Can we build a better game?

[vorcigernix]

I fully support minimizing the power of large token holders. Setting a hard cap sounds like another extreme though. Something like an inverse quadratic function would work best IMO.

[vorcigernix]

@kempsterrrr

• Developer DAO currently feels too large, and bureaucratic, which is harming the experience for the majority of members who are here to make friends, have fun, network, learn together and build cool stuff. Without having to worry about budgets, Governance, legal, finance etc.

Yes. I wouldn’t say bureaucratic, but indeed, large organizations have a tendency to slow down and become inefficient.

@kempsterrrr

• Should we redesign our $CODE rewards model to also reward folks for participation and learning, not just contribution, to help foster the primarily social experience that made the DAO great in the first place, and help achieve our mission?

I voted against it, but I think there are solid points that support that. I agree with pursuing the outcome: fostering the social experience. Would be great if we can define this as an experiment though (what are the starting conditions, what we change, what is expected outcome).

@kempsterrrr

• Can we increase the utility of the $CODE to provide more value to members, by introducing staking, using it to unlock opportunities in the DAO, and/or allocating treasury funds in a more decentralised (and fun!) way (i.e. like ENS small grants)?

IDK No strong opinion on that.

@kempsterrrr

• Should we make the DAO itself smaller, disconnecting $CODE governance so directly to commercial and operational considerations, and rather use Governance to empower members to create Sub-DAOs that can more easily create value for the DAO and its ecosystem overall?

Totally behind this, this is actually long overdue. What is necessary though is to define a success criteria for pods that are going to receive funding. In a sense of “you are doing xyz to support our mission, for this amount of tokens”. It would be also great if we can move this function to trustware layer, not sure if there is a good tooling for that though.

[chuck25]

@kempsterrrr

One way we could do this is by having a monthly $CODE budget for Players to allocate to each other via Coordinape circles. Folks would be able to recognise members purely for their participation, sharing dank members, asking good questions, vibing in VC5 or helping folks out with technical problems.

Bankless DAO is talking about moving away from this model, because it’s becoming a popularity contest, and also because it is hard for DAO members to keep up with the admin of monthly Coordinape rounds (light lift to be sure, but when you have 278 discord notifications every day…)

@kempsterrrr

Appreciate there is a lot here. I welcome debate and feedback/critique/suggestions on every line BUT try to keep feedback focused, it would be great to know if others feel this catches the current state of affairs in the DAO well, and specifically your thoughts the TLDR:

Brilliant post @kempsterrrr and my gratitude extends to everyone whose work you have cited here as well, including @Erik_Knobl @ntindle @Colin4ward and others.

I think that all four of the bullets in the tldr represent a logical evolution of D_D based on what has been learned over the past year, and especially since the launch of the $CODE token.

[chuck25]

@kempsterrrr

One idea is to run regular no-questions-asked grants rounds whereby we allocate a certain amount of funds from the Treasury and invite submissions from DAO members to apply for this funding to build their idea.

@Wikist sounds like a new grants program…

[ntindle]

I’ll apply today with a handful of DAO members if this opens up.

[kempsterrrr]

@vorcigernix

Yes. I wouldn’t say bureaucratic, but indeed, large organizations have a tendency to slow down and become inefficient.

My attempt to visualise the current structure

Something I think could be far simpler (obviously a lot of detail needs defining, has been chatting a lot in the DMs with folks, in particular @Bobbay, who has helped design systems in several other DAOs such as balancer. We both quite like Gitcoin’s Governance framework as a model to clarify things far better.

@vorcigernix

I voted against it, but I think there are solid points that support that. I agree with pursuing the outcome: fostering the social experience. Would be great if we can define this as an experiment though (what are the starting conditions, what we change, what is expected outcome).

Trialling this in the dev guild with POAPs, and $CODE, which is definitely increasing participation and connections but time will tell. fully support smaller experiments where we can do them.

This is essentially how I see the current contributor pathway:

and a new way I think we should consider working towards (which would introduce $CODE utility):

@vorcigernix

Totally behind this, this is actually long overdue. What is necessary though is to define a success criteria for pods that are going to receive funding. In a sense of “you are doing xyz to support our mission, for this amount of tokens”. It would be also great if we can move this function to trustware layer, not sure if there is a good tooling for that though.

