[Draft] Amendments to DAO Governance Structure

Authors: @mannyornothing @drop_knowledge @kempsterrrr
Supporting @stewards:

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…

Inside Foundation

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.

Outside Foundation

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.

Brand usage

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.

1 Like

Note - this proposal will impact ALL Sub-DAO’s. Pinging folks from those existing teams and those proposing new Sub-DAOs

Agency - @Gordo @Erik_Knobl @luan
Labs - @mannyornothing @Billyjitsu @kayprasla @allWiseee @Kay @PSkinnerTech
DDW - @krystal @meowy
Academy - @wolovim @Piablo @brianfive
P3RKS - @mannyornothing @pbillingsby.eth @Martin
Raisan Labs - @Crypdough.eth

I’m also aware know @Technoking is considering a Sub-DAO proposal soon.

Sure, I’ve missed some folks. Please forgive me if so and tag them :slight_smile:

How do folks feel about hosting a Twitter Space to discuss this topic in an open forum?

1 Like

This should not be based on a percentage of revenue, which has the potential to put any subDAO under water financially. Moreover, a demand for 15% of a company’s revenue without a substantial financial investment seems predatory. $CODE allocations do not represent a financial investment in a sub-DAO – if it was, valuations would be hurt dramatically.


I couldn’t agree more for folks starting their own business. 15% is ridiculous. However, to confirm, the 15% of revenue here is for Sub-DAOs that sit within the Foundation’s legal scope (i.e. don’t have a separate entity) and thus are not setting up a business and don’t have to pay for accounting (tax, bookkeeping), legal (contracts, advice), operations (payroll, tooling), etc. nor are they absorbing the personal liability via fiduciary duty as a Director of said entity - the 15% suggested here covers those costs and any other benefits of being a Sub-DAO.

Does that change your view? If no, what do you think is reasonable and why?

For Sub-DAOs that have their entity, it suggests 5% of either revenue, equity or token allocation. I prefer equity/token > revenue here, also. Equity position ensures that the Foundation would get its “fair share” of any value taken out of the business as profit or during a financing event, but not hurt the business’s operations until it’s successful & only benefits if the project is successful so intrinsically motivated to make it so.

I’m unsure if profit can be used in either situation as it’s too easy to manipulate this - i.e. raise salaries to reduce profit.

cc @Crypdough.eth

Also happy to be way off the mark here and love alternative models / suggestions - mainly getting the conversation started :slight_smile:

Agree with the general idea, but there is one issue I think we need to understand more before going to snapshot: How does the interaction between tokens + LLCs work, both in the side of the sub-DAO and on the side of D_D?
Reached out to the guys of OtoCo. Will try to clarify this issue.

1 Like

This does not change my view very much. To clarify, I think the DAO is justified in taking a percentage of profit, but taking a percentage of revenue is very abnormal in this type of relationship. I don’t expect the DAO to take any losses associated with taking on overhead for internal sub DAOs, so we can provision for that more specifically (like having a sub-DAO pay the difference out of operations costs if there isn’t enough ROI to cover or carry as debt). Venture funds and accredited investors are paid out after cost of operations in a firm are handled, never before. The only exception is some types of venture debt where a per unit tax is imposed on sales – but again, this required substantial monetary investment & is explicitly considered debt. Moreover, it’s not like all sub-DAOs will have the same valuation, so the equity may be even more expensive, creating a larger disparity between value given and value received. So, I think it also might be more appropriate to evaluate sub-DAOs on a per-case basis rather than mandatory minimums. In a healthy company, 15-30% of revenue is reserved for payroll, I don’t see how this could be particularly unreliable given the contemporary conventions.

1 Like

I’m not sure I follow - Sub-DAOs in the Foundation’s legal scope are essentially just teams operating inside the foundation’s legal wrapper, so the normal considerations around investments don’t apply in the same way. I could see why the number might be considered too high, but we’re essentially talking about empowering a team in an existing company (internal sub-DAO in the Foundation’s legal wrapper) vs a group of people creating a new company (external Sub-DAO).

For internal Sub-DAOs (essentially team /workstream/project inside foundation legal scope) there is no conversation about valuations, debt etc., as those things don’t / can’t exist. It’s impossible for them to take investment, profit etc. as it’s a non-profit and has no beneficial owners, it’s just their contributor payments from the margin on the revenue they bring in.

Lots of healthy discussion is needed. :slight_smile: Not sure I follow your question here re how tokens work. Could you try to elaborate?

