I updated the proposal. Chuck is no longer involved. The scope of changes is big enough, that i recommend to read through the whole proposal again.
1 Like
Itās even more problematic now, when itās going to be only me working on this. Welcome volunteers.
That;s how it is in the proposal. I reduced the proposal to only one business model to get more focus too.
New proposal request a smaller amount - because of the fact that now it will be only me and to take into consideration the state of DAO finances.
I donāt think about it. Let us just make sure that the amount is not too large and not to small. Most founders will be on our Discord anyway.
Now you have a choice. And also due to the chaos of season 2 start and the fact that there are only 2 months left to do anything I made this KPI twice smaller.
Now you have the clause for these. Please give me feedback.
Changed the proposal so now I will only focus on fundraising management for founders.
Several projects already agreed on this fee structure. If they donāt want to, I don;t do the fundraising management for them.
Now without Chuck this is more possible. The rate is still lower than should be of course, but as a DAO we just donāt have the means to support it in a fair way.
Now you have more explanation on this in the proposal. Please give feedback.
Proposal updated. Please give feedback.
The proposal is unfrozen. Up for discussions again.
2 Likes
I appreciate the flexibility and understanding that you provided for the less than optimal questions I had.
Tentatively approving unless other questions are asked. Ping for re-review then.
2 Likes
The salaried role seems more suitable whilst we work out the kinks in the community. This would give you the stability to work these kinks out with us
Given youāre not getting any commission, I donāt think you should be giving back that salary if you donāt hit those numbers, as no one else has this arrangement, and it feels unfair IMHO.
Regarding some of the detail, as discussed yesterday, Iāll be strongly advocating for the various stakeholders in Sub-DAOs and Labs etc. to collaborate in a visual space on this Figma board. My feelings are we should strip back complexity as much as possible and deliver on the simplest version of everything as best we can.
I suspect in order to get the ādeal flowā of founders (much like attendance for our partner workshops etc.) collaboration is going to be with between the Community Managers to make sure theyāre encouraging folks to exploit these opportunities. We only have 1 Twitter account/newsletter, server etc. but if we get this right and everyone is pushing the same story then I think youāll have far more interest than you need as the service is dope af.
Interested to hear other @stewards thoughts on this
1 Like
While I do think that revenue-generating roles should be self sustainable, I also know they need time and investment to reach that state.
I would support a salaried role for season 2, and would encourage you to include other interested members in these activities.
I also think this is the perfect case of a revenue-generating role where the DAO would benefit more if the financial value is split between teams and the fundraising operator, without sending a share to the DAOās treasury.
2 Likes
I have read through the proposal and the questions and the answers thatās been provided. I donāt have anything more to add.
I also approve it from my part (unless new q/a or concerns arises).
1 Like
This proposal is ready for snapshot. Should we keep both options for the whole DAO to decide? @Wikist
1 Like
Only two people voted, which makes me unsure what is more preferred. But my preferred option is the salary, so please elevate only this one. If it doesnāt go through with the community, then we will be able to post the commission-based one.
I cut off the slashing part from the proposal.
Following the elevation process I want to put forth the salaried option to snapshot. I was not able to get enough peopleās voices here on the forum to see which option has bigger sentiment - salary or commission.
If people accept it, then I will continue on the salary. If people reject it in the governance I will be up for elevating the commission option as a second try.
Here is a text version for the snapshot (if character limit will allow it):
Fundraising Hub Sub-DAO Proposal
Author: Wikist
View all relevant info about my previous role as Fundraising Operators here.
Summary
This proposal outlines the vision for Fundraising Hub in Developer DAO. We outlined the scope of work, our business model, our budget requests, KPIs, domain of operations and how we are aligned with DAOās OKRs.
I donāt have two remaining people for the creation of multisig. I gladly ask for two volunteers who would join the safe as a second and third person. These people should probably be a Stewards, as this way the DAO will have a way to monitor my financial operations by a people who are not part of the Sub-DAO. In next seasons I might change this, but at least for season 2 I require two more people for me to be in line with DAO-wide rules.