My thoughts are $CODE rewards (far higher than currently) for the overwhelming majority of people who play the game; attending workshops, completing learning, write blogs, present to DevnTell etc. Earning $CODE passed certain levels gives them access to small grants rounds, DevRel incubator etc. to realise more value than just learning, gamify the system and add utility to the token.

Then we set a much higher bar for folks that want to create Sub-DAOs / Service Providers / Workstreams that legally live outside of the DAP and have SLAs, but these must all be independently sustainable as we don’t have the finances to sustain them otherwise. i.e. they’re delegated privilege to provide a service the DAO that includes using the DAO to generate revenue and they pass X of that back to the DAO.

They should be free to organise their work in the best way they see fit (i.e probs not in D_D discord) to deliver on their SLAs with The DAO experience/funnel that supports that contributor pathway, including potentially ending guilds

[vorcigernix]

I was on call with Rachel Rose from Opolis yesterday and what she shared as an elevator pitch sounds very much like your last two paragraphs. Could it be perhaps interesting to get in touch and gather some experiences? They are not running on pods though IMO, it was a really brief introduction - I am writing this just because the endgame sounds similar.

[kempsterrrr]

Always interested in jamming with folks struggling to parse the synergy based on my admittedly very limited knowledge of Opolis but they’re great people doing great things so love to exchange ideas/notes! Shoot me a DM if you want to set something up.

[MiroLiebschner]

Hey guys, interesting discussion! I hope you figure out a way that uses gamification but is not abused.

I am doing research on “the advantages and disadvantages of DAOs compared to traditional companies”. The research is part of my Master’s thesis and the paper might get published. The aim is to help DAOs make better design choices. Additionally, it should help traditional companies understand if and which part of their business processes they might want to move on-chain.

It seems like you guys are struggling a bit with organizational design. I would be very interested in your first-hand experience of what it is like to be part of a DAO including the bright sides but also the problems you face.

Is there someone in your organization willing to help with my scientific research by giving a short interview (max. 30-min) in December sharing their experience with DeveloperDAO? I think it could be mutually beneficial.
You can reach me via: m.f.liebschner@student.rug.nl

I hope to hear from you!
All the best, Miro

[kempsterrrr]

Thanks @MiroLiebschner - slightly concerning your email is rug.nl but will email now

[ntindle]

I think starting with one well defined path isn’t a bad thing. Starting with 5 poorly defined paths is.

Does that make sense?

[vorcigernix]

Probably not going to happen, radio silence from Opolis now.

[luan]

@kempsterrrr

Without having to worry about budgets, Governance, legal, finance etc.

Yes.

@kempsterrrr

Should we redesign our $CODE rewards model to also reward folks for participation and learning, not just contribution, to help foster the primarily social experience that made the DAO great in the first place, and help achieve our mission?

Yes, we definitely should. I’m meeting with the founders of Otterspace and Rep3 this week, regarding potentially utilizing badges as part of a redesign of the member UX.

If I like what I see, then I’ll move forward with building this out. If implemented well, it can add greater meaning to what has so far been a linear member UX, as well as one-sided/monolithic (the belief that everyone wants to be a ‘contributor’).

Badges can potentially help to make the member UX layered and thus, more valuable. Some great experimentation can happen. To quote something I mentioned to @wolovim during the early hours, regarding the Events initiative I’ve undertaken (I was mentioning how the existence of DD Labs enables us to operate in ways we previously weren’t able to):

This empowers DAO members to freely stage their own gatherings, which the DAO itself can still benefit from by association. I’m meeting with the founders of Otterspace and Rep3 this week regarding utilizing badges as a way to feed into the member UX (and ultimately quantify engagement). And I think even in this specific context — it allows us to essentially implement a vetting system via the badges. Meaning we’re only putting the DAO’s resources (merch) and credibility behind people who have actively and meaningfully been participating in the community.

Without possessing a certain badge, you cannot apply to stage an event where the DAO provides merch. With it, you can.

Badges potentially signify a points system, that (if implemented well) grants members access to additional privileges. And helps to bring some additional metrics to the DAO’s membership.

I went on to talk about monetization stuff, but all in all: I’m 100% pro re-designing the existing $CODE reward model to better fit into a non-contributor context.

@kempsterrrr

Can we increase the utility of the $CODE to provide more value to members, by introducing staking, using it to unlock opportunities in the DAO, and/or to allocate treasury funds in a more decentralised (and fun!) way (i.e. like ENS small grants)?

