closes again and the Creator is given another opportunity to accept or reject the petition. The number of signatures in the petition at the time of final acceptance will determine how many NFTs are minted.

If Option 2 is selected by the collective:

• The petition remains closed, meaning no new users are allowed to sign unless existing signatures are liquidated
• If desired, existing petition participants can increase their signature amounts for more voting power and a higher influencer score
• The minimum signature amount (MSA) increases for all existing participants

• Existing petition participants whose signatures are below the new MSA are given 24 hours to increase their signature amounts or have their signatures liquidated
• Existing petition participants can vote to request that the petition owner disable the
  setting which prevents anyone from staking more than them

Once the petition reaches the new MPP requested by the Creator, it closes again and the Creator is given another opportunity to accept or reject the petition. The number of NFTs minted will be equal to the original petition signature limit.

Scenario #4: Creator requests a change to the petition

Again, when considering the reality of community-driven commerce, it’s likely that there will always be some type of negotiation between Creators and Consumers. Using the Megan Thee Stallion example, instead of requesting more money to perform in Spanish, Megan might just ask Angela to delete the foreign language component. To do that, Megan would need to submit a parameter change proposal for petition participants to vote on.

Petition participants are given 24 hours to vote to approve or reject the Creator’s change request. If the majority of participants vote to accept the change request, the petition language and metadata are updated to reflect the new details of the experience. Anyone who voted to reject the change request will be given another 24 hours to withdraw from the petition if they no longer wish to support the new parameters. When users withdraw from a petition, those remaining will need to compensate for lost capital with new signatures and/or increased signature amounts from existing participants.

If the participants collectively vote to reject the change request, the Creator is given four options:

1. Accept the petition as is, with the original details/parameters
2. Request an increased MPP (see scenarios #2 & #3)
3. Submit an alternative change proposal and repeat the process until one of the
   aforementioned options is implemented
4. Reject the petition

FANFUNDR Revenue Model

FANFUNDR charges a platform fee to Creators upon their acceptance of petitions. The fee is equal to 3% of the TVL in the petition. Going back to the Megan Thee Stallion example, FANFUNDR would charge Megan $15,000 for accepting a petition worth $500,000.

In the future, we will investigate earning yield from deploying capital staked in petitions to external DeFi protocols as an additional revenue opportunity and mechanism for increasing rewards for network participation.

Summary

The FANFUNDR platform democratizes the production and consumption of pop culture, enabling Consumers and Creators to engage in equitable dialogue around the experiences, content and products being introduced into the market.

FANFUNDR offers Consumers unparalleled cultural ownership and access to once in a lifetime moments. Petitions present a new path to bilateral cultural influence, emphasizing Consumer desire as the genesis of creation. The FANFUNDR token will be used to establish a consensus mechanism for trustless collaboration between communities and their favorite Creators/Brands, unrivaled by any social media platform or traditional crowdfunding model.

This paper proposes the first technical solution for making cultural innovation more transparent and inclusive, enabling a new world of commercial possibilities that prioritize community engagement over legacy go-to-market strategies.

Expect this white paper to be a living document which will be updated over time with details including our tokenomics, future roadmap plans, team and advisor additions, etc. Check back for updates occasionally, or sign up for our newsletter (coming soon) to get notified automatically.

References

1. History of DAOs | State of the DAO #2 by Bankless DAO Writers Guild (gioser, Alvo
   von A, Adi G, hirokennelly.eth, Jake and Stake, scottyk, siddhearta, frogmonkee), 2021.
   https://banklessdao.substack.com/p/history-of-daos-state-of-the-dao
2. Scaling Trust in DAOs: Trustware vs Socialware by frogmonkee, Julia Rosenberg,
   Chase Chapman, 2022.
   https://orca.mirror.xyz/T70CmuhX95ubkw_JHOxSEy8d_EFeYXgtJnF13mPtaZE