Authors: @mannyornothing @drop_knowledge @kempsterrrr
NOTE - We’re hoping for as much feedback and discussion on this proposal as possible. It’s important we strike the right balance between empowering Member to create value as Sub-DAO’s without overly restricting them but ensuring value some value flows back to the DAO for Members to reallocate to future Sub-DAO’s.
This proposal is a good faith attempt at achieving that and likely needs revision before being ready to be voted on by Members.
This proposal adds further clarity to the structures outlined in P-22: DAO Governance Structure Updagde based on feedback and observations as we rolled this changes out.
Specifically it further clarifies introduces the following:
- Clarity on how Sub-DAO’s return value to the DAO
- Rules for usage of the DAO’s brand(s)
- How Sub-DAOs can amend their domain of operations and value return to the DAO
P-22: DAO Governance Structure Upgrade saw Guilds and Projects replaced with Sub-DAOs, and claririty given to the Governance roles in the DAO: Member, Contributor and Steward. These changes simplified the DAO and empowered the small subset of Members who wanted to take on more responsibility as Contributors or Stewards, to do so with clearer roles and responsibilities.
The results have been positive, with more Contributors receiving USD rewards, a more sustainable pipeline of revenue for the DAO and an uptick in activity and community engagement. Whilst these results are very positive, many questions have come up as we’ve rolled Sub-DAO’s out that signal more guidelines are needed in areas such as: value return to the DAO, brand usage and amendments to Sub-DAOs.
This proposal seeks to provide that clarification so Members who seek to Contirbute can do so with more confidence.
Scope of work
Value Return to the DAO
In P-22: DAO Governance Structure Upgrade, how Sub-DAOs return value to the DAO was left very vague. This proposal amends those rules to add clearer guidelines for Sub-DAOs both inside and outside of the Foundation’s legal wrapper.
Both internal and external Sub-DAOs benefit in many direct tangible ways (Community Access, Marketing & Promotion) and intangible ways (i.e Brand association).
Internal Sub-DAOs specifically also benefit from the legal and operational support of the Foundation. There is a direct and scaling cost to providing these that needs to be accounted for in Governance…
A minimum of 15% of all revenue returned to the DAO. All other funds can be allocated how the Sub-DAO and its Contributors see fit, under internal Governance processes they determine.
Given Sub-DAO’s outside of the Foundation are assuming most of the associated risk and operational costs, the expectation for value return to the DAO is reduced. Exactly how the value return is implemented depends on the structure of the Sub-DAO (i.e. issuing a token, or not) but broadly speaking, the return should be minimum of 5%.
NB - This should either be achieved by an eqvuivilant equity stake, revenue share or token allocation.
All usage of the Developer DAO’s brand for commercial purposes must be either accounted for in a Sub-DAO Proposal or agreed in advance with the Stewards for one-off requests.
Amendments to Sub-DAOs
Assuming no impact to existing legal arrangements between the Foundation, Sub-DAO’s and/or Contributors, amendments may be made to Sub-DAOs domain of operations and value return to the DAO via DDIP.
Where there is a legal impact (i.e. breaks a contractual agreement that’s in place) these must be addressed prior to an amendment to a Sub-DAO being elevated to Snapshot. Any impact particles must agree before a vote can go live, the Stewards will represent the Members in these discussions.
Primary drawback from tightening the rules under which Sub-DAOs can be formed and must operate may have an negative impact on the volume and variety of proposed Sub-DAOs.