Bumping this to say I no longer support this direction.
After recent discussion (1, 2) It is now my view the best route for managing access/members of the discord is having a single primitive and that an NFT is a better primitive than CODE for that specific purpose. With that in mind I’m withdrawing this proposal and wont be pursuing it.
Correct. I don’t think we should rush to put governance on-chain, prefer to see us adopt oSnap to allow snapshot votes to execute on-chain transactions.
I would love to see us move more on-chain though, if we move ahead with a new membership NFT I shared this idea which I think is cool:
Idea of NFTs for github commits is cool. In general on-chain attestations are cool 
we do have this to a degree here - https://opensea.io/collection/developer-dao-1
These are currently done manually in partnerships with the DeForm crew.
Love this. Be great to build our own mirror blog on developerdao.com, a small slice of the tips could also go to funding more writing or @Kay’s editor work - be easy to setup via 0xSplits or something similar.
Yeah totally agree this sounds like a great idea, aligns incentives nicely.
This feels like another good signal for reducing complexity of our current setup with NFT & CODE sharing utility. Feels a lot clearn if NFT == access/membership, CODE == governance - easier for folks to under