cc @wolovim
I want to raise an important question: if we’re doing this on profit (net proceeds), what is to stop the team from raising their costs and never returning anything to do the DAO? Is the DAO just supposed to trust you? How do we pay for the increased operational costs/overhead as the project grows if a Sub-DAO is not making a profit?
Where we have Sub-DAO’s operating as core parts of the DAO and less like “services providers” as with [DRAFT] - VIBES IRL Sub-DAO I’ll personally be advocating for them being their own entities as fast as possible/reasonable and the Foundation having an equity stake in that entity. This is the cleanest way to ensure the DAO has value returned as if the folks owning the equity want to take money out of the project or there is a financing event; the DAO will be legally entitled to its share for that value rather than having to trust teams to not “cook the books” and increase costs so there is no profit to return.
I wonder if, whilst Sub-DAOs are part of the Foundation, where the foundation is taking on all the risk and cost (processing contracts, invoices etc.), should this be done revenue to ensure those costs are covered?
This seems like the most sensible and sustainable approach for everyone.
I’d love to hear from the other @stewards thoughts on this, as it’s a very important topic.
@mannyornothing and I discussed yesterday the need to clarify the % share that labs return to the DAO, as right now, the folks Contributing there are funding the entire DAO, which is challenging from on operational decision-making level re allocating the money the Sub-DAO is bringing in - right now we’d need to submit governance proposals which doesn’t make sense IMO if other Sub-DAO are only return a %.
I believe % of revenue for Sub-DAOs inside the foundation makes the most sense until separate entities are formed for the above reasons.