Don’t know enough about the specific structures you’re referring to in OtoCo and the agency groundwork you’ve been laying there (great efforts btw :saluting_face: ) to fully comment but my simple assumption is project issues tokens, and a % of those tokens go to the treasury. Maybe with some terms that need to be defined at the proposal stage.

This is an area where the DAO don’t have clarity, and we are assuming a sub-DAO outside Foundation can just use tokens without any issues. And we may be right on that assumption.
We just need to be certain that there are no legal troubles. I will continue pressing the guys from OtoCo, and try to get more clarity in the issue.

In theory, sounds okay-ish. Specifically:

If Developer DAO provides a material value to a SubDAO, then the SubDAO should return a percentage of value (i.e. profit) generated, back to the DAO.

The issue for me, is I don’t know what value Developer DAO provides to Agency, for example. Material value, not presumed. If I look at the work I’ve done so far, that’s literally all been me. I’ve not relied on Developer DAO for anything. Even if we were to consider the legal structure/foundation… I don’t know how Agency is currently benefitting from that in a material way.

Speaking to prospective clients, I mention how Agency began (in the DAO), and then I go on to mention my own work in Developer DAO. But that’s my worknot some benefit I derived from the DAO. And that’s been enough to move discussions forward. So on my end, I don’t benefit from Developer DAO and do not currently see why I’d relinquish a percentage of anything back to it. Or more specifically, a percentage as high as what has been proposed.

The question that should be asked here, is:

What value has Developer DAO provided to a SubDAO, and what has it materially translated into?

With something like Eden Protocol, that benefit was very clear. They got to workshop their idea by being deeply embedded into the onboarding process, among a host of other things. But even then (outside of Alex and Ty who are on the Eden team), that value was partly because of myself. I facilitated those discussions, spent several months going into depth, proving feedback and consultation. So does that value return to the DAO or to me?

It’s a rhetorical question.

The point is, a blanketed percentage doesn’t make sense. People providing said value should realize the value being returned. If it’s a structural thing at the DAO-level, then that returns to the treasury. But if individuals in Developer DAO are providing that value, there’s no justification for why the DAO wants to reap the rewards of that work. So there needs to be better stipulations in place.

There also needs to be logic applied when listing the benefits that the DAO can provide to SubDAO’s vs the things that a SubDAO has actually, materially benefitted from. If a SubDAO under the foundation did not have need for the legal stuff, but they were simply inside the DAO; that should realistically be considered.


If we consider $CODE budgets for SubDAO’s, the percentages being proposed above, are not remotely commensurate to the $CODE allocations themselves. Developer DAO’s token isn’t worth a lot. The token has very little liquidity; which means that the price per-token x multiplied by the total no. of tokens in circulation are not reflective of how much people can actually exchange for fiat currencies. As such, more logic needs to be applied to what’s being proposed here. The underlying premise makes sense. The outline (to me) does not.

  1. Developer DAO needs to provide material value that can actually be listed and pointed to

  2. There needs to be provisions for people who provide that value to SubDAOs, rather than Developer DAO simply being the sole beneficiary. Particularly in instances where it’s been of no impact.

  3. Percentages need to better reflect the value derived from Developer DAO. $CODE token budgets/allocations are definitely a value, but logic should be applied and the context should always be considered: the price per-token is peanuts right now, and it’s worth even less due to the very low liquidity. Having channels in the Discord server is a value, but not 5% or 15% type of value. A lot less engagement in Discord, Twitter.

  4. Nuance should be considered. Agency began in Developer DAO. One could argue that the DAO’s existence is a type of benefit, because it allowed for the Agency team to come together. But context is important. Logic, too. Developer DAO has been instrumental to Agency, much in the same way that an educational institution has been instrumental to future co-founders who happened to meet in an economics class. Stanford, Harvard etc only served as a common ground — they are not responsible for the ideas that people came up with, or the work that they did. Not by default, through their existence. So this really reiterates my 1st and 3rd points.

1 Like

Some fair points in here, and I don’t know what the numbers ultimately should be, but in the case of Agency, it feels like the impact or potential impact of being connected to D_D is very undervalued. Anyone can spin up an org that does contract work, but the Developer DAO name offers instant credibility, networks, and I’d expect could open doors not accessible to a fledgeling team otherwise. Additionally, being able to screen applicants from a pool of talent available in the DAO, and scale up or down to meet opportunities is uniquely awesome.

