The branding issues has been addressed. To reduce our output to one article misses the point as it ignores our business case. I believe we are on a good track despite very challenging market conditions and current economic outlook. However, building a business from scratch requires a lot more, such as getting people together, coordinating the efforts, constantly adapting to changing circumstances, establishing contacts etc. and just takes time as anyone can attest to who has gone through the process themselves.
It is essentially a startup situation. I am glad to hear of a comparable b DAO project which has achieved this in one and a half seasons as I am keen to learn from them how they did it. To me this expectation seems unreasonable especially in relation to the funds you mentioned. Writing free articles and producing content is just on top. Thank you for sharing btw.!
Exactly the point am trying to make. Partnering with Bankless Academy has nothing to do with the DAO but as a way to get talent for B labs. So what’s the value in that for the DAO. it’s my opinion that “For Profit” projects should be able to benefit the DAO profitability(some sort of positive impact on the token) whether short-term or long-term depending on the success of the project. Am not seeing such a thing here and it’s looking like B Labs have commitment issues😆
Without a proper commitment to the DAO in terms of aligning the objective of B Labs(for profit), it becomes a Research Guild outlet with over elaborate social working agreements and documentations seeking to leverage the brand to benefit the project and it’s members and not give much back to the DAO.
This proposal has my full support. Excited to see the growth of B Labs, this project has a lot of potential.
Thanks for weighing in @thinkDecade!
To my knowledge, Bankless Academy is value-aligned with the DAO and pursues the mission of our community. They’ve uses BANK to reward their members for value-creation since day one, such as we do. Therefore, working with them (instead of let’s say a third party) to vet talent we need is a value-aligned commitment to the DAO.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from your perspective the only way to commit to the DAO is to refund the treasury with revenue generated. I don’t think that’s general consensus or even correct to say the least. The 10% kick-back is an unwritten “rule” that hasn’t even been followed by projects, consistently. If it was followed by every project the GC has funded to date, the bankless vault would be at least 5% richer in dollar terms.
Most importantly, and as I’ve said at the beginning, we at B Labs value honesty and transparency, hence why we are committed to making promises we can deliver. Some projects perform a claw back, some not. This is the reason why @Bananachain and started working on a governance proposal to address this particular issue.
Their might be a clash of semantics here. I really hope you understand my rationale. Thank you!
I read some of the documents produced in Season 6. They don’t seem to be at a professional standard, which reduced my confidence in the project.
I’d like to understand, given the documents about collecting interview data, whether you have any ethics and informed consent processes in place?
The World Health Organisation states that “all research involving human beings should be reviewed by an ethics committee to ensure that the appropriate ethical standards are being upheld.”
A couple of other examples are the British Psychological Society Code of Human Research Ethics and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council.
Trewkat, that’s a really good point and something we can fix. I will say that the risk of harm with our research is pretty low: about half of the grant proposals that we have put out have been in branding/marketing research, and the other half has to deal with tokenomics, sidechain construction, and other technical things. So we are not researching marginalized groups or people that might likely be seriously harmed through our findings. But having a clear consent and human subjects policy is still important, and something we should codify.
When the research team was doing interviews for the Saddle project, everyone knew where the research was going and who controlled the final product.
We do need to do some thinking if community discords are public or private spaces. I think they mostly count as public, but you could make the argument that they are private, which would make disclosing why we are there a bit more difficult.
Hi @senad.eth sorry that I didn’t get all of my questions in at once! I see in your working agreement that you added a code of conduct! Great job! Definitely an inspiration! I am wondering if you considered adding a portion on ethics and role holder responsibilities?
Also, would it be possible to help me understand this sentence:
“Members who fail to follow the expected behavior by this code of conduct (including repetitive infractions and gross misconduct) can face disciplinary action including and be blacklisted from further participation in our ecosystem”
-How will this be monitored?
-What is the difference between an infraction and gross misconduct?
- What are the disciplinary actions that one would face?
- Who decides the disciplinary actions?
-And lastly, what ecosystem would you be “blacklisting” a member who violates this code from participating in?
Hey @Sprinklesforwinners - thanks for your kind feedback re: working agreement and your questions!
- I indeed plan to update the working agreement and add for example the ratified project coordination proposal. It’s on me as project champion and gov & ops lead to update and propose a better version of the working agreement this season.
- Re: code of conduct & disciplinary action - we currently don’t have disciplinary procedures to effectively offboard people who misbehave. If we / I have problems with specific folks or if certain folks have problems with us / me, they usually reach out to me via DM. This works for now. This sentence will likely be removed in the updated working agreement, thanks for pointing it out!