Member Allocation & Early Contributors Rewards of our Governance Token

I have done some work on how to do the initial token allocation to members & early contributors. In sharing this now, there are pros & cons.

Pros: More discussion around this ahead of the total token issuance content, allowing people to contribute now to this.

Cons: We do not have the complete token issuance picture for better understanding. More questions that cannot be answered.

These are just suggestions for discussion, but I believe they follow a good path for what we should do.

This conversation began on our #tokenomics Discord channel (now found in the Governance Guild category).

I am sharing this as a Github repo as it contains additional files, etc., around the work I have done.

Please share your thoughts!

GitHub Link: GitHub - Developer-DAO/member-and-early-contributor-rewards: Temporary repo for suggesting member & early contributor rewards ahead of the token issuance information.


Thank you for getting this on GH. A few thoughts/Questions:

“Membership into the DAO will require these same X tokens.” - Will membership required just one of these ‘x’ tokens or a certain amount?

I agree with @wolovim | wolovim.eth that the coordinape route could turn into a popularity contest. I have zero experience with coordinape, so I may just need to get more familiar with it, but my overall concern is potentially leaving folks out that may have made small but earnest contributions that could be left out. We want everyone to feel like their time and effort is valued and recognized.


Good question. To clarify, I am saying that holding the NFT at snapshot will get you exactly the number of tokens (X) for membership. E.g., if you get 300 tokens for holding the NFT, we require you hold 300 tokens for membership.

1 Like

I like most of what you have suggested, but i would add something to this. My concern is that some guilds or roles have more exposure than others. For example someone who worked in the newsletter will have more exposure than someone who may have contributed in tokenomics. I think the guild leaders should have an additional allocation to give out. In this case the guild leader will make sure that at least the biggest contributors in their respective guild are being rewarded based on work and not so much on exposure.

This is important because we are rewarding “early” contributors with votes post “season 0”, someone may decide to give their votes to the person who did the MIA meetup, and that is fine; but such contribution happen after “season 0”. Votes from guild leaders may help balance this, because they would know who this pre season 0 contributors are. What that number of additional “votes” could be can be discussed based on stats and a fair balance.

Also, having some sort of list of contribution may be useful for the coordinape vote. For example, I would like to give some of my votes to whoever help with the conversion of the NFT from loot to a picture, but I do not know who that person is.


I agree with giving the Guild Leaders the same amount of tokens to distribute. Also, the core team can reward members that are contributing who are not affiliated with any guild. We don’t want to forget all the guilds members make around 50% of the total members and the rest of the members would be contributing and deserves to be rewarded.

The final note would be kinda delegation, that you delegate your votes to someone else.

Hello folks. I have a suggestion, since the DAO growth rate has been on such an incredibly accelerated manner, I feel like a lot of people in the DAO might not know who did what and how important that was. In order to resolve this, and give the contributors the credit they deserve - even if they don’t want it or ask for it - we can create a post of appreciation (maybe in the newsletter) for the major hard working contributors. This way we can appreciate their efforts, and in case we had to vote, we would have a more objective approach towards the whole process.


One of the things we can do is hold a meeting with the Coordinape team to ask them some of these questions and what they have seen.

Any structure around guilds/guild leaders will add centralized points in there. It would be ideal to go full bottom-up on coordinape, but those are reasonable concerns around the visibility of one contribution over another.

We will need to have a nomination process where someone can detail their contributions.


On balance, whilst I personally recognise the concerns with coordinape potentially being a popularity contest I think it would be be a better approach than Guild leaders allocating.

My thoughts here are:

  • Guild leaders are not going to notice/appreciate everyones contribution (whereas a member might have worked with a less visible person on an initiative and be able to rewarded them)
  • Guild leaders deciding seems more centralised and less fair
  • There is nothing in place for Guild leaders to track contributions currently and not clear to me how those decisions would be made without more contention and/or a very long and drawn out process of gathering and figuring out contributions

I’d like to propose we separate out the allocations a bit further i.e.:

  • Airdrop to all NFT holders (total % / ~5300)
  • Airdrop to anyone who voted in first two snapshots or picked up a POAP (total % / 907)
  • Allocation to be distributed via coordinape for Season 0 contributions (total % / guilds, then by coordinape)

By breaking out the allocation to voted on first two proposal and then Season 0 rewards we can reward with early contributors and current contributors respectively, including those who maybe aren’t actively contributor to guilds/projects now but have been big contributors to the community as whole.

When I think about those kind of people I’m sure most of them voted on the snapshot proposals or picked up a POAP (but would need to check).

Unfortunately whatever we decide together there’s not doubt in my mind were’ going to miss a few people’s extra contributions but this feels like it’s getting us closer without creating massive overhead to launching the token that will slow us down. (could be over cooking that bit !!)

I’m working on a post documenting how we might structure the DAO and rewards mechanisms after Season 0 which I hope to share in the next few days (bit messy/unorganised at the moment). Believe having some clarity on this might help alongside the tokenomics.


Thanks for putting this together @willblackburn, I appreciate being able to think about this slowly.

Regarding the NFT/Snapshot/POAP token distribution, it seems fair to me. Disclosure: I am all of those, so possibly biased.

Regarding Coordinape, I think its a very interesting way to go forward. In an effort to understand it better, I set up a circle to play around with. I like the ability to opt-out of receiving tokens but there doesn’t seem to be a way to opt-out of giving tokens. The documentation doesn’t seem to cover what happens if I simply didn’t participate in gifting tokens for an epoch.

I think these are two questions we should pose to Coordinape (unless someone here already knows):

  • What happens if someone doesn’t use their VOTEs?
  • What happens if only some of the VOTEs are used?
  • Can someone opt-out of sending VOTEs?

I think for an active set of users, we can probably avoid popularity contests based on the social stigma of being that person who doesn’t give to peers you collaborate with. You know, a jerk. My concern is with the large number of people, many (hi, it me) may not be participating in the DAO very actively but will have the ability to sway percentages.

Semi-related: an interesting project would be to use Sourcecred, or something like it, to generate the ‘things I did this epoch’ messaging. Would help those people who are not good at selling themselves or uncomfortable with the idea.


How do we feel about airdropping more tokens than is required for DAO participation?
A quick example: if tokens required for accessing the gated discord areas and such was 10 $CODE, we could airdrop 15-20 CODE for eligible NFT holders

  1. This allows members who has multiple D_D NFTs, and wanted to gift an NFT to a friend for participation, to instead just share some of their airdropped tokens
  2. This would allow people who want to take some profit to still maintain DAO membership without feeling forced to choose between a financial windfall and being able to participate


would allow people who want to take some profit to still maintain DAO membership

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think profit taking is in the mission or values of Dev. DAO. Optimizing for that should not be a priority nor something to be considered as relevant to this process.

As a proposal: At least a symbolic amount of tokens should be dropped to DAOs that have directly or indirectly helped with bootstrapping.

I do agree with that in principle, but I am trying to think from the point of view of someone less privileged who may be stuck between taking this small windfall and staying in the DAO.

I’m not trying to foster profit-maximalist values, I’m trying to consider ways to lower barrier to participation.

You may be correct in that this is the wrong approach, this is not an idea I’m married to.

Is a governance token necessary if all members already own a NFT? More active members could have their voting power increased through delegation of votes.

I think it’s fair that the base airdrop (for holding NFT) equals the amount of tokens required to access the DAO. The minimum requirement to access the DAO can be changed afterwards, and it might even be necessary if the token appreciates to the point where onboarding becomes overly expensive.