At a high level, I do think any sub-dao – operating under or outside of the foundation umbrella – needs to be given a fighting chance, though. At this stage, my gut is that it would be better to:

  1. start modestly - err on the side of asking for too little of a return to the DAO than too much, and
  2. revisit regularly - commit to treating this equation as an experiment, where all parties agree to revisit the numbers within a few months. If a given sub-dao is operating comfortably and benefitting from its relationship with the DAO, expect a conversation about a modest increase in the return to the DAO. By the same token, this invites more conversation about how best the DAO can support each sub-dao.
1 Like

Definitely hear @luan points here and understand where they’re coming from. Right now tangible/quantifiable value from the DAO isn’t totally clear, but I echo @wolovim’s points about the less quantifiable value being provided I suspect has made Agency possible for the folks who have put in the hard work creating it (i.e. one wouldn’t exist without the other)

Also worth noting Agency received 54,400 $CODE in Season 1, which at its current price (ignoring the issues around liquidity) is 54,400 * $0.145 = $7,888. I also spoke with @Erik_Knobl on Friday about how the agency budget for S2 had slipped the cracks, which the @stewards will queue this week. That is another 46,600, which at the same prize = $6,757

In total, that’s 101,000 $CODE which s %1 of the total supply and at the current price equals $14,645 USD.

To the point about liquidity, I’d like to propose an extended vision on how we can address the lack of liquidity in the $CODE token and its value.

  1. Members allocate $CODE from the treasury to support Sub-DAOs which are self-sustaining (maybe mins some set-up costs and core operations i.e. accounting etc.)
  2. Sub-DAOs that generate a return give a % of that return back to the treasury
  3. The treasury uses a % of those funds to buy $CODE back from the open market to generate a demand for the Token.
  4. Members can choose to hold or sell the token in the market the DAO has now created

This visual may illustrate this better…

This model is very common amongst DAOs and could address many of the issues raised in this thread thus far regarding no value or liquidity in $CODE and, thus no value in it being issued as budgets beyond governance.

Whilst also situations are nuanced, without some minimum expectations on value return for the DAO I have observed and predict we’ll continue to see the following issues:

  1. Proposals get stuck as it’s not clear what the decision framework is for yes/no (i.e. who is negotiating the baseline value return, the stewards? everyone?)
  2. Fewer proposals are made due to uncertainty. Therefore, fewer opportunities to grow the DAOs’ and Member’s impact and put them on the table for Members to consider.

Returning value back to the DAO also allows us to grow the resources from which we can invest in other Members with other ideas beyond the Sub-DAOs we currently have in place. It is my view more nodes in the network of value created by the DAO will always trump the sizes of a few early nodes and the DAO needs a way to grow its resources to support more nodes to be established.

An important question in this for me is “What can be a Sub-DAO?” - should we as a DAO accept proposals for any ideas or rather should we place some restrictions on what can be proposed?

I’d be very interested to hear some viewpoints on this…

NB - we need to re-clarify we’re legally OK to do this but I believe we are.

sorry I missed the tag @kempsterrrr

I couldn’t agree more with the following. Our resources are invaluable:

What the DAO right up until today has achieved is create a goldmine. Just because we’re in what folks call a bear-market, doesn’t reduce the value of our DAO one iota comparative to the rest of web3, I would say it reinforces it, we’re more resilient than most entities out there, and with the deep and widening base that we have. It would be short-sighted to think otherwise. To maintain something as valuable as we have needs a regenerative mindset, not one of grab and run, or plunder. We don’t need this in our DAO: Earth Overshoot Day - Global Footprint Network.

Beautifully put:

Everyone has done their piece voluntarily to date to make the DAO what it is. A lot of laughs, blood, sweat and tears. Whether that started yesterday or September 2021. Let’s honour that, and rewind and start the conversation about ‘what we have’. After that, we can start talking about figures, money and percentages after that. I would say those are two separate conversations, and it’s too chaotic to try and conflate them - like chalk and cheese. Better to have two satisfactory processes than one unsatisfactory.

Let’s change the question to 'What does the DAO do to benefit any potential sub-DAO?"
My 2 gwei.


Tbh, 15% is actually pretty reasonable if:

  • You’re operating under D_D’s legal entity and not your own.
  • You don’t have to pay for accounting (tax, bookkeeping).
  • You don’t have to pay for legal (contracts, advice).
  • You don’t have to pay for operations tooling (payroll).
  • You don’t have to pay for recruiting.
  • You get free exposure to potential beta users within the DAO.