Motivation
As it stands there are a lot of founders in Developer DAOās community which are struggling with getting funded for their projects. On DAO-wide Coordination Calls we have collectively determined that the majority of DAO members are builders and that most of them are searching for job, but as a matter of fact being a builder is not only about that, but maybe even more so about building something that matters to you and trying to sustain yourself by being a founder.
Even in a bear market there is a lot of funding waiting for people to be used. Protocols are eager to support serious projects. Venture Capital and Angel Investors are searching for good opportunities now to profit during the next bull run. The protocolsā problem is the need to increase the popularity of their ecosystems and the private capital wants projects that have product-market-fit so they can see a return on their investment. On the other hand founders have problems with getting funded and in determining good funding opportunities. These two problems meet each other in Developer DAO, where they can be solved by connecting protocols with founders.
By establishing Fundraising Hub Sub-DAO in Developer DAO I will continue my job, build more momentum, attract more founders into the community and help people build with more peace of mind without worrying so much about how to get funded.
Scope of Work
Fundraising-specific tasks
Fundraising Hub Sub-DAO will continue to work very similarly as to how it was working before in season 1. This time though I want to split tasks into two categories. First one is focusing directly on fundraising and the second on taking care of the community.
The fundraising-specific OKRs are as follows:
| LEARN | ||
|---|---|---|
| O2 | Provide DAO members with high-quality learning opportunities | Owner |
| KR | Stewarding the Fundraising section on the D_D wiki (link), managing the D_D Fundraising Guide and adding content when necessary (link) | Wikist |
| BUILD | ||
|---|---|---|
| O3 | Support DAO members to elevate their impact on the world | Owner |
| KR | Performing outreach to grantmaking organizations, Venture Capital and Angel Investors for the sake of fostering relations for easier access to funding for D_D founders | Wikist |
| KR | Taking care of the database with grant programs, funders and project data to give D_D founders access to valuable information about different funding opportunities in the space not easily available outside of our community | Wikist |
| GOVERN | ||
|---|---|---|
| O4 | Position the DAO structurally and financially for long-term success | Owner |
| KR | Create an income stream for the DAO through fundraising management for founders (details below) | Wikist |
Community-specific tasks
These tasks will be part of my salaried position, but are different in nature from fundraising-specific tasks and can help everyone to better orient themselves what Fundraising Hub is actually doing. Thatās why I distinguish them as a separate bag of tasks.
Outside of the tasks that focus primarily on the fundraising aspect, there are also more community focused tasks, which I think are essential to reinvigorate the community of founders in Developer DAO for the sustainable long-term growth of the D_D and Sub-DAOās capabilities and opportunities. Without openly talking with founders and organizing public events to gather their attention I foresee that the interest will steadily go down and hence prevent the Sub-DAO from effectively delivering on its purpose and make D_D lose a part of its community.
Outside of that I think that Office Hours also lean more towards the community-specific OKRs rather than fundraising-specific. The main difference is that sometimes there are a lot of people and sometimes there is no one at those meetings. I reduced the number of Office Hours from twice a week to once a week.
Below are the community-specific OKRs:
| LEARN | ||
|---|---|---|
| O2 | Provide DAO members with high-quality learning opportunities | Owner |
| KR | Minimum of one live streaming or study group facilitation per week | CMs |
| FH | Minimum of one live streaming or study group facilitation per month (link) | Wikist |
| KR | Have regular Office Hours on Wednesdays at 2pm UTC where people can connect with me about anything fundraising related | Wikist |
| VIBE | ||
|---|---|---|
| O1 | Foster a fun and safe Member experience | Owner |
| KR | Minimum of one social event per week | CMs |
| FH | Minimum of one social event for founders per month | Wikist |
Business model
Starting from season 2 every Sub-DAO should seek its own business model and aim to become self-sustainable. To achieve this task I introduce very simple business model:
In order to get active support from me in the fundraising activities the founder needs to agree on a percentage cut from the funding that I help him raise. The percentage fee depends on the table below.
For every individual funding that founder gets thanks to our support, we will take a % cut.
