Here are my thoughts So far, i have not read all the replies yet.
I think what i am concerned with is members just joining the server and turning it into the spam/shilling peace of garbage.
I really like the model of ETH Global.
I think members should stake to join the event so we can improve the number of submissions and people collaborating with one another.
There should be mentors, who should also be reimbursed. POAP could be enough.
And we can actually raise the bar for code here to become a mentor.
Treasury can grow by allowing some to shill similar to ETH global.
I have no issue with code going to zero. But the costs will still be related to gas for new members. And the NFTs prices are directly related to code entry price.
I want to experiment with temporary memberships. Maybe there is a way to build a smart contract with ERC20 to automatically cycle through addresses and an ability to recall by DAO.
Agreed. The token price (cost of entry) and discord activity relationship is certainly not linear, although Iâm sure on some level of connection.
I think the more significant part of this is lowering the cost for the DAO to welcome new members into Discord via scholarships, hackathons, and maybe choosing other ways to recruit verified builders (Airdrop to ETH Global winners, for example).
Right now, doing this is very expensive in CODE at 400 per person, if we reduce it, itâs much cheaper, and therefore, we can welcome more people.
I donât expect a huge influx of new people purchasing entry when we reduce this but it does mean the budget quoted in Labs Budget - 2023-Q3 or any other budget can go much further in growing the community with the right kind of people (builders).
If we do get a huge influx of new people purchasing the token to get in and it becomes shilly, we can always raise the threshold again.
I donât believe we have the demand/activity for this yet - many of the folks participating in our hackathons are non-members getting involved with the DAO for the first time - If we introduce this now I think it would have a large negative effect on the viability of our hackathons.
That said, once weâre in a better place exploring this would be awesome so long as we donât end
I would love to see this also and have given this feedback to @Piablo and the mentorship team - taking juniors/first-timers through hackathons is a huge positive.
The idea of temporary membership is interesting although launching another ERC-20 under the DAO umbrella is not so much given legal uncertainty. Bankless do this in their server, so maybe this is something to look at more closely.
Really love the idea of making the DAO more inclusive and accessible to others. Iâve spoken to many members who âhad to waitâ for it to be affordable.
@kempsterrrr you make a lot of good arguments for getting more folks into the DAO, and hopefully not only in name, but hopefully (primarily) in Discord âdoing worthwhile stuffâ . Making a presence would already be positive and create the ânodesâ you mentioned.
There were good points about keeping a bit of a barrier to stop abusing the system. I find 15 $CODE on the low side and might cause a lot of noise. And psychologically, the network fees might be a real bummer when folks see they are 10 times higher than the actual transaction amount. Personally, I always need to âtalk myself intoâ doing that type of transaction in order to see the real investment in the token Iâm looking at.
I like the idea of staking and slashing that you mentioned. One thing I think we should always consider in these deliberations is the fact this is an opt-in community, and we opt-in to the rules of the game, and once in there, we can work to change them, if we donât like them, just like we are doing here right now. So regarding more of a barrier, I think this is a good signal to say to folks, âif you wanna get an easier trip into this âclubâ, these are the barriers you need to get overâ, and if folks want to abuse the game, then let them, but they lose access to the DAO if they get slashed. And these things might dispel any injustice felt by members who paid more to get in, because they wonât be getting slashed.
I would consider 99 $CODE as an entry and see how it goes - with that psychological 2 figure as opposed to 3 - we could maybe create a narrative around it. And the gas fees would be closer to the price of the tokens (that rationale maybe coming from my position of privilege),
Is it a possibility to wrap our tokens and make them accessible on another chain and grant entry that way?
p.s. I didnât know we could cast a vote with less than 400 $CODE??
This. Wasnât the initial point of minimum 400 $CODE to equate to minimum tokens needed for governance? Iâm not sure about at what point that direction was lost or removed along the way.
I completely agree that there is a need to make the DAO more accessible to those without the resources to pay for their entry in.
Hereâs how Iâm thinking about the motivation behind this proposal:
Why do we want to lower the barrier to entry?
To make it easier for interested members to join.
Why do they want to join?
To participate in the various experiences the DAO provides.
Why does the DAO provide experiences for its members?
To fulfill its mission (accelerate education and impact of next wave of web3 builders)
Create sustainable revenue streams that fund more experiences for members.
Why is a growing member base important?
Partners are attracted to working with Developer DAO to provide experiences because of the DAOâs concentration of web3 developers.
There has to be a balance between the number of experiences for DAO members and the number of DAO members to participate in those experiences.
