Bankless Perpetuity - A Possible Pause Resolution


Bankless Perpetuity

Authors: innov8tor3. Squad: Oakf Floors. Created: 24/5/24. Posted: 5/6/24.


The Bankless Perpetuity proposal suggests a gradual restart and restructuring of Bankless working groups with a focus on long-term sustainability. It emphasizes that each working group should adopt a “perpetuity mindset,” generating value rather than relying on handouts, and outlines protocols to ensure sustainability. Past examples of successful guilds and projects are highlighted as models to guide new and relaunching groups. The proposal also includes mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and learning, recommending that new guidelines and successful practices be documented for future reference.


Low impact, gradual restart Bankless Restructuring Proposal following and inspired by Iced Cool ‘s agreed pausing proposal.

Bankless Perpetuity: Any Working Group in Bankless needs to commit to making the Working Group perpetual, within a defined time frame.

There are many prior examples where Bankless working groups fledged or spawned. So Bankless has it’s own heritage to draw on to identify and harness more ways to deliver long-termlong term sustainability much more consistently across Bankless working groups.



No one should expect free handouts, outside of a state setting. Community is typically driven by value generation, which has to come before charity. This mindset needs to be at the heart of any Bankless working group. Sustainability needs to be much more a watchword for any able bodied working group. How will that working group contribute to the wider Bankless community? People who “expect” handouts are basically demonstrating an extractive mindset, and this should be rejected by any citizen in a Web 3 setting. Web 3 is not a state function for accessing UBI, because it’s not primarily location based. Even those Web 3 outfits trying to provide UBI - Universal Basic Income - require benefits from actions before granting funds. Bankless mostly doesn’t fit into that part of Web 3 thinking, and that is a conscious decision that Bankless members need to take.


Several guilds previously built working products that brought sustainability to their guild, and they were able to fledge from Bankless and be their own DAO. Some even could and do operate their own Grants programme. These Bankless lessons need to be captured and made available as learning opportunities for newer, less assured working groups that seek to make a similar impact in Web 3.


Before the pausing of funding, as one example, Project Management Guild was working on a project to ensure TAM SAM SOM Market Assessments in Bankless proposals. This is one example of a possible Perpetuity Protocol, one that makes it easy for Working Groups to demonstrate they are trying to offer value in market places. There could be other Perpetuity Protocols. Bankless need working groups to have one or other realistic form of Perpetuity Protocol. In essence, the nub is to provide a solid set of written working values aiming for value generation and community contribution that working groups sign up to, seeing the core value in doing so.


Previously, Bankless had Guilds, and Guilds trialled working protocols across one or more seasons. At season end, a review took place to decide whether to continue working group practice, to change it or to cease it. This review practice is very normal, