Bankless DAO x ConsenSys DAOlationship Proposal

Agree with Feems points.

I do want to partner with Consensys as our long term vision aligns for a greater success of Web3, but these terms seem to weigh quite heavily on the potential engagement of full-time employees, with no real commitment to a long term working initiative.

Especially since Consensus is one of the “big & rich” companies in our space and paying for 50 permanent memberships is about $35k at present pricing. I’d be slightly more interested in some sort of bulk discount or ongoing onboarding arrangement, than a one-time guest pass in-and-out tour.


I’m generally in support of this because I believe it has the potential to bring in some new ideas and potentially talent. It’s also great content for marketing. That being said, it’d be great to ask for some deliverables if they aren’t paying to get this guided and focused collaborative experience with zero actual commitment to stick around.

Asking for a report (e.g. a forum proposal) or some sort of other concrete deliverable like co-marketing commitment from either each participant and/or the entire cohort could be a beneficial alternative to discounted bulk membership or monetary exchange.


I am a bit surprised with the pushback. These are potential contributors like any other. They aren’t necessarily asking to be paid BANK, just to contribute and learn. Isn’t that our mission?

I don’t think adding a new source of contributors undermines the talent we currently have available to us, and we are stronger together. What am I missing @feems ?

Definitely see the potential cultural issues arising, though. On top of that, our onboarding processes are. not at 100%. First quest bot is still down isn’t it?

This may be an opportunity to test the season pass idea @0xJustice has been mentioning. 3 month access for a fee.


Just want to add partnership is a great thing just some things to consider. I think with a more refined scope it can be a win win for all.

I think it’s important to think about our members, especially those that don’t have the luxury of fancy jobs, apartments and time. BDAO is one community, and we should advocate for everyone and not the few - meaning we have to look at things from different people’s points of view.

Also why? It’s not to learn and become better contributors is to better inform for their future products (it;s a business not a charity- and DAOs should be thinking like business too) : DAOs and Web3 Governance Participation | ConsenSys

Which is cool; if you want to use this experience for customer discovery okay but provide us with a fund to better develop an onboarding program that we can use later on for other companies or orgs.

We need to start valuing our position in the space, our reputation as a DAO and the large membership we have - that’s worth something to the market.

Tbh first quest bot and our current onboarding is not there yet. I have to individually onboard people to BDAO first, asking what they want to do and then connecting them with the right people. Do our guilds have seasonal onboarding roles paid by the Guild (will they not be compensated for the extra work)?

Is their contribution valuable (if we got subject matter experts to assist in areas of most need for free for us that’s beneficial)? If we are onboarding folks paid to be there from a company into projects they have no background, how does that benefit us? How do the people leading those projects to feel about not getting compensated for the extra work?

They are not any potential contributors they are coming as a team from a company. If they want to enter as individuals, we welcome that.
My above statements have described the inequity financially (they are being paid by their company to be there). Also, the shift in potential culture it would have to work group, not to mention that none of the project workstream leads were consulted.

DAOs provide an opportunity for people to participate, lead and shine independent of where they come from or who they worked with. When you bring in a major company, it will shift (they aren’t representing themselves they are representing a company with large weight in the space ).

I provided a solution, I’m not against them learning and onboarding but let’s develop a proper program (mostly learning from guild onboarding) as we can also use that to reinenege current members who have not seen a place for them to contribute.


Thanks everyone for the feedback!

To be crystal clear on what’s being asked - This proposal is requesting 50 guest passes from Bankless DAO to distribute to ConsenSys employees. In return, bDAO gets a wave of new web3 native talent that could contribute and add value to bDAO initiatives + some marketing/branding muscle from ConsenSys.

To answer some questions:

Have you talked to the leads of the projects or guilds to ask if they are cool with this?

It’s ultimately up to the project leads and guild leads if they want to onboard that specific human (and if they would add value).

It would be just like any other contributor coming into Bankless DAO - the difference is the partnership is distributing a bulk temp membership to ConsenSys. I don’t really see any difference in the onboarding/vetting process than any other standard contributor being onboarded - it’s just an option for both the ConsenSys employee and the Guild/Project Lead.

How will the Guest Passes for Consensys employees be renewed when they are automatically removed by Mad Hatter after 2 weeks?