As a startup founder, I’ve paid significantly more than just 15% of my revenue for only half of those services. This is honestly a steal.

All of those together as a new startup can easily cost you $15k/month and newly recruited and well-vetted hires can cost $15k/each (sometimes $25k). Not only that, the working hours to manage all of those tools are even more expensive. Operation hours as a new startup founder with a newly created entity can easily take up 20hrs/week.

I would GLADLY hand over 15% of the revenue of ANY of my companies for someone to run all of these. This is like having a COO and a CFO-in-a-box for only 15%. Even if you netted $1m in the first year, that’s only $150k/year. You can barely get one decent CFO for that price.

I do propose that 5% that are working outside of the DAO with their own entity and managing most of their own services be reduced to 2%. (Comparable to using Stripe/Shopify services)

Also, I think if a subDAO that started in the first tier (of 15%) eventually outgrew that tier and created its own entity would honor a $10k/1-year SAFE agreement with D_D. That means if they raise funds within a year of creating their own entity, that D_D would get a percentage of equity comparable to $10k USD worth of their pre-money valuation.


If a subDAO “X” created its own C-Corp and in 6 months raised $100k for 5% of their company (giving the company $2m pre-money valuation), that D_D is matched for $10k worth of company equity from the $2m pre-money valuation. That means D_D would receive 0.5% equity.

BUT, if the company doesn’t raise money in the first year, then the SAFE agreement is voided. This will motivate D_D to continue assisting companies within the SAFE agreement timeline to raise capital and grow their company within the first year in order to earn equity.


Coming here to share some evolved thinking based on the feedback from those who have shared their thoughts already here (thanks @luan @Crypdough.eth @Erik_Knobl @wolovim @Piablo @PSkinnerTech ) and from various conversations around the DAO between Contributors, Stewards, Members etc.

Summarising some sentiments, feelings/feedback and observations from around the DAO

  1. The DAO, and more specifically Labs, has not done enough to support and help elevate other Sub-DAOs in Season 2 (Especially Agency and Academy)
  2. Maybe not everything should be a Sub-DAO, rather Sub-DAOs should things that want to create a core D_D branded element of the Member experience/levels to the game we’re playing. This means the tight guide rails are are fairer ask. Members such as @Crypdough.eth (Raisan), P3RKS, Eden Protocol etc., can realise value from their Membership in other ways, such as Fellowship grants provided by Sub-DAOs, without having these restrictions on the business they’re creating.
  3. The current partnership model focuses on Partners rather than the community, is not very scaleable and does not provide natural, incentive-aligned collaboration opportunities and value share between the Sub-DAOs to life up the WHOLE DAO.
  4. It’s clear, at least to me, that these rails need to be defined to address the uncertainty around Sub-DAO and the impact that it has had on stalled proposals.

I want to propose an updated vision for Sub-DAOs, Labs role as the team handling most of the core DAO Functions (Community Management, Sales, Marketing & Ops), value-return to the DAO and value-share/support from Lab’s revenue to other Sub-DAOs.

Update Labs Model

The Labs team has been working hard to figure out a new model that funds the DAO, allowing us to shift back to a more community-focused > partner-focused experience. It goes roughly as follows:

Preferred Partners

We’re pursuing a few “Preferred partners” for broadly applicable tooling our member use/need: RPC, Wallet, Exchange, Infrastructure, and Storage. They will pay a monthly fee to be used as the default provider we use across the DAO (i.e. in academy tracks, they would use this RPC and have a CTA for learners to sign-up for an account, maybe the Agency project get a nice elevated free account as well) and promote in our workshops and events and hackathons (i.e. CTAs in Youtube/Event descriptions).

This will provide baseline revenue to fund the DAO and free us up to create an experience around and driven by the Community rather than one that is constantly promoting partners.

We’re also starting to look to build a network of “venture frens” who will pay a monthly fee to get access to posting jobs for their portco’s on our job board and access to “deal-flow” from Developer DAO so projects coming out of the DAO or the fellowship/hackathons get introductions to venture partners when seeking investment.

Hackathons, Events, Merch, Jobs and Fellowships

On top of this ongoing revenue from preferred partners, Labs will drive more revenue from these areas to further grow the DAO treasury and be able to pay more Contributors to grow nd improve the community.

We have an update pitch deck for this model which I’ll share here in the coming days.