More members results in more experiences results in more revenue. This is the path to sustainability for the DAO
More Members â More Partners â More Experiences â Sustainable DAO
So, I think that lowing the barrier to entry via a reduction in the amount of $CODE required to join the DAO is ONE solution to address the goal of growing Developer DAO to be sustainable.
If the goal is to increase members, what are all the reasons the DAO may not be doing so?
Itâs too expensive?
Addressed by lowing the token requirement
Is it clear what the benefits of being a member are for those on the outside?
Is the requirement to own/understand a wallet and tokes in web3 keeping people away?
Should we explore more web2 friendly solutions
Is it difficult for member to earn $CODE through participation activities?
@Gordo said it well here, there are assumptions to be better understood.
Itâs important to understand why the DAO isnât attracting more members, and be able to clearly articulate the problems. I think @kempsterrrrâs proposal to decrease the $CODE requirement is a step in the right direction to solving this problem.
When it comes to the consequences of lowing the barrier to entry, I think there are some really good points made above.
Lowing the amount of CODE required means we can be more efficient when giving out memberships through hackathons, scholarships, referrals. I personally gave out 16 memberships via $CODE, that could have been 416 new members for the same amount of CODE had the barrier to entry been lowered to 15.
The point of using a tool like Guild is to allow members to gain access to âthe next roomâ as they earn more $CODE through participation. Earning your way to be able to vote in governance for instance is a great model, ad @kempsterrrrâs point on setting requirements of 100 or 500 CODE to participate in other experiences allows the DAO to gamify participation. Itâll also be important to provide ways to earn the CODE required to participate, but again thatâs only when agreed upon models are in place.
Hope this was helpful, Iâm not opposed to the decrease, personally I think the more the merrier, especially when the next bull hits. This just seems to be the start of a very important strategy to improve member experiences and establish Developer DAO as the place for Devs in web3.
The initial points was to ensure the CODE that was issued to all NFT holders (400) was equivalent to the CODE requirement to get into the discord - it has never been a limit on Governance unless Iâm misremembering
Looking back at P-5: Governance Token Proposal, I donât see a mention of this, but the sheer fact both of you are asking the same questions shows thereâs a lack of clarity here.
Does this change your thoughts on the CODE threshold for discord?
â
this is possible, yarrr. Would make us issuing out rewards cheaper as well however does raise other challenges
How do we create liquidity on an L2 when weâve so far be unable to create it on L1
Might make the UX for newbs harder (i.e. do they need to understand how to bridge and also pay even more gas doing that)
â
It is cheaper for the DAO, or even members who hold tokens, to welcome new members
A critical piece here is more members means more peer-to-peer value created, as well as there are more members for every other member to vibe, learn, build and govern with.
â
Broadly speaking i guess my views are if we lower the barrier to entry in a way that doesnât damage the experience for existing Members there I only see upside:
More inclusive and accessible community space (everything else is open anyway)
Cheaper cost in CODE to welcome new folks (Treasury goes further)
Bigger network of members so more peer-to-peer value and network level value created
There only two downsides I can see are:
People historically have paid more to get in
Increased danger of bad actors joining discord as cheaper
Increased danger of bad actors joining discord as cheaper
On this last point. If this is the biggest worry, for a bad actor, I donât think the difference between 15 + 400 code is really going to make a significant difference here - most of the cost is in the swap anyhow.
Seems to be hard to reach a consensus here on a number and whilst weâre waiting for more stewards to engage - @mannyornothing@rubinovitz - I wonder if a few of the steps below might help:
Hold a series of polls in discord on the topic to gauge community sentiment
Hold a Twitter space or Discord event to discuss it openly
Move this vote as is to Snapshot ASAP for force a binding vote
Move this vote to Snapshot with agreed options from points 1 and/or 2 to force a binding vote
Forgive my noobness on finance and liquidityâŚ(anybody who knows me, knows my aversity to money) Do I assume there would need to be a liquidity pool on an L2 with wrapped$CODE and something stable to balance that pool with, and that (amount of) stable coin would be the liquidity youâre referring to, thatâs absent? If so, I understand your point (as well as the status quo coming from the Foundationâs restrictions for being able to âsellâ $CODE).
Since Iâm here, to the second point. If we are thinking about financial inclusion as one of the main drivers, isnât doing business on an L1 a non-inclusive operation since a couple of years ago (is for me) e.g. if i want to onramp a few euros FIAT, I would do it to an L2, and complain heavily about it if I had to do it to Mainnet Ethereum. What I mean is, if anyone is new in the space, and doesnât have a big, big lot of cash to play with, would their UX not simply be an L2, like mine?