These fees follow the structure below:
| Minimum raised | Maximum raised | The % fee |
|---|---|---|
| $0 | $10,000 | 24% |
| $10,001 | $50,000 | 19% |
| $50,001 | $100,000 | 14% |
| $100,001 | $500,000 | 9% |
| $500,001 | $1,000,000 | 6% |
| $1,000,001 | ā | 4% |
I reserve a right to allow for individual negotiations between me and founders when appropriate. On such occasions the percentages might change.
Due to the recent negotiations about season 2 and asks from the community to focus on specific areas I will fundraise for Developer DAO directly only on favorable occasions. This means that if during my talks with any funding organization I will notice an opportunity to start talking about possible fundraising for D_D itself, I will pursue it, but I will not take it as priority. I will focus primarily on helping D_D founders polishing their project ideas, business models and fundraise in their name.
Funding requests
To make this shift from public goods model to a business model I require a transition period, which in my mind would be the season 2 and 3 of Developer DAO. I want to continue with salary throughout the coming season, as otherwise the job that I do will not be sufficient to sustain me in the work. In season 3 or 4 I hope that the work done by me before will already be paying for my salary.
1. Salary
I ask for a monthly salary of $2500 USDC.
In return every income brought with this business model will be fully (100%) transferred to the DAO itself. This amount will also allow me to focus on this job more as a half-time/full-time position instead of a side-time position.
For this route I create specific KPIs for the season.
I report back on the KPIs by the end of the season by creating a summary and posting it in the original season proposal for the Sub-DAO. This summary will be then discussed by the Steward Council afterwards on the DAO-wide call where the Council will decide if my summary is factual. On the Stewardās ask I will have to provide a proof of every KPI deliverable. During my operations mid-season every Steward has a right to ask for the current progress on those KPIs.
If I go over 100% with the KPIs at the end of the season, then 25% of that additional income is being transformed into a bonus on top of my salary. This is only true if through my work I had already paid my salary back to the DAO in the current season and only for the KPIs that bring back financial value back to the DAO. Non-financial KPIs can go over 100% in delivery, but nothing above 100% will be counted for this purpose.
Time period 06.03.2023 - 26.04.2023 (the end of season 2 with the new roadmap proposal):
Wikist: $2500 USDC monthly for the two months
Funding requested for the rest of the season 2: $5000
I also want to request some $CODE budget for operations to test new ideas.
- First one revolves around introducing myself to different organizations. I would like to reward D_D members with small amounts of $CODE for making an introduction for me in organizations that offer funding to founders.
I request 1000 $CODE to be spent on Crew3 bounty-like quests incentivizing making connections between grantmaking organizations and me. This budget assumes that max 10 connections can be achieved this way before the end of season 2.
The idea is that people that already have connections in different organizations can get rewarded for introducing FO into these organizations.
Specifications:
For one connection a person can gain 100 $CODE. This connection needs to be new which means that it is not part of the D_Dās Friendly Funders Report and has grant or funding programs. The task will be considered delivered when the intro meeting with us will be done and the organization has in fact active grant or funding programs. This condition means that an applying person needs to make sure first if the organization has those programs running before contacting Fundraising Hub Operators.
After bringing this idea forward on the Discord few members supported its implementation and hence it was presented at the DAO Coordination Call on which everyone agreed with its implementation.
- Second idea revolves around rewarding founders for participating in social events that target the founders community in D_D. If they prepare a case-study or will be able to present an interesting presentation for other founders in the community I want to give them a reward.
Specifications:
I request 1200 $CODE to be spent on Crew3 bounty-like quests incentivizing being active on social events for founders. This budget assumes that max 3 presentations/events/case-studies will be done by the end of season 2. For being a founder that prepares either one of these and will present it to the rest of the community I want to give them 200 $CODE. I foresee that on one meeting there might be max two different presentations done and that by the end of season 2 there can be at least 3 social events done.
In both cases (ideas number 1. and 2.) if there will be some $CODE left over, then I will either return it back to the treasury or leave it for the next season.
KPIs
These are to be taken into consideration if I were to be working on a salary.