I was actually unaware that Mad Hatter was removing guest passes after 2 weeks - this is on me.

I think there’s two avenues: (1) have a separate role for ConsenSys employees which acts as a longer term temp pass or (2) as Links mentioned, distribute/sell bulk NFTs that grant temp access to the Discord. Open to either of these but the latter would require more discussion from the ConsenSys side

For the marketing assistance from BanklessDAO, have you contacted the Marketing Guild about this? I think they charge a bit for their service (retweets, Twitter Space, etc) , so you could request a little bit of BANK to ease this friction

I was personally planning on handling the bulk of the marketing lift (running the twitter spaces, tweets, etc.). Obviously, I would love help from the marketing guild if there’s capacity.

That said, we were planning on posting a follow-up proposal to create a paid working group (onboarding + marketing) for this engagement on the bDAO side assuming there was enough interest from the community to pass it!

Wanted to get a vibe check before we did that though.

When you say “Total number of ConsenSys employees successfully onboarded”, are you saying total number DURING the 3 month period, or the amount who stay after?

Both! We want to measure engagement during and after the formal trial period.

How are you planning on getting project/guild coordinator evaluation of talent?

The proposal group would issue two surveys to both ConsenSys employees and Project/Guild Leads to gauge the sentiment/feedback from the engagement.

In terms of guilds, I notice the Project Management Guild isn’t included in your list, but could definitely welcome some ConsenSys contributors if there is interest

We can add this! There’s a lot of initiatives within bDAO so apologies if we missed some :stuck_out_tongue:

Overall, my personal view (which is why I wanted to bring this to the table) is that this would be a really solid opportunity for bDAO to have the option to tap into some new high quality talent + gain a ton of brand recognition with one of the biggest companies in the industry.

Hopefully this answers some of the questions!


As long as you find a way to be equitable to the bankless side of the coin with folks who are working with paid consensys staff, fair. Or if this project does not include employees being paid bank on consensys side, brilliant.

Or if consensys has come up with a donation or investment even. Brilliant.

If the staff is getting remunerated from bank + they’re getting regular salary, you’re creating pay discrepancies in a world where we’re trying to stop pay discrepancies.

For now, I would say no.

however, I’m confident you’ll find the way to make it fair. When that happens, party!

The issue is probably pay when it’s all said and done.

You’re bringing salaried employees into a community of contributors who are really just trying to make it. These employees could be amazing (assuming they are).

Which could potentially make what’s already a challenge for some people to figure out how to meaningfully contribute and make a living for themselves an even greater challenge.

Lose those every day folk and you’ve already lost the plot with helping this DAO focus go mainstream.

We have to learn how to be equitable. This (as it looks right now). Does not ring equitable to me.

However. As I said, y’all will find a way.

even just using a different pass (is it DAOplomat?) versus 3 month guest pass trial period would make this whole proposal look so much better.

@0x_Lucas, @senad.eth , @mattwright :fire: proposal.

ConsenSys is the grand-daddy here, and I have personally worked with some of the co-sponsors on their side. From the CEO down, ConsenSys is committed to empowering and enabling DAOs.

This partnership not only provides the benefits outlined in the proposal, but also allows us to pass along our values, ethos, and vibes back to the ConsenSys folks as they continue along the journey. They will be brining these values back to other DAOs they explore with, integrating them within their organization, and helping to build tools that solve obvious needs that they are trained to spot.

As far as the culture and the payment is concerned, @feems , @dancingpenguin.eth , etc., it is up to us as the BanklessDAO community to welcome these professionals into our projects, clearly define expectations on how they can contribute, and how we can learn from them. I look at this as a barter of talent for culture.

Hopefully many of our new friends from ConsenSys will continue to participate well after the trial period, and become core members here. Hopefully, they will see the value and talent we can provide, and bring opportunities to partner with us on other endeavors including revenue generating ones.


I think if an L2 or Admin will manually add the role this can over-ride the mad hatter and the guess pass will extend to more then 2 weeks, i remember having my guess pass for more then 2 months, but this was a long time ago and maybe things changed? We can only test. cc: @links @nonsensetwice

I do see @feems thoughts and agree with some of them but i feel thatthe dao can only add balue and elevate the dao with more talent onboard. I agee with this, but in other hand, ConsenSys can not afford 35k x 50 members = 1.75m bank x 0.0114$ = almost $20k - peanuts for them? :slight_smile:


I really appreciate what this proposal tries to explore, as our community needs to recruit more talents across different professions/cultures/regions. I voted yes, but here are two points that should be considered before implementation.