Supporting other Sub-DAOs

Revenue share on preferred partners

A % of the preferred revenue from partners is shared with Sub-DAOs to help fund the folks building out these new models in the DAO.

Sales, Marketing and Community support for Sub-DAOs

The Labs team will provide direct support Sub-DAOs to help elevate what they’re doing, drive community engagement/contributor flow for them and provide revenue streams the Sub-DAOs can allocate freely to their contributors/to fund their operations.

We’re seeing this play out as follows:

  1. Sub-DAOs have dedicated time/space within existing marketing/community events to promote what they’re doing, seek/funeel contributors etc. (i.e. space on Town Hall, in newsletter etc.)
  2. Labs partnership team will promote the services they’re offering to the partners we’re already speaking with (Already discussing lining up paid partners for Academy and can do the same to create more inbound deal flow for Agency)

A Sub-DAO Coordinator role

A paid role in each Sub-DAO for coordinating activity and contributor rewards, paid for out of the revenue the Labs team are generating under this new model.

Community-Driven Experience

This new model grants us the freedom to create a Community-driven experience whilst still growing the revenue that supports the DAO. We see this playing out in a few ways:

A regular cadence of community events each month

We’re scoping a regular set of community events we repeat each month anchored in providing value for Members. Currently, some of the more solid ideas are:

  1. Builder sessions: regular slots each week where 1/2 Contributors will be paid to be available to provide help/support to any Member that brings along a technical/product/whatever problem.
  2. Regular, Community-driven Twitter Space Panels: Spaces around topics (for example, zk) where we invite experts in the space to discuss topics the community has signalled an interest in).
  3. VIBES: Contributors paid specifically to host VIBES each week as part of the community team

We’re also considering a few other things, such as continuing the Wellness sessions with Emm and MVP/Feature demo sessions for Members to get feedback on what they’re building from other members. We’d LOVE to hear some ideas here for regular activities the community would like see happen.

At the end of each month we have a Hackathon and at the end of the quarter we run a fellowship program with partners like Press Start Cap x Developer DAO Fellowship.

Here is an image for what the average month might look like under this model:

CODE Rewards for every activity

CODE has been underutilised in the last quarter. For the next quarter, we’ll be proposing allocating CODE rewards, or rewards pools, to most of the important community activities.

For example:

  1. CODE for everyone who attends vibes and claims the VIBES NFT
  2. CODE for everyone who attends workshops and claims the BUILD NFT
  3. CODE for everyone who submits to hackathons
  4. CODE for everyone who submits for fellowships
  5. A CODE pool shared based on the amount of Praise issued to each person in Discord ( @Billyjitsu is working on implementing this system)
  6. CODE Membership giveaways on Twitter spaces

The goal here is to “spend” CODE to incentivise and reward the things that make the community grow and more valuable for everyone, similarly to how a DeFi protocol might issue yields to attract liquidity and make their protocol more valuable for users.

Importantly, this will also help us recruit more members and further decentralise voting power in the DAO into the hands of Members.

WIP Labs/DAO Budget

Here is a link to a WIP budget that supports this model well. This is not quite finalised but felt important to share this given to provide some context as to how the above can be achieved practically. We’ll keep updating this same document until we submit our full Sub-DAO budget proposal.

Potential Impact on this proposal

If Members supports this proposed vision and direction (please provide feedback), I believe it will help address many of the concerns raised in these comments related to how sub-dao’s are supported/we grow together and thus justification for value return to the DAO, to be reinvested in either future Sub-DAO’s, legal costs if we need to create new entities or CODE buybacks from the market.

It also likely means a reconsideration of the model for any Sub-DAOs that might eventually require new entities. I can imagine a world where those entities are majority owned by the foundation, and maybe some equity vests to the folks taking on the risk and responsibility of building it. We incubate these projects in the foundation, and then the DAO pays the initial (and supports on-going) legal costs to spin them out to empower contributors and isolate risk.

There is a lot to unpack here, and I am excited to hear people’s thoughts, feedback, critiques and suggestions. I’d also love to host a Twitter space where we can discuss this in an open forum that hopefully engages more folks who may not be paying attention to the forum or hanging out in Discord.

Hopefully, the above makes enough sense to spark some interesting conversation while we’re finalising the Labs proposal to support this approach.

cc @stewards

1 Like

Lots of stuff here, most of it good. I would suggest not taking too long in discussions, but try to move forward on a steady pace. It’s a nice iteration to test.
My only question is how you are defining the Labs Team. Technically, currently all stewards are Labs team, but by reading the proposal, I don’t think that’s what you have in mind. Just provide clear definitions of the roles and responsibilities of the new labs team.