I know we’ve largely discussed this in the context of Agency, but I’m pro the idea being applied across the broader DAO.

@kempsterrrr

Should we make the DAO itself smaller, disconnecting $CODE governance so directly to commercial and operational considerations, and rather use Governance to empower members to create Sub-DAOs that can more easily create value for the DAO and its ecosystem overall?

Keen to read your thoughts

[luan]

@kempsterrrr

The game should be designed to serve those member “personas” and perhaps focus first on the majority of our DAO members, the Players.

Agreed. Non-contributors should come first. Prioritize the majority, for sure.

@kempsterrrr

Players are the folks who are mostly here to vibe, make friends, learn together and build cool stuff, without the bureaucratic restrictions that come with navigating Governance, budget proposals, accounting, legal considerations and the like.

Re-defining the governance aspect of the DAO will be critical. When the $CODE token launched, I found myself navigating enquiries into whether people should obtain $CODE, or a Genesis NFT off secondary. And it forced me to learn how to properly contextualize what they offer, relative to governance. Reframing governance and being able to properly (and succinctly) communicate that, will be an important part of helping to increase voter turnout.

People want to vote on shit that is meaningful to them. The bulk of DAO members do not actually give a fuck about what is happening at the Operational layer, so far there is no misconduct.

@kempsterrrr

They should be able to contribute to building the DAO itself, but it shouldn’t be the only or even the default path they can take, as it largely is now.

Yes. Very well put.

@kempsterrrr

We shouldn’t be afraid of rethinking and redesigning elements of the game we’re playing. In fact, we should always be actively working to improve it.

Agreed.

[luan]

@kempsterrrr

One way we could do this is by having a monthly $CODE budget for Players to allocate to each other via Coordinape circles. Folks would be able to recognise members purely for their participation, sharing dank members, asking good questions, vibing in VC5 or helping folks out with technical problems.

Drawback to this approach is that it relies on others to have an accurate and fair appraisal of someone’s participation. I know I’ve raised this previously, but this is heavily flawed. It’s something I’ve critiqued in my job, too. It’s largely arbitrary. And given that web3 (and subsequently DAO’s) are a microcosm, we need to be mindful about not creating structures or processes that are not equitable.

Also, this DAO is very siloed and has shown to be cliquish at times. It’s something I’ve publicly called out for the better part of ~6 months. I’ve also spoken with the Onboarding team about the importance of ensuring all new members feel welcomed, irrespective of whether or not they work at a prominent web3 company/org. I just think that we already exhibit behaviours that leave me questioning whether this can work well enough.

Happy to be challenged on the above points.

@kempsterrrr

We could also potentially achieve a similar effect by introducing tipping in the server for folks to send each other small amounts of $CODE to show personal appreciation for their contributions. Big or small.

Much better approach. Particularly because it’ll happen in the moment. Maybe each DAO member gets allocated a certain amount. And rather than retroactively trying to recollect who participated, tips happen in the moment and then get paid out at intervals?

@kempsterrrr

Another path could be giving POAPs to folks who attend social events in the DAO and then allocating a pool of $CODE tokens each month as a reward for participating in the community to make it a healthier space.

The Town Hall team had planned to gift some $CODE tokens to members who held all 4 of our S1 POAP’s. Just as a one-off treat for turning up and engaging.

I might still go ahead with this, based on those who hold all 3 POAP’s I’ll give it some further rumination.

In any case, as mentioned in my comment above (see: Link) - I’m meeting with Rep3 and Otterspace later this week. Will follow up after my meetings.

@kempsterrrr

By rewarding folks in $CODE for learning in an open way, we could welcome into our community exactly the kind of folk who could make it a more valuable space, whilst removing the purely economic barriers to entry that are currently in place.

Agreed.

@kempsterrrr

One idea is to run regular no-questions-asked grants rounds whereby we allocate a certain amount of funds from the Treasury and invite submissions from DAO members to apply for this funding to build their idea.

Happy that this idea is being re-visited. I’m 100% in support. It’s something we’d previously discussed, when we were trying to map out a ‘Public Goods Guild’.

[myz1237.eth]

Great discussion. I’ll catch up when I’m back

[luan]

@kempsterrrr

With other suggestions above, this could make Governance more fun and increase participation.

