Just to clarify: does this mean they will be the new signers of the treasury?
1 Like
No, sorry there are some missing gaps here regarding DAO treasury > Sub-DAO Treasury.
The immediate impact is - @stewards remain signers of the DAOs treasury. A new SAFE is opened up for Labs (Agency + Academy can use their existing ones) where all transactions are managed under this model, including the % share back to the DAO and other Sub-DAOs.
Need to determine signers of Labs SAFE - will clarify with the team and update.
There are a few drivers behind this:
- Separating income/expenses for each sub-dao from the main DAO (good for empowering sub-DAOs and easier reporting)
- Reducing bus factor on main treasury signers (much more reasonable to ask paid active contributors to process sigs/payments)
- Reduces risk on treasury as fewer transactions need to happen
Iād also suggested we immediately allocate all request $CODE budget to Sub-DAOs on the passing of proposals, rather than month-by-month as we have previously done, reduce blockers and minimise the need for ongoing governance/engagement from Stewards - weāve never managed to successfully produce and critique month reports for example, although am working on making this easier.
I appreciate all the work that has gone into the DAO as a whole to get us this far, and how you have diligently put this proposal together as almost a summary of that work, but then added to it+ with a view to the future.
10% goes back to the DAO treasury. I know the question is hypothetical, but what might that 10% be used for in the future? What sort of real-world value can it provide? Why 10% and not 20% for example if weāre talking about sustainability?
I would love to hear the thoughts of the ācontributorsā on the payroll as to how ātheirā reward fits into the model of the DAO as a whole regarding these percentages. And what sort of compromises they feel they face accepting these percentages e.g. in the context of short to mid term, and also mid to long term (please do interpret short, mid and long term in your own way, it would help give insight into how folks are thinking).
Disclaimer to readers, I work in Academy, so I stand to benefit directly from this proposal in its present form. Iām more than open to discuss what sustainability and regeneration means me and how to achieve it, from my perspective.
2 Likes
This looks solid. Iām interested in Scholarship Lead position. Have relevant experience receiving and distributing scholarship funds and organizing events online and IRL.
Couple of thoughts from the perspective of someone whoās been mentoring 2 mentees in the mentorship program.
- itās great to have monthly mini-hacks as a call to action for my mentees when they have a project idea or are looking for teammates to help them build.
- would +1 anything that makes it easier for my menteeās to share and present their progress and receive feedback
- would +1 code incentives for workshop attendees.
- is there some mechanism for well-connected dao members to vouch for or recommend high-quality developers (or committed learners) to join the dao?
- is there some sort of proof of project that people who participate in the hackathons get? So that can build reputation for shipping it?
- Iād like to lead more Teach Anything on a monthly basis. I hosted one for the first official Community Workshop, but would prefer to have these be size-capped and recorded, then uploaded to Youtube. They thrive on direct connection between attendees and teachers, which doesnāt work when streaming to Youtube.
- I love the idea of having a revenue model around reliable solution providers, such as Thirdweb, and featuring them in the content of Academy and the hackathons. It gives us as a DAO alignment on a tech-stack and expertise that can later be valuable.
- Iād like to see more cross-pollination of initiatives, such as progress in Academy (or lack of it) triggering a call to action to join the mentorship program (as a mentee). Or presenting a workshop getting an automatic invitation to mentor in the mentorship program. Or for me to have an overview of all the topics and solutions in the academy program in the back of my mind, so I can recommend it to my mentees. As it is, I do my best to forward links to my mentees and friends about upcoming workshops etc.
Iām Tippi Fifestarr on Discord. Also, still waiting on the CODE rewards for applying for the Press Start and recommending a friend who applied and was apparently interviewed.
Thanks, @Piablo 
Iām equally grateful for our on-going conversations regarding the mentorship program and academy. This is a big team effort 
This is ultimately up to token holders submitting proposals to allocate funds. That said, imho we should introduce some guidance here to ensure the treasury grows over time (i.e. we donāt just spend it all) and we always have the funds to pay the Foundationās yearly costs (currently ~$35k).
