How often have you curated a whitelist based on partners and community members, only to find the user count far exceeds the total supply of your upcoming drop? You might assume this guarantees a quick sell-out. However, this is frequently not the case.
Problem
When the entry barrier is as low as simple social participation, you open the door for users who register without genuine intention or financial ability to purchase the token. This can lead to over-subscription and complex management issues. Moreover, if the drop does not sell out, you're left wondering how this happened despite having what seemed like an ample number of interested users ready to mint.
Solution
Offering a whitelist mint exclusively to users who can prove they have the necessary funds provides several strategic and practical advantages. This ensures that only users who are genuinely interested and financially capable of purchasing the tokens secure a place on the whitelist. Such an approach fosters a more engaged and committed community. Additionally, users who demonstrate financial readiness are more likely to complete their purchases, thereby maximizing your overall whitelist conversion rate.
Example Implementation
Consider a receive method in a smart contract used for handling the whitelist process. In this scenario, users can self-whitelist by sending Ethereum to the contract. This example includes error handling to verify that self-whitelisting is enabled, the caller is not blacklisted, and the amount of Ether sent is correct. Upon validation, the user's address is added to the whitelist, and their funds are returned. This approach was inspired by Vultisig.
This is only a conceptual example. Do not use this code in production as it has not been audited.
receive() external payable {
if (_isSelfWhitelistDisabled) {
revert SelfWhitelistDisabled();
}
if (_isBlacklisted[_msgSender()]) {
revert Blacklisted();
}
if (msg.value != MINT_PRICE) {
revert InsufficientFunds();
}
_addWhitelistedAddress(_msgSender());
payable(_msgSender()).transfer(msg.value);
}
Alternative Implementation Methods
- Pre-Signed Transactions: Users might be required to sign a transaction demonstrating they have the funds available.
- Staking Mechanisms: Users may need to stake a certain amount of cryptocurrency to get whitelisted, which can be refunded later.
Further Discussion
Although this article focused on NFTs, the approach of requiring proof of funds for whitelist minting is also valuable for ERC20 tokens, offering numerous advantages beyond the immediate context.
Enhancing Fairness and Accessibility: By requiring proof of funds, we create a level playing field where only those with verified financial capability can participate. This ensures a more equitable distribution process and helps avoid bots and fake accounts that might otherwise exploit the system.
Streamlining the Process: Proof of funds simplifies logistics and ensures that participants can immediately fund their purchases. This efficient allocation makes the token distribution process smoother and helps in managing initial token supply dynamics, contributing to price stability.
Enhancing Security and Compliance: Implementing proof of funds can assist in meeting Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance requirements by adding a verification layer. It also mitigates the risk of fraud by ensuring that participants use legitimate and traceable funds.
Your Thoughts
What are your thoughts on requiring proof of funds for whitelisting? Can this approach enhance the credibility, fairness, and efficiency of a project?
I'd love to hear your insights! Share your opinions, and let's continue the conversation in the next article.
Top comments (0)