[REJECTED] - Reduce CODE Requirement to join discord

I think to reward people for providing liquidity on Uniswap, some daos allow to vote with LP tokens.
For example, Gitcoin Snapshot

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 – 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 “We want to develop community first and foremost”.

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.

1 Like

Great comments, ty :pray:

I fully agree - working out how is the challenge, given we can’t 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 :slight_smile: I don’t 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 we’re missing a vital part and very excited this conversation is starting.

Can’t speak for @wolovim but I’d be very happy to do this - need some support/guidance/time to learn though as never done this before.

I’ve mentioned in many proposals I’d 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 “in the know” can’t take advantage of this setup.

1 Like

I have asked AI to help summarize.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Treasury buyback mechanism: For enhancing liquidity, the proposal of the DAO treasury buying back tokens from the open market can be considered. However, it’s 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.
1 Like

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 here…

  1. reducing the barrier to entry to join the DAO
  2. 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 doesn’t 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.

Needs more comments from the @stewards here please - @mannyornothing @rubinovitz :pray:

Would also like to see some thoughts from @Billyjitsu given he is community lead

1 Like

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 “some” barrier of entry. This helps offset the bots and spammers from overwhelming the discord and requires a ton more discord mod time.

Currently, liquidity isn’t 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 “buy” 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.


I’m 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 community’s purpose, values, and activities. This could result in a lack of commitment and engagement from these members, undermining the community’s 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 community’s 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 community’s values, objectives, and activities. By providing information and resources upfront, we can attract genuinely interested individuals aligned with our community’s 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 community’s growth and success.


This is something very crucial. I agree 100% I’m working on an onboarding solution currently to help people understand “what to do” when they join the DAO. This is something I’m 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 “login” system, and that once logged in, you can see, search, etc, about “what to do”. 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 doesn’t sound too crazy, or it is?


In order to desvirtualize the thread, it could be a good idea, the goals and perhaps escenarios that could happen’t are exciting and ambitius, in a good way!

Glad to read this. I still couldn’t “believe” 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.

Don’t get me wrong, what I’m 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 DAO’s mission and auto-generate DAO’s 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, governor…

So glad to read this!

1 Like

@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 DAO’s front of house, a marketing tool used to showcase what we’re 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. You’ll see a how to join the DAO section in there.

I think in theory we can have a swap module on the website but we’d 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 :slight_smile:

1 Like

I am for reducing CODE requirements, but think we should have a way of making clear to the organization and it’s members who got in under the old requirements.

I’m not sure all the use cases for this yet, but maybe we want to reward OGs in the future? And we should ideally tag people (Eg discord badge) who are new so people know.

I know there’s an OG tag right now. Maybe we just want a tag for everyone who participated in each season? An old lurker isn’t the same as someone who has been around and participating.

Also excited about the liquidity provider convo.

hey @kempsterrrr ! Well, I don’t know how to start, but for example let’s say that as far as I can see we are an off-chain DAO, right? Or I am wrong? I don’t see any contract to actually vote and register everything on-chain, rather than the ones everyone can see here and they also are not too many.

Besides that comment, for example, the DAO could use NFTs as a prize for the collaborators.
for example, for the github contributors, is easy to allow them to mint a NFT Allow GitHub Contributors To Mint An NFT From Your Collection

another example is that the blog content, could be NFTs, and anytone can “tip” or “like” it and that adds value so the creator gets rewarded…
Also, anyone of this NFTs could be staked, with another ERC20 or another NFT as reward, and the DAO could find some utility to this rewards tokens/NFTs… Is not too hard too do, and we have a communitiy of great developers.

Also, at least as I see it, we could be working as an startup, is nothing wrong about making money… not paper money… the thing is what do to with it.

The academy and the Mentorship program could be funded with this money to have the capacity to have more students, aiming to areas that have hard education first… idk…

For example the people helping in those programs, could be awarded with another type of NFT, etc, and again that NFT can be staked, etc, etc…

regarding contracts, there are plenty of them online, I can share links here if it’s usefull, but the main thing is what to do with them…


here you can see some: https://github.com/CodeforDAO/contracts/tree/main/contracts/core
governor, treasury, membership, share…

I can share more links if they help somehow! Or if this reply doesn’t helps, perhaps it would be nice to know what the DAO wants to achieve in order to bring the possible solution for that!


Reviving this

I think a 99 $CODE barrier to entry is a good idea.

I think adding a swap page to our website is a good idea.

I think allowing liquidity providers to vote is a good idea.

I think a tiered membership is a good idea. Here is an example of the tiers: 99 to Join Discord, 250 to join mentorship, 400 to vote, 500 to request grant.

I also thought it was 400 $CODE min on governance

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 :dancer: 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


thinking on bridging code to other chains, am I legally allowed to do this ?

Lets say its legally permissable, then would the bot in discord allow the members with code on other chains?

1 Like

Can’t see why but will check and lyk…

Getting code onto an L2 should be a priority for the DAO imo to enable much more cost effective rewards and cheaper liquidity provision. Opting for 1 main L2 might open up some interesting collaboration and grant opportunities by bringing DD builders there too.

@pfedprog can you shoot me a DM on Discord please as I can’t find you on there. love to get your take on some ideas related to this + L2s in general. I’m aware your active in the Arb community so would value your take on things!

1 Like