1. Why free guest pass?

The proposal suggests providing some extra effort and support for this partnership. It’s fair to charge some BANK compared with onboarding a group of regular members.

2. Possible Talent Gap

The 50 new members from ConsenSys would take up a big portion of the total active contributors in BDAO. I know ConsenSys employees must be great talents and SMEs. But if they become actively contribute to BDAO and then leave together after the trial period, it would create talent gaps for those guilds/projects that they are part of. Some of the 50 ppl may choose to stay contributing, but we need to be prepared. To prevent the talent gap happen, I suggest we could arrange for them to join in different batches and at different time points, e.g. split into three batches and onboard every 3-4 weeks.

Overall, I think this proposal opens a new way for BDAO to recruit talents, and we need to test and improve it along the way. Great job the Squad!

1 Like

you know that none of this even requires a proposal the scope squad can do the onboarding and create a campaign for it with the Marketing Guild

you need to draft a proposal for the Marketing Guild and to HQ, proposals in the forums do not bind HQ

Bankless will notify various talent coordinators at each respective guild that ConsenSys employees will be applying to join their guild (although this does not guarantee that these employees will be accepted to these particular guilds)

by “bankless” you mean the Scope Squad

Bankless DAO will offer additional stewardship, educational materials and support to an agreed upon capacity

again by Bankless DAO you mean YOU the Scope Squad will… You can’t just write a propsoal and mandate that the Education Guild and Marketing Guild do your work for you. You, the scope squad need to tell us the dao what you are going to do and how you, the scope squad, are going to do it

1 Like

I am from the Marketing Guild, and we would be more than happy to find capacity to support the marketing campaign for this collaboration. You just need to ask. I believe @feems has some very valid points about the equitable nature of the collaboration, which we need to ensure is in place. This is a community, and a large one at that, where initiatives are simply driven by passion and nothing else. So, the cultural fit of this collaboration is paramount. But I also believe @RunTheJewelz has some strong points - if ConsenSys believes in DAOs, then we should give them an opportunity to experience it from the inside.


This could in fact be a proper testing theory that could be used to bring in a mass amount of non DAO native (isnt consensys web3?) through a proper onboarding process, and to analysis the experience that they have.

I wonder about the pay situation with respect to this project.

I was told that there is a focus on not letting bank endlessly fly out of the treasury, so I would wonder if the bottom line shows us and funding exchange between the two parties.


I have a few thoughts/questions.

  1. Would it be possible to create a DAOLationship guest pass or an alternative guest pass for the 50 ConsenSys employees?
  2. We would not have to pay/reimburse ConsenSys or ConsenSys employees/reps with any BANK, for services or tokens of any sort, correct?
1 Like

I second both points.

I think that the collaboration idea is great indeed, but I also feel it might require more planning, preparation, and cross-guild arrangements.

50 active contributors will create and leave a gap which we might need some extra planning for.

In an attempt of avoiding repeating arguments already made, I would recommend reviewing the proposed timeline, leaving more space for planning and consultations with the guilds.

Mad Hatter does track manual adds. While the system isn’t perfect–and we’re in the process of addressing glitches–ultimately, Mad Hatter does manage most Guest Passes, whether they are awarded via command or via manual add. If this proposal is accepted, we can update the Guest Pass feature to manage a separate role for the ConsenSYS members. Though it might make more sense to just set them up with a tag that isn’t tracked by either Mad Hatter or Collab.Land.

Also, fair point about picking up the BANK for each ConsenSYS member coming through. This would be a time and financial investment in their employees.

@senad.eth Are you able to help answer this or can you direct me to someone who could please and thank you.

I really like the energy and thought behind this. I’d like to see the following:

  1. Create a specific tag for this cohort
  2. Put extra effort and possibly a dedicated onboarding to give them the best experience
  3. Do a survey at the beginning and end on their experience and perception of DAOs
  4. Agree to a joint marketing message about ConsenSys and bDAO
  5. Have PM guild perform a retro with the cohort at the end
  6. Encourage them to become full members at the end

Genuine thanks to everyone who has added thoughts and insights to this proposal :pray:.