Someone say fun? See: Link

Platform: Mysterious.io

@kempsterrrr

Empower members or groups of members to more freely create value that can flow back to the DAO, without being held back by the overhead of being part of the DAO proper (e.g., easy access to financial infrastructure, potential funding that doesn’t mean selling $CODE, but can improve the DAO for everyone, partnerships with other organisations).

See: Link

To pull an excerpt from what I proposed:

SubDAOs/sub-entities are not core offerings from Developer DAO. But they exist (in part) to feed into that end user/member experience. Whether that is at the social layer, public goods, educational, onboarding etc. Ultimately, the broader vision is that Developer DAO can serve as a conduit for other communities, projects, ideas, and DAO’s to spin out of. This can be across engineering, sciences, marketing, media, academia etc. And I believe the above framework can help to facilitate creating a cycle of value across web3.

SubDAOs/Sub-entities are not the same as projects or startups that are intended to operate independently of Developer DAO’s Hubs.

@kempsterrrr

Make the Player and Builder experience much clearer and therefore fairer, with a clearer pathway for how Players can become Builders of the game if they want to (for example, Agency.)

Agreed.

@kempsterrrr

A new entity that exists to wrap (and importantly make far easier and expand) the commercial activities that currently support and fund the DAO (partnerships, VIBES IRL, Job Board, Merch, maybe more), some of which are entirely blocked, and others made much harder by the challenges listed above.

This model could then apply to many other ideas and examples such as Agency, but also P3RKS, Eden and anything else that starts in the DAO, but would likely have a far bigger impact on the mission if they were released to take advantage of opportunities outside of the DAO, too.

Ensuring any such entities are mission and value-aligned is important so feedback from members on this idea is crucial. Seem evident though the status quo with regards to the “size” of the DAO and the existing structures are holding us back.

I’m pretty much aligned on all of this.

@kempsterrrr

What impact would such a redesign have on the current DAO structure (Guilds, Projects, Discord, etc.)?

My proposal is that we abolish Guilds. Rebrand the ones which need to remain as ‘Pods’ (i.e. workgroups), and move them into an entirely new server. I created a new server last night btw. Will begin building it out, as this conversation develops.

@kempsterrrr

What kinds of participation make sense to reward vs. not, same with learning?

Voting should. But this shouldn’t be directly communicated. I fear it can influence people into voting, who may have otherwise abstained. Retroactively rewarding voters who selected YES or NO, feels good to me (in theory).

@kempsterrrr

How do we limit how much rewarding folks in $CODE for participation and learning be exploited?? (e.g., Ask everyone to complete Gitcoin Passport when joining, maybe reward them for this or PoH, have a mechanism for reporting perceived bad actors, etc.)

Fairly certain Gitcoin open-sourced their Passport offering. I like the idea of adapting something within a D_D context. But it’s not mandatory. Just a thought.

@kempsterrrr

What impact would a new rewards model like this have on long-term Governance and decentralisation?

This will likely remain an unknown until we actually implement some shit.

@kempsterrrr

What impact would a new rewards model like this have on $CODE budgets?

Can you elaborate on this question, please?

@kempsterrrr

What would a correct relationship between a Sub-DAO and the DAO look like? (e.g., DAO owns part of it, all of it, revenue share commitment, profit share commitment, etc.) How do we ensure they support the DAOs mission?

My proposal is that some SubDAO’s will likely be enveloped into the DAO itself. DevDao Women is a textbook example, and thus makes sense to be wholly owned by the DAO — even though it’s led by @meowy. However, some other SubDAO’s should be majority-owned by the people who founded it. This touches on some of the discussions we had in the Steering Committee (cc: @Wikist @chuck25 @Colin4ward @Erik_Knobl @myz1237.eth), but I think that based on my own interpretation of SubDAO’s (see the excerpt above); Developer DAO should have a sensible ownership stake.

If a SubDAO exists (at least in part) to feed into the DAO member experience, and we’re providing access to Developer DAO members, then that constitutes a partnership. And equity should be discussed as such.

@kempsterrrr

Should Sub-DAOs be issued $CODE as part of their being established?

No, not by default. There needs to be a sensible case for it.

@kempsterrrr

Appreciate there is a lot here.

Mate, I aged 3 years between when I started reading and when I finally finished.

Jokes aside, this was very well structured, and I appreciate the time it took to put this together.