1 Like

Really digging the community driven experience angle with the CODE rewards!

Some questions:

  • Do we only see giving out CODE to existing members (thus reducing events to those held inside the discord) or do you foresee us giving it out to non-members too? From the way it’s written it looks like we plan to offer to non-member but wanted to confirm
  • How do we plan to deal with token farmers like we experienced with DevNTell if we’re to offer token rewards? We planning to still drive this with POAP/Kudos claims?
  • What are thoughts yours (and other folks thoughts) around opening up the DAO to accept projects that are both web3 and web2? We’re Developer DAO and not web3 DAO after all and think there’s some really interesting things people are building that don’t necessarily use web3 under the hood. Especially if you think the Sub DAO concept will evolve itself into a fellowship/accelerator/incubator type of deal re:. “It also likely means a reconsideration of the model for any Sub-DAOs that might eventually require new entities. I can imagine a world where those entities are majority owned by the foundation, and maybe some equity vests to the folks taking on the risk and responsibility of building it. We incubate these projects in the foundation, and then the DAO pays the initial (and supports on-going) legal costs to spin them out to empower contributors and isolate risk.”
1 Like
  • Do we only see giving out CODE to existing members (thus reducing events to those held inside the discord) or do you foresee us giving it out to non-members too? From the way it’s written it looks like we plan to offer to non-member but wanted to confirm

The idea is we reward anyone and everyone, members or not members. In some cases (such as Twitter space raffles), anyone can claim these, in other cases such as vibes that are in the server, only folks with access can claim this. I’d also like to propose we significantly reduce the requirement to join the discord to reduce the friction on activating new members here. Maybe even down to 1 $CODE

  • How do we plan to deal with token farmers like we experienced with DevNTell if we’re to offer token rewards? We planning to still drive this with POAP/Kudos claims?

I’m not sure it is possible to avoid this entirely - I propose we trial ways of doing this and refine as we go. Having a scalable QR code on screen during workshops or maybe a DeForm link that is shared to attendees that has some sybil resistance built in are two ways to do this.

What are your thoughts?

What are thoughts yours (and other folks thoughts) around opening up the DAO to accept projects that are both web3 and web2? We’re Developer DAO and not web3 DAO after all and think there’s some really interesting things people are building that don’t necessarily use web3 under the hood.

Strongly agree we should not limit ourselves to web3. About 1/5th of our blog traffic in the last 90 days comes from @Erik_Knobl’s blog - Master Camera Angles in Midjourney - which shows we’re limit our audience and how well we’re serving our members by only being “web3”.

Ultimately we’ll always be web3 as we’re a DAO with a Governance token, but that doesn’t mean we have to only vibe, learn and build on/about web3 IMHO - give the Members what they want.

To this end, I’m looking forward to what this model can allow for community-driven topics vs partner driven (i.e. Twitter space panels around things the community has signalled wants to explore)

Regarding Sub-DAOs, more and more I’m seeing them as core branded parts of the DAO - more like a workstream in Gitcoin/ENS, vs a subsidiary. One of those could be an accelerator but the projects that come out of that would not be Sub-DAOs i.e. all the project accepted to Press Start Fellowship are not Sub-DAOs.

1 Like

How do we plan to deal with token farmers like we experienced with DevNTell if we’re to offer token rewards? We planning to still drive this with POAP/Kudos claims?

  • I’m not sure it is possible to avoid this entirely - I propose we trial ways of doing this and refine as we go. Having a scalable QR code on screen during workshops or maybe a DeForm link that is shared to attendees that has some sybil resistance built in are two ways to do this.
    What are your thoughts?

At the moment, barring any custom built POAP/Kudos delivery service, I think the time limited distribution (i.e. can only claim with QR Code scan upto 1 hour after event) and web3 based forms are the simplest way to go. The time based Kudos has been working pretty well up to this point and purpose we continue this strategy until we can prove it doesn’t work.

What are thoughts yours (and other folks thoughts) around opening up the DAO to accept projects that are both web3 and web2? We’re Developer DAO and not web3 DAO after all and think there’s some really interesting things people are building that don’t necessarily use web3 under the hood.

I think it’s only natural to be more welcoming to all different types of tech web3 and web2. A more broader audience means access to more potential partners; however, I still think the overall vibe of the DAO is going to be web3 (and AI) dominated for the short to medium term.