Iâll leave all my naive suggestions of having a vault for staking unwrapped $CODE on L1, because, 1. I donât know what Iâm talking aboutâŚobviously, and 2. we donât have the liquidity problem solved anyway.
just wanna add. Iâm totally averse to this token weighted model. Not forgetting that weâre an âopt-inâ community, the sooner we have a soulbound token per member, and one member, one vote, the better. âthe wisdom of the crowdâ is much more meaningful and inclusive than the âwill of the wealthyâ. And we could eventually use sortition to âcall upâ the wisdom of the crowd, so that they are having 'these deliberations instead of the few of us here" (see Citizens' assembly - Wikipedia)
Given the CODE token is only available on DeFi exchanges, there are significant gas costs associated with performing on-chain swaps that increase this cost significantly.
This will reduce the gas fee for people to get access to CODE since L2 cost is lower = further reducing the barrier to entry, and we can factor the price of the saving on gas cost back into the gate fee.
I reckon doing this will reduce the cost of swapping by about $10
I think the community should respect the liquidity provision which allows for new entrants. In the current state we actually penalize community efforts to provide access to the token.
I do not want to seem greedy, but I have an actual degree in Economics. I think that the barrier lowering will not introduce more tokens into the Uniswap pool.
Personally, I think we are missing the vital part of the community â liquidity providers.
I am not sure to what extent we should agree that the token price should appreciate, but to me it seems that the sentiment is actually âWe want to develop community first and foremostâ.
Please, do not take it personally, I think @kempsterrrr@wolovim could simply provide a 1% of their personal holdings into a uniswap ethereum/CODE pool and that would be enough to improve the situation.
I fully agree - working out how is the challenge, given we canât legally do it directly from the foundation.
Curious if you know of ways around this. I have an ongoing to-do to look into this, but it keeps getting delayed. Other DAOs with foundations in the Caymna have strong liquidity just unsure how much of that is intrinsically due to the utility/value of their token and how much of that is provided by a connected party/them directly.
Glad someone with domain knowledge here to help I donât have a economics degree, my assumption was if the barrier to entry is a lot lower than the limited liquidity in the pool goes further.
i.e. if there is 400 in the pool rather than 1 person that is 26 at 15 CODE threshold.
Super interesting and very keen to explore this further - seems like a v legit and decentralised way of incentivising (or maybe just not punishing) liquidity provision
Agree weâre missing a vital part and very excited this conversation is starting.
Canât speak for @wolovim but Iâd be very happy to do this - need some support/guidance/time to learn though as never done this before.
Iâve mentioned in many proposals Iâd also like to see the DAO treasury buying back CODE from the open market via some buyback contract - ideally, a mechanism that has randomness so those âin the knowâ canât take advantage of this setup.
Lowering barriers: Consider exploring ways to lower the barriers to entry for liquidity providers. By making it easier for community members to provide liquidity, you can encourage more participation in the token pool. This can be done by simplifying the process, providing clear guidelines, or even offering educational resources to help people understand and navigate liquidity provision.
Incentivizing liquidity provision: Explore different mechanisms to incentivize liquidity providers. One example mentioned is allowing LP (Liquidity Provider) tokens to be used for voting, similar to what Gitcoin Snapshot does. This can create a decentralized and fair way to reward liquidity provision and actively engage the community in decision-making processes.
Community-first approach: Emphasize the importance of building a strong community before focusing solely on token price appreciation. While token value is important, fostering a supportive and engaged community is equally crucial. Consider initiatives and activities that promote community development, such as organizing events, hosting AMA (Ask Me Anything) sessions, or creating avenues for community members to connect and contribute.
Providing guidance for liquidity provision: For individuals who are willing but unsure about providing liquidity, offer guidance and support. Help them understand the process, risks, and benefits associated with liquidity provision. Consider creating documentation, tutorials, or hosting workshops to educate and empower community members who are interested in becoming liquidity providers.
Treasury buyback mechanism: For enhancing liquidity, the proposal of the DAO treasury buying back tokens from the open market can be considered. However, itâs important to design a mechanism that minimizes the risk of manipulation by those who have insider knowledge. Implementing a randomized buyback contract could help ensure fairness and prevent exploitation.
This is dope - surely there is a discourse plugin for this or maybe we should create one
I think there are two conversations going on hereâŚ
reducing the barrier to entry to join the DAO
Figuring out how we can improve liquidity
Propose we move the liquidity conversation to a new thread in general and really dig into.
Trying to ensure one thing doesnât get blocked by the other - they are tangentially related but would personally like to see us raise a vote for lowering the threshold ASAP, Liquidity will take far longer to figure out.
So reading overall thoughts on the token.