I suggested in here one thing Iād to see happen with funds is buying back the CODE token from the open market. I also suggested in a few places that, once the treasury grows sufficiently to fund it, we run regular decentralised grant programs like ENS Small Grants where an amount of USDC is distributed to projects in a decentralised way where members submit ideas and other members vote on them.
These are just my ideas, though. I would love to see a discussion opened on this in another forum post.
Very valid question. We tried to balance the sustainability of the new model with the sustainability of the DAO and based on the calculations in the spreadsheet, tbh 10% just felt like the right number to strike that balance.
Which percentages are you referring to: DAO share, sharing with other Sub-DAOs, or both?
Personally, they donāt feel like compromises to me, felt like to me the right balance to ensure the sustainability of the DAO and the ability to support other Sub-DAOs.
Thanks
Thanks for putting yourself forward - I should have been clearer about the status of this position. After speaking with the DDW team who ran this program last quarter. As theyāre not applying for a budget moving forward, we agreed to bring that work into labs to be run by one of their team. This is TBD because conversation to confirm theyāre happy with the role hasnāt happened yet, as theyāve been away. Should they not be happy with that the role (either description or practicalities - i.e. contract), then weād open this up.
We have a lot of work to do to introduce a more structured and fairways of choosing contributors. Right now, itās very much been a social method between existing contributors, but as the teams grow, I would love to see an application and interview process established for each role. Sadly, weāre not there yet, and I apologise if that feels frustrating or unfair.
Assuming this model is successful I hope over time it will significantly increase the opportunities for Members to become contributors with meaningful and well-rewarded roles either in Labs, Academy, Agency, Mentorship or anything else created in the future.
ā
@imnote.eth - thanks a bunch for your perspective on mentorship.
Not currently. Be interested to know more about how youād see something like this working, maybe a post on another thread to open a discussion around the possibility.
Weāll be issuing NFTs to everyone who submits to the hackathon using https://mintkudos.xyz/
@Billyjitsu is stewarding a budget for holding dedicated time in the calendar to support members on whatever theyāre struggling with. the intention is 1 hour, twice a week, where someone will be there to help folks out. I believe he has someone in mind for this already, but worth reaching out to him directly.
Over time as the model grows weāre expecting to grow the team to offer many more of these kinds of valuable opportunities for Members to get more value from their membership and become paid contributors to deliver such ideas.
Totally agree regarding need for a sustainable revenue model around every thing we do. Many DAOs have struggled to figure this out and it would be a huge achievement for everyone if we can do that here.
Weāre working with the academy team atm to line up some āpaid partnersā to host course content on V2 of the platform - either written by them and maintain by us , or they fund someone in the DAO to create the course - the latter if it happens might be another amazing way for Members to become contributors and really create value for the DAO and be paid well for it. Very much TBD.
One thing weāre trying to avoid though is locking the DAO down to a specific tech stack which is why weāre not pursuing a preferred L2 for example, or only being an Ethereum DAO as we feel that is limiting what builders can create. However seeing a protocol on academy would be a-ma-zing - and still leaves members with the choice of how to build.
With the preferred providers, weāve tried to identify things that are necessary to build in the space: (wallet, exchange, RPC, Storage etc) but agnostic to the underlying L1/L2/whatever.
This is one of the core goals of the new model - coordinating the different sub-daos/teams to create a more streamlined and connected member experience that funnels folks through each opportunity in the DAO. We have a standing Coordination call each Thursday at 3p m UTC and the intention of this space is to coordinate between groups so everyone is supporting each other - please come long.
Some opportunities for coordination Iād love to see are:
- Mentors leading cohorts through academy tracks
- Mentors leading a team of juniors through a hackathon
- Regular twitter space highlight builders in the DAO, whether thatās a project in Agency, a hackathon team who submitted, or just a member doing cool stuff.