By the end of season 2 (updated with regards to the current short and chaotic 2 months period):
- Number of project teams I help (review grant application, schedule a call etc.): 10
- Number of grant applications submitted: 15
- Number of grant applications awarded: 4
- Summarized amount of funding awarded to projects: $15k USD equivalent
- Number of recorded live educational workshops for the community: 2
- Host regular Office Hours on Wednesdays at 2pm UTC where people can connect with me about anything fundraising related: presence from Wikist on at least 7 out of 8 in the rest of season 2
Domain of Operations
My domain of operations is Fundraising.
Throughout season 1 me and Chuck were tasked as Fundraising Operators to establish fundraising infrastructure for the DAO. This task had been done and we proceeded with active support to founders in Developer DAOās community starting from the mid November. Since then we have helped several people with their fundraising efforts by creating fundraising workshops (link), guides (link), reviewing grant applications, researching available grants in web3 space, introducing ourselves to different protocols and foundations and pointing people to appropriate opportunities (link ). We held regular Office Hours every Monday and Friday which allowed us to get to know the founders and their needs.
Chuck will not be continuing on this position, but if community finds that the value that I bring is worthwhile and will vote positively on this proposal, then I will work on it.
I think that I am the correct person to handle the fundraising aspects in Developer DAO.
If you want to know more about me, read our proposal for season 1: link.
If you want to see our update of derivables from season 1, go here: link.
Vote
Do you want my to be salaried for the season 2 of Fundraising Hub in Developer DAO?
- Yes
- No
- Abstain
2 Likes
@Wikist I fully support your updated proposal and want to get this to snapshot asap.
Would you mind editing the original post with the final proposal, please?
Once that 's done Iāll open a snapshot vote
2 Likes
Okay this this done.
After reading this, Iām a bit concerned that the Fundraising HUB is attempting to bite-off more than it can chew, especially given it is only 1 person?
The Business Model you are describing is essentially Investment Banking, i.e work as intermediaries between companies seeking to raise capital and investors who are willing to provide that capital. It is not only attempting to do this via the private markets, but also through relationships with Grants teams at larger web3 organizations.
Personally as a founder who raised in the $1,000,000+ range, thereās no way that I would consent to using the Fundraising Hub with such exorbitant and seemingly predatory percentages.
- Letās assume for. instance I land a small <$10k grant from x Protocol after you review my application. I am now required to give up 24% of this?
- Internationally there is a business model whereby an investment network will charge a 20% fee for any intros it makes if that lead to investments. In the US, that system is illegal due to its predatory nature and we were advised by multiple firms to be wary of these āIāll help you fundraise, just pay me a percentageā programs.
Investment Banking is held under strict regulatory guidelines to ensure it does not replicate that model.
To make this OKR even stronger, it may be helpful to add more specific details or metrics to the KR. For example, instead of just saying āPerforming outreach,ā the KR could specify a target number of outreach activities (e.g., contacting 50 grantmaking organizations, 20 venture capital firms, and 10 angel investors). Similarly, the KR related to the database could include a specific target for the number of grant programs or funding opportunities added to the database over a given period of time.
Overall, I think that there needs to be more of an emphasis on relationships with Grant giving organizations, with direct channels between D_D members and those organizations established. I also think the resources like the Friendly Funders Report are in need of a revamp as they contain 5 that simply acknowledge āno grants programā, and none of them contain links to the grants. I think the https://airtable.com/shr86elKgWTSCP4AY/tbld93rVIguyQLORG looks great and would love to see a blend of the two.
1 Like
Overall the proposal as it stands can not be introduced. It requires a significant make over. I will halt it in the main post.
- Iāve been working with several D_D Founders from January off-season through season 2. Originally that was a part of the efforts to make the fundraising hub sustainable. After working for 10 different founders I helped them to polish their application, refocus business development, help design their pitch decks and help them create founders videos (with few I am still doing it). As a whole the process is slower than I would have liked and after getting more insights into the grants that are being provided for projects the amounts are not sufficient to pay for the salary long-term in the proposed model. Hence I think the proof of concept failed on the efficiency part here so far and I canāt make it for free any longer.