I think that 15 is a bit too low. The swap fee is more expensive than the cost to entry at that price point.
The cost of entry is not the biggest deal overall in my opinion. We do want to have âsomeâ barrier of entry. This helps offset the bots and spammers from overwhelming the discord and requires a ton more discord mod time.
Currently, liquidity isnât a big concern of mine at the moment and something that will be addressed once we finalized the entrance confusion.
We have multiple ways to get into the DAO currently. Easiest way is to join a hackathon, D_D literally sends it to your wallet at no cost to you. We will also have bounties for other things coming up in the near future as well. So having to go âbuyâ tokens will just be another options for those that choose to opt out of any contributions.
I nice number would be 50 - 100 tokens in my personal opinion. With praise system and other bounties, one can increase their governance power by contributing or being active in the DAO with ZERO cost to the person. We just need to be able to communicate this to the outside world that this is an option.
Iâm concerned that reducing the entrance fee without a proper workflow for onboarding new members will lead to ambiguity and unwanted chaos. Simply lowering the barrier to entry might not effectively address the core issue. Without a straightforward and guided onboarding process, newcomers might join without a comprehensive understanding of our communityâs purpose, values, and activities. This could result in a lack of commitment and engagement from these members, undermining the communityâs overall objectives.
Instead of solely focusing on reducing the entrance fee, I believe developing a comprehensive onboarding strategy is crucial. This strategy should provide newcomers with the necessary information and guidance to ensure they are well-informed and aligned with our communityâs mission. By establishing a well-structured onboarding process, we can ensure that new members are introduced to our community meaningfully and effectively, fostering a sense of belonging and commitment beyond just a nominal entrance fee.
Initiating the onboarding process before potential members even purchase tokens is crucial. This proactive approach ensures that individuals are introduced to our communityâs values, objectives, and activities. By providing information and resources upfront, we can attract genuinely interested individuals aligned with our communityâs mission.
Starting the onboarding process early also allows us to set clear expectations and requirements for participation. This way, when individuals decide to join by purchasing tokens, they are already well-informed about what our community entails and are more likely to engage meaningfully. By integrating onboarding into the initial stages of engagement, we can create a more cohesive and committed membership base that actively contributes to our communityâs growth and success.
This is something very crucial. I agree 100% Iâm working on an onboarding solution currently to help people understand âwhat to doâ when they join the DAO. This is something Iâm working on as well. The current post issue is about the cost of entry. Quite a few things in the works as things adjust so stay tuned for that.
hey Billy!
I always thought that could be awesome that the DAO website could have more than only information about the DAO and then just redirect to other links.
For example what about having a âloginâ system, and that once logged in, you can see, search, etc, about âwhat to doâ. Could be some internal sections and a lot of things could happen there, also and just for the sake of giving an example, the academy website could be integrated as microfrontend, and perhaps this forum, and the merch store web too, etc.
Going further, having a SWAP in the main page to adquire $CODE doesnât sound too crazy, or it is?
Edit:
In order to desvirtualize the thread, it could be a good idea, the goals and perhaps escenarios that could happenât are exciting and ambitius, in a good way!
Glad to read this. I still couldnât âbelieveâ how much the DAO is relying on web2 services and also struggling to generate liquidity or revenue having to rely into what bring us here at the first place.
Donât get me wrong, what Iâm trying to say is that even the money is not the goal, everyone still have to pay the bills, and if that is not the case, communities with other goals are still generating earning using this methods. We could still use staking, LPs, etc, to generate and use it in a good way to retro-feed the DAOâs mission and auto-generate DAOâs own funds to fund more internal projects and more initiatives, and so on.
@kempsterrrr I would love to give some insight on this topics, to mention some methods that could work between them, contracts like auto-compound, learntoearn, staking, treasury, crowfunding, governorâŚ
@xyz@Gordo and myself are working on a simple V1 refresh of the website to new brand and will be exploring and significant redevelopment to bring a lot more functionality into the website - i.e. the blog, events, data dashboard etc.
The plan is for the website to be the DAOâs front of house, a marketing tool used to showcase what weâre doing. Unclear yet what we include on the website from a DAO operational point of view, right now the plan is for that to sit in the new incoming docs that are being worked on here. Youâll see a how to join the DAO section in there.
I think in theory we can have a swap module on the website but weâd need to confirm this is legally OK with the foundation. This is some way off though. There are no current plans for the website to have a login feature, maybe eventually.
Can you provide some of those insights here?
This is a priority for us to figure out and the more info the better
I donât have a economics degree, my assumption was if the barrier to entry is a lot lower than the limited liquidity in the pool goes further.