Think itās worth sharing a slide from the updated (but still WIP) partner deck which feels like a nice visualisation of the Member journey in the DAOā¦
Really appreciate all the feedback 
Iāll follow up with @drop_knowledge about the status of the CODE rewards youāre missing - sorry about that 
1 Like
Great work @kempsterrrr and team! One request iād like to make to the CODE rewards is an allocation for DevNTell attendees and speakers. The attendees can follow the same model as the VIBES attendees (15 CODE per claimed Kudos up to a max of 50); however, Iād like to also reward people who come on as a speaker with a membership level amount of CODE which at the moment is 400. So breakdown with those additions would look like the following:
| Activity | CODE Rewards Model | Month CODE Budget | Season CODE Budget (Max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| VIBES | 15 CODE per NFT Claim (max 50 per NFT) | 3,000 | 12,000 |
| Workshop Attendees | 45 CODE per NFT Claim (max 50 per NFT) | 4,500 | 18,000 |
| Hackathon Project Submission | 360 per verified submission (3 -hacks, avg 20 subs) | 5,400 | 21,600 |
| Discord Praise System | 5000 Bounty Pool Per Month | 375 | 1,500 |
| Twitter Space Giveaway | 5 Memberships (400 * 5 * 3) | 6,000 | 24000 |
| DevNTell attendee | 15 CODE per attendee Kudos NFT Claim (max 50 per NFT) | 3,000 | 12,000 |
| DevNTell Speaker | 400 CODE per speaker Kudos Claim | 1,600 | 6,400 |
| 95,500 |
Follow up to this would be how do we organize the distribution of the rewards and is there a process in place that we follow to coalesce all the address-to-code-reward pairs into a master list?
2 Likes
ahhhhhh my bad @Narb - these rewards should have been on there so will update it tomorrow .
Those numbers seem sensible to me 
ā
On a connected note - Mintkudos today announced theyāre sunsetting the current version of their project which means we need to figure out a new distribution mechanism for NFT rewards. Weāre speaking with @thatguyintech and the team (they also built DeForm which we use for token-gated forms) about solving for this and weāll explore other options tooā¦
Whilst this means we no longer have a pre-determined model for issuing some of the Member Rewards requested in this budget, we still believe distributing the $CODE to reward and incentivise members in this way is vital so we still request the budget and will work on an alternative distribution mechanism.
2 Likes
Looking forward to chatting next week to catch up on on next steps that we can help with!! Definitely want to see this initiative succeed.
2 Likes
Updated proposal to include DevNTell Rewards as request by @Narb taking Member Reward up from ~ 75k to ~ 120k in $CODE
I also added the following acknowledgement of uncertainty around how we allocate Member rewards:
@stewards - we need further comment on this proposal in order to elevate to a vote. Those who have not commented are @drop_knowledge @rubinovitz @Colin4ward @ntindle
Hope is to elevate this to a vote this afternoon once the mandatory 5 days has passed however we need your comments to make this happen.
All my questions and concerns have been answered in the above. I fully support this budget. Ready to move to snapshot.
I like:
- the explicit intention to prioritize members ^
- the (theoretical) simplicity and stability of these types of partnerships ^
- connecting incentives (in thoughtful/tasteful ways) ^
- bringing more explicit accountability to these areas ^ the maximally decentralized approach to these areas havenāt panned out as well as they could.
- that the Labs team is clearly identifying some of the value the DAO can provide to sub-daos ^
- explicit accountability and reward for sub-dao operations ^ uncertain if the dollar amount is right-sized and if it places a hard-cap on the number of sub-daos
- predictable events and rewarded participation ^
a few questions came to mind while reading ā maybe this proposal doesnāt need to answer all of them. how do we ensure:
A) we work with partners that are high quality and aligned with D_Dās mission and values?
B) the DAO finds an equilibrium between number of partners and number of sub-daos?
C) a healthy big-picture/long term CODE distribution strategy?
D) that Leads are accountable?
E) that the DAO can put all-star contributors and leaders to good use?
requests:
- can Leads be tasked with writing the documentation for their role? turnover is a fact of life and a resilient org needs to share its processes and learnings. (the playbooks are a good reference point.)
- can you or @mannyornothing clarify latest thinking on D_D Jobs? the only related OKR i see is related to @drop_knowledge / Venture portfolio. does the job board and twitter spaces, etc. factor into this proposal?