- Most grants seek to establish partnerships with projects that would build on them nearly exclusively to see a ROI on the money they invested into their ecosystem. The grants for projects which offer to expand to their ecosystem as an option are sometimes rewarded, but are not the ideal grantee that they are looking for. When they are rewarded, the amounts at this point of time are below 50k, most often in the range of 5-10k. The bigger ones are being offered to projects that proved themselves with smaller intro grants, have traction and clearly help to develop the chosen ecosystem. To get to this point Founder needs to not only have a solid idea with market fit, but also deliver on the milestones and build trust. All of that can take months. Bigger grants are offered in the Web2 space like EU NGI grants who can offer above 100k, but these require much more detail to fullfil and are very specific in their scope. I suspect the current reality stems from the uncertainty with global financial markets and bear crypto market. Gathering funding through private route offers much bigger rasing amounts, easily above 1M, but the projects that go for them need to show an extensive amount of development with their projects.
- Founders that seek our support are mostly unexperienced and lack either a market fit or skills. This is the part where I am unable to help to a point where they would be satisfied with enough funding to develop their ideas. I can help make their ideas compelling and translate it clearly to grantmakers, but from an empty cup itās hard to pour some water. The founders that already have traction, users or revenue which the protocols mainly seek mostly donāt require our support, because they can find it in other sources who are more than happy to help them out, when they see an interest in the business idea. As a side note most founders were okay with the proposed fee structure. The only difference I would make is to count from cumultivate amount of funding raised instead of each individual funding.
- For me to really help those projects out I would have to become a temporary team member and spend a lot of time discussing with them, proposing changes and helping to create additional materials. At the moment it seems to require too much time and brings little value back to the DAO. It gives a lot of value to those individual founders, but it is not being felt across our community.
- As stated by @drop_knowledge it is illegal in U.S. to operate on the success fee with securities with private capital. With grants this could be viable only when grants are offered in a non-agreement manner, but itās still on the line. We can avoid illegal activity by providing a service of fundraising consultation which can be paid through a one-time payment, monthly, weekly, daily, hourly or similar as a service. The amount might be accepted upon with the knowledge of how much the project had raised, which is basically a workaround.
- I am in talks with two protocols that would like us to disperse grant funding in their name. They are ready to pay for it with extra administrative fee for our community, but they put high expectations for such a partnership. They want high quality projects with very specific focuses f.e. a specific crypto niche area only for their ecosystem. The problem is that so far we had 57 projects submit a request for fundraising support to date and those protocols would like to fund somewhere between 20-40 projects and they expect that for Developer DAO community this is a low number, because of our good word of mouth marketing outside. At a current state I find their expectations unrealistic with the current state of our community.
- I will finish working for the projects that I started working with, but I wonāt take new projects for fundraising management service. Maybe after finishing helping those projects out I will find a much bigger success in the end.
- I will open a thread on the Discord channel with other Initiative Leads to brainstorm if we can pivot the fundraising hub into a better direction or if it should be paused altogether.
- Overall I see a lot of demand for education about project and product development, marketing, community management, fundraising education, education on pitching, Pitch deck building, project budgets and financials both current and for forecasts.
- I will take a look at the D_D Friendly Funders list for one last time and make it up to date. Seems like founders like this resource and I have more insights and needs with regards to every grant program that Iāve spoken with so far.
It seems that I can no longer update the main post. Which means it stays as it is until some admin changes it.
Are you up for a Jam session others about how we can fit fundraising into the evolving DAO experience before submitting an updated proposal?
There is some really cool work going on in the Labs team and I personally believe helping folks secure grant funding would be an important level in the game weāre all playing. I think there is scope here for this role not to be revenue-generating if we can make the margin work from the revenue brought in by Labs. That said, I believe there is plenty of room for admin feeās to be charged when running grant programs similar to the one you were discussing with The Graph to help make this more sustainable as well.
Of course I am! Let us bring it to Discord.
Did we follow up on this in discord? I could see your efforts being a service that we offer to help people refine their companies as part of agency paid to agency in code and you get a salary
Heads up there is an on-going conversation to get fundraising moving in discord here
cc @Erik_Knobl @Wikist @mannyornothing @ntindle
Really important we get this moving is a big value add for the community and partners
With new conversations happeing as mentioned in previous reply and thus plans likely to change significantly after speaking with @Wikist have marked this proposal as archived
1 Like