In addition to Lucas’ points, there are a few additional things that I wanted to touch on - specifically, I want to explicitly state that ConsenSys employees will not be receiving BANK for their contributions during this time (if these employees are embraced by the DAO after their trial period then they will be responsible for purchasing their own BANK in order to join the DAO and then they would likely be remunerated in whatever fashion currently exists at the DAO i.e. 1000 BANK/hour).

Hand in hand with the above, these employees truly would be joining Bankless DAO as individuals. There is no larger overarching plan to study or research the DAO or its inner workings and none of these employees have been tasked with anything at all (other than to simply explore…and even that is up to them). This is genuinely a project to help encourage ConsenSys employees to get out in the world of web3 and try things out - to see what it’s like to be a contributor etc. The employees haven’t been pre-selected or anything of that nature - maybe we can draft a selection process/questionnaire together?

In addition to this, there never was and still will not be a guarantee that any of these individuals will be onboarded to any guilds (they should only be onboarded if each particular guild rep sees value in their potential contributions). To Feems’ point regarding existing community members who have not yet been able to find a position within a specific guild, is that based on that particular members skillset not aligning with what the guild leader was looking for? Or, is that more of an operational/onboarding issue in the entire DAO? And if so, if a process is developed out of this that benefits all future members, isn’t that better for the DAO in general? Having been overlooked for roles in DAOs for more than a year myself, I admit that this can be extremely disheartening…these are the exact types of issues that we’re hoping to make progress on with programs like this.

I think one of the only other issues to potentially address is the labour gap that might be created should some of these employees choose not to continue on at Bankless but I also feel that this is a bit of an odd argument given that even less work/undertakings would be happening if ConsenSys employees didn’t join the DAO at all (?). A few thoughts 1) Guild leaders could focus on projects that could be completed during this 3 month period? 2) Guild leaders/stewards can touch base with contributors after certain project milestones and gauge their commitment to the project/DAO…which could then work as feedback with both ConsenSys and Bankless to onboard additional contributors?

I hope that this answers some of your questions @feems @homie (wasn’t able to tag dancingpenguin.ETH, jameswmontgomery.eth, Sprinklesforwinners, Cryptodad)


First of all, since DAOs are open, anyone can come into the DAO, as I did c. 15 months ago, and make their way through the DAO.

Some of our projects are rather more open than others, new folk need to be aware and understand that these are guild choices and not personal.

My focus is very much on onboarding, both people and new ideas, and I’ve written here on the subject for Bankless.

I’m also now working on quest based onboarding using Crew 3, we should note that, as often, we are building the aeroplane while flying it. I hope bDAO can evolve in short order.

Consensys here are being polite, and letting Bankless know this is an interest area for them.

The question is what will Bankless do in support.

Rejection makes no sense, because visions are quite aligned, folk exchanging dollars for Bank is good for valuation purposes, Web 3 often talks about a need to bridge to Web 2. Rejection would be the antithesis of Web 3 values, it’s quite out of the question.

I’m only scratching the surface here.

So in onboarding terms, we could say two things.

First, maybe we let Consensys work as any individual.

They would need to discover the anomalies of current onboarding, and there are historic reasons for asking for renewal for GP, but if Consensys buy straight into L1 that’s irrelevant anyway.

I think they could miss the fun of working with Coordinape, and of the effect that has on engaging folk with first principles governance.

The question would be what contribution they might want to make.

They might want to apply for role holder positions, probably standard voting will take care of that. But more importantly what support could they offer to role holders struggling for resources, time, energy, knowledge and so on?

Second, some support could easily be provided.

It would be very easy for DAOlationships to set up a support thread in their channel, at first, and then for Consensys folks to set up threads in their destination guild, that can easily fall into individual guild/project remit.

Overall, given the open nature of Web 3, I think bDAO should embrace this as a hybrid opportunity to trial a new situation, blending Web 3 enterprise with Web 2 support expertise, and understand the extent to which value delivered in each guild can benefit from the collaboration.

@feems @links @ernest_of_gaia @jameswmontgomery.eth @salmanneedasjob