- can you also clarify how Merch, Vibes IRL, (any other appropriate initiatives) factor into the value flow or OKRs? these are interesting in that they feel like sub-sub-daos, but maybe iām overthinking it.
an observation:
- it seems like latest iteration has much more modest revenue expectations/capability that past seasons. is that actually the case? totally understandable to revise expectations given market realities. also brings to mind web3con as a big revenue generator and wondering where that would fit in if it were to make a comeback. would that be a sub-dao or possibly an initiative from within Labs?
tl;dr - from my perspective, the intent here feels like a very healthy iteration and āsafe enough to tryā given itās scoped to Q3.
Thanks for answering my questions @kempsterrrr
I still believe that 10% back to the DAO is way too little. Itās not a figure that says āregeneration/sustainabilityā to me. It give so little wriggle room, and leaves us always scraping the bottom of the barrel to ensure infrastructure works, that we have reserves for unanticipated timesā¦ and that new people can be rewarded => when they first show up, i.e. we have more chance of keeping them with that positive energy they usually bring when they arrive.
I see our DAO contribution concept like taxes. I hear folks saying that taxes are bad. For me, tax isnāt a bad thing, itās only a technology after all. Itās only when itās mismanaged, or deliberately benefits āthe havesā is it bad for any community/society.
We have a chance to change that and we should grasp the chance to boost our reserves, and prove that it works for regeneration and sustainability. We are a non-hierarchical organisation after all.
In summary, once again, good work on all these iterations and thanks for all the continued effort.
I fully support this proposal. I believe that this quarter will be about experimentation and tracking what is working and not working on in this new model. With it only being akin to Q3, I think that itās a step in the right direction.
It doesnāt place a formal hard gap but introduces a soft one based on funds available - i.e. we as a DAO need to think pragmatically about what we support and donāt. I view this as a good thing. Spinning up workstreams/teams in many other DAOs is a big ask and happens infrequently. Experimentation is good, lack of focus and thinly shared resources not su much.
A lot of trust here in all honesty, as a team weāre focused on finding high-quality preferred partners - do you have ideas about how this could be better?
Not exactly sure what you mean but weāve tried to find that here in so much that the preferred partners can be a non-intrusive part of the Member experience, adding to it, rather than taking it over. Only where it makes sense to integrate partners will we do so.
For academy and agency, whilst moving so is likely a good thing atm, assuming weāre happy with the quality of content on Academy and work in Agency, I donāt really see a limit here.
Still experimenting here in all honestly, high-level vision is in place but numbers and models to support it not so much. Do you have anything in mind youād like to see?
Some involvement from the community here would be a great thing
rRght now accountability is amongst the team day-to-day and to the DAO quarter-by-qaurter - Iād like to see some rules and structure put in place here but havenāt got to it. Maybe something for the Sub-DAO Coordination to work out?
Weāre hoping to expand the team as the model prooves out - so welcome in more Contributors 100% although I think we should be very cautious and pragmatic about trying to encourage people to become Contributors to the DAO at this stage. Typically, a tiny % of people who voice an interest in doing so end up doing so - which is fine. Iād rather focus on funneling the 99% of folks who are here as Members to the opportunities provided for them such as workshops, hackathons, fellowships
can Leads be tasked with writing the documentation for their role?
100% - this is explicitly added in some of the JDās and will be part of every leads role
Given we canāt get crypto payment rails for Pallet (as cayman) activating jobs customers was tough, right now weāre hoping to roll it into the Venture Frens model. New idea and will see how this goes.
These should have associated OKRs, and oversight on our part - I will add these today. The primary goal this quarter is just to get these things happening. The Sub-DAOs we have the less seems to happen as the coordination challenges is much harder - there is some discussion to be had here but I think tightening up this definition and setting a high-bar for new sub-daoās would be the right move.
Weāre likely to miss-target for month 1 with the status of current conversations - 2 preferred providers close to closing for Wallet and RPC, others very early stages. Mini-hackathon for July doesnāt seem like itās happening, so weāre focused on building a pipeline for these so we can be planning months in advance.
