With the launch of $CODE token, there is a need for definition of what owning any token would mean for each member. The following proposal will attempt to define the tiers of membership in Developer DAO.
Scope of Work
The following are the topics touched by this proposal
Acquiring membership
Membership Tiers
Lost of membership
D4R NFT
1. Acquiring membership
Membership in Developer DAO is gained when a person acquires at least one of the $CODE tokens.
2. Membership Tiers
There are different tiers of membership in Developer DAO, defined by the amount of $CODE tokens the member owns in one single wallet.
2.1 Junior member
Requirements: Own 1 to 399 $CODE tokens.
Rights:
Access to Snapshot: Can vote on proposals on-chain.
Access to the Forum: Can comment and vote on proposals off-chain.
2.2 Senior member
Requirements: Own 400 to 49,999 $CODE tokens.
Rights:
Access to Discord: Can select and join Guilds and projects.
Eligible for official roles such as Operators, Stewards, etc.
Participate as a signer in teams with a multisig wallet.
2.3 Core member
Requirements: Own more than 50,000 $CODE tokens. (Should we reduce the threshold?)
Rights:
Can complete the full process of DDIPs.
3. Lost of membership
Currently there is no way to lose membership of Developer DAO.
4. D4R NFT
The original NFT D4R provides basic access to the Discord server and Forum. After the launch of the $CODE token, it will no longer allow voting on on-chain proposals.
I disagree with the idea of having a $CODE tier for core members. I feel like this role should be determined by offchain actions rather than holding any number of tokens. That would leave only two membership tiers onchain, but I think that’s fine?
This is a great idea, prevents persons buying their way into crafting DDIPs. The question here would be, what types of actions are good enough? Becoming an operator and steward? just contributing to a project? having any role voted on-chain?
I will explore this idea further.
About the 4th point. We should specify what “basic access” means. Does it mean that the holders wont be able to take part on the guild channels anymore?
I agree that core membership should require additional criteria, not only the 50k tokens. Maybe Juniors and Seniors voting on someone’s core membership makes sense?
In this case, since core member tier is the only permissioned one, based on other criteria than holding tokens, I think it should also be the only one to also have a defined way of losing it.
Junior and senior membership should stay permissionless - as in anyone can get the tokens for that tier, it is an “onchain” decision which no one can stop.
People misbehaving on discord is a good point though, and I think the moderation team should be able to timeout or kick misbehaving members, maybe even ban for a limited amount of time, but not be able to permanently ban anyone.
I think that using transfarable tokens for core decisions is exploitable. Something like soulbound tokens for crafting DDIPs would be a better idea. Maybe you could even burn those soulbound tokens for $CODE but not the other way arround. And you would earn this tokens for contributions and participation.
But while we can better control the creation of DDIPs, if the voting is done on Snapshot, we still are vulnerable to exploits. A bad actor with a big percentage of tokens could control proposals outcome.
Believe the idea of settings some threshold on membership is a good one. It means people can progressively achieve higher levels of influence in a more defined way.
I don’t believe they should be, “you have this many tokens therefore you can do this”, there needs to be some kind of Sybil resistance in there as well i.e. if the Core Members concept was going ahead, there needs to be a check before people get DDIP access otherwise people could just purchase lots of tokens and submit Governance proposals all through way to snapshot.
I believe we should take moment to consider the wider picture of Stewards / DDIP, levelled membership and how they play into each other before we move too quickly ahead with formalising this.
No. 3 loosing membership is a good point, how would we go about people misbehaving for example in the discord?
We have a Code of Conduct for that type of behavior.
About the 4th point. We should specify what “basic access” means. Does it mean that the holders wont be able to take part on the guild channels anymore?
@Deiv.re Agreed. This should read “Full Access”
In this case, since core member tier is the only permissioned one, based on other criteria than holding tokens, I think it should also be the only one to also have a defined way of losing it.
@andreiv.eth Sounds fair. Failure to comply the Code of Conduct can make any core member lose that status, for example.
It’s a NO for me. Literally disenfranchising the original supporters. This seems sketchy AF.
I don’t believe they should be, “you have this many tokens therefore you can do this”, there needs to be some kind of Sybil resistance in there as well.
@kempsterrrr Agreed. The main feedback I have collected so far is that core membership should be earned.
I agree with the idea that different levels should exist. Roles should not be defined by a person’s ability to acquire a token, however.
Roles should be defined by responsibility and accountability, not how much money you have - which is what this proposal would do.
I have been talking about what the path to contributorship/membership looks like for a while now, which is what I believe this proposal aims to do. It is based around “deliverables” for want of a better term, not tokens.
Good point. Actually, there are open channels of Discord, so this point may be incorrect. So Discord itself can have channels for juniors (and ways for them to advance), and seniors.
This can help also with the onboarding. New members always have trouble dealing with the amount of channels as they start.
What this looks like in practice is allowing a low friction way for a person who has bought their first token to acquire more, should they so choose, in a way that is mutually beneficial to both the member and the DAO. Thus allowing them a larger say in the governance process because they have earned it.
This will probably be via; bounties, project contributions, budget-defined roles, etc. And thus (in theory) would align the people who are taking part in the DAO to be some of the people voting and making decisions and have a greater weight based on their actions.
But as far as arbitrarily defined tiers in general, I believe we can set that idea aside entirely.
But as far as arbitrarily defined tiers in general, I believe we can set that idea aside entirely.
We do have one tier already: 400 tokens for full entry to the discord, as stated in the P-5: Governance Token Proposal: Snapshot
“At the start of Season 1 (TBD), 400 $CODE tokens will give membership access to the DAO.”
awesome, let us stick to that one instead of adding any more at this time. Obviously, we must decide the minimum for membership, but beyond that is out of scope for season 1.
Let me challenge you a little bit here.
The upper tier is unofficially the core team, as we are the only ones allowed to make DDIPs. I think that’s no longer acceptable, so we need a new definition. I see no point in waiting another season, while we can do it now.
The minimum is one token, as defined by the incoming Foundation Bylaws.
Tokens alone do not qualify someone to do that. The current system is at least somewhat meritorious. Based on this proposal we would be at the whim of the highest holders (of which could be the same actor across many wallets. as a side note, this approach does not seem to be sibyl resistant) if we account only for the number of tokens in a given wallet as the metric by which we allow a DDIP to be brought forth, as is proposed.
This does not even take into account any sort of Proof of Humanity either, which you may in fact want from a “core member”.
A more equitable path to high-level decision-making should be enacted. Basing it solely on tokens is very short-sighted.
Totally agree. That’s why this proposal is important.
I’m really open to discuss changes of any magnitude, but not to delay this conversation.
Currently, based on the feedback received, I’m inclined to have Core membership attached to any voted position, such as Operators, Stewards, and Guild Leaders, valid as long as the member holds the role.
This puts the DDIP process on the hands of the current, active leaders.