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.
Yes. I wouldn’t say bureaucratic, but indeed, large organizations have a tendency to slow down and become inefficient.
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).
IDK No strong opinion on that.
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.
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…)
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.
@Wikist sounds like a new grants program…
I’ll apply today with a handful of DAO members if this opens up.
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.
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):
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
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.