Would love to see web3con happen again, however, it has had many cold restarts etc., and if weāre to do it Iād like to see someone lead it with a salary (ideally as part of labs) to make happen - @Rahat pinged me the other day on this and need to get back to him.
Iād personally prefer to see us get vibesIRL going and then use the profit from this to fund web3con push as this is a much harder lift and requires a lot more people to make it happen thus more $$$$.
Hear you on this - my view is whilst weāre proving out the model, a low % is fine. My view is there are too many people who have put too much effort in for too little reward already, the higher this % is the harder it is to reward those people in a meaningful way.
Would encourage a long-term view. If the low % now means we can secure and importantly hold on to good contributors who can make this model work, then Iād much rather the DAO see 10% of a lot of money vs say 30% of nothing/very little
I fully support a regenerative model, that is the point of this return.
1 Like
Love this is a potential path to sustainability.
Love this if subDAOs are excited about it
Love that weāll have a reliable slate of events and that weāre paying facilitators (should increase quality + vibes + itās just the right thing to do)
Iāve always been skeptical of this as as blanket statement TBH and would love more details. E.g. paying someone to attend a call != them contributing positively to the DAO. I do like how you specify the code rewards model, but I still donāt think people should be paid just for attending things. Attending things doesnāt inherently add value.
[[ Disclaimer: Super late getting to this proposal. Iāve not read any of the comments. ]]
Sounds calm in theory, but Iām not sure how many founders, directors etc attend the DAOās Town Halls or Twitter Spaces. And so if Agency are exploring various pathways within the DAO, to feed into its pipeline (specifically inbounds) ā then Iām a little skeptical at this juncture, that Agency will see much success within those formats. Iām not opposed to them, but Iām considering the broader contexts and weighing them up against any potential time constraints.
Utilizing THās + Twitter Spaces as potential recruitment spaces, can make some sense. And then just in terms of visibility for builders both within and outside of the DAO, looking to move their projects along. Supplementary pathways however, not primary.
I think the Open Space that @Gordo set up, serves as a more suitable primary recruitment pathway; since itās geared solely towards Agency. But absent of increased engagement across Developer DAO (and subsequently engagement in the THās and Twitter Spaces), Agency may need to do more thinking around fostering a steady and more organic inbound deal flow.
Sounds decent. Iāve been fulfilling these duties for the past season ā so Iām not opposed to a monthly payment for this work, if the funds are available.
Good shout. Worth the investment.
Reiterating my thoughts on this topic (as shared in various places):
The overarching aim (outside of just more evolved revenue streams for Developer DAO and its sub-DAOās) is ultimately to pull the
$CODEtoken into circulation and utility. At an initial level: that is one part perception (i.e. how it is spoken of, how and where it is being mentioned), and then one part distribution (ensuring it gets into as many hands/wallets as possible, and is being circulated in ecosystems outside of just Developer DAO).
Iām presuming that in the early stages, āutilityā will look like distributing the token more through hackathons, competitions, giveaways, rewards for some work in the DAO etc (as has been shared above). If a token is only held by a subset of people, then it limits its circulation and thus utility.
Following on from this, is the use of the token within other communities and protocols. Not simply a token swap, but used to reward people and groups in various ways within communities outside of just Developer DAO. So if another protocol is running a hackathon and part of the rewards available are $CODE tokens ā then not only is it being distributed more, but the perception around it begins to shift from being seen as a token locked within a specific context (i.e. just within Developer DAO) āØ to being a token that has value and application outside of just that. Money is simply a consensus of value ā it is completely arbitrary. Value is ascribed, it is not inherent. And as such, itās in everyoneās best interest to ascribe the right kind of value to the $CODE token.
Thereās no women listed. I have no context for why thatās the case; but itās my view that efforts should always be made to attract more women into web3 (and the DAO as a byproduct). And those who express an interest in (or show they have the capability to step into) some of the aforementioned roles, should be empowered and supported in meaningful ways. A meaningfully diverse operational team is a net positive for any DAO.
Is Developer DAO is returning to the format that I argued for, back in February (i.e. prior to the start of Season 2)? Will there no longer be 2-3 Community Managers within DD Labs?
Iām not sure if Iāve misread, but can you elaborate on this? Iām aligned with the premise in theory, but Iām keen to get some clarity around some of the approaches that will be taken, to achieve this. Is it the Town Halls, Twitter Spaces, Hackathons etc? Or do you have something else in mind, in service of this?
This is good. Long overdue.
Also a good shout. Good work.
1 Like
I proposed this as I felt incentivising community participation does == participating in the DAO and thus should be rewarded a small amount for doing so. The idea is getting folks together to build community and create opportunities for value to be created, vs. trying to be super granular on what is or is not value.
The intention is to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible to shine a light on what the agency is doing. I agree, this is unlikely to cause a significant immediate impact (particularly on inbound leads for work) but Iād hope such efforts would compound over time.
If Agency is not part of those spaces we lose that opportunity. We are noticing more and more (particularly after the success of hackathons and the fellowship) more investors, protocol reps etc. attending the Town Halls.
Agreed - Iād love to see us promoting this space in the Town Halls we can funnel folks towards the opportunity. As for Organic deal flow, awareness is the start of achieving that IMO and hopefully, the town-halls as well as more prominence in the newsletter and some dedicated marketing support from Labs could help here.
@mannyornothing is also keen to push to bring work into the agency - Maybe a call is best to figure this out?
A lead for some paid work was already shared in the chat - @Gordo didnāt feel it was work agency would want to do but would be interested to get your/others perspectives as well.
Totally agree. The 1st stage weāre seeing is a socially based experiment to figure out the right incentives and rewards in the DAO. Once weāve got a good enough sense of the rewards and incentivises the intention would be to then introduce utility based on token holdings.
For example , in the future this could look like the following:
- x number of CODE tokens need to participate in a hackathon
- y number of tokens needed to apply for a Fellowship Program
- z number of projects needed to spin up a team to work in agency
Can also see a world where we introduce staking to further the utility. For example, you stake the token requirement to participate in a Hackathon/Fellowship/Agency, and then if you submit/complete the fellowship or Agency project, you earn a yield. If you drop out maybe you are slashed.
We believe though itās better (and tbh necessary) to keep things open whilst weāre testing and figuring out what works and what doesnāt, before putting things on-chain.
Regarding rewarding folks outside the DAO - been riffing on this also so glad you brought it up.
The goal with these CODE allocations is to a) attract and recruit builders, b) rewards and incentivise them to create more value - I agree that doesnāt need to be limited to DAO Members and could see a world for example where we issue CODE to everyone who submits to ETH Global hacks (we can get their wallet addresses from the ETH GLobal website)
this would allow us to welcome in certified builders in the same way the CODE rewards for all verified D_D hackathon submission are now. What do you think?
Discussed with the DDW womenās team about their intentions next season and theyād decided not to submit a proposal. Instead, we have now brought Sam into labs to work with Billy on community, initially taking over the Scholarship& Travel work handled last season/quarter by Scarlet.
She was not mentioned in the proposal as she was away, and we hadnāt had a chance to speak directly with Sam at that point. Weāre just ironing out here role and will update the JD when completed.
Experience last quarter was clear, underpaying multiple people to collectively do 1 role was much less effective than more reasonable paying one person to do that role. @Billyjitsu went over and beyond his $1k last quarter so weāve reallocated the funds to him to lead community and the intention is to grow a team around him as funds allows. This is starting with bounties payable to a few members for hosting dedicated spaces as well as Sam leading the scholarship work (we hope her roles evolves into CM).
Good q - exactly as youāve suggested this will be achieved via the CODE Rewards: Hackathon subs/winners, workshop attendees, giveaways etc.
Our aim is to welcome in > 500 folks this season via these paths.
EDIT - @luan opened up the discussion for reducing the CODE requirement to join discord here.
1 Like
@Colin4ward @ntindle @rubinovitz @Erik_Knobl we need a supporting Steward to elevate this proposal - are either of you happy to put your name to this as is?
Sam added as scholarship lead and note added that the people performing these roles will be the signers on the to be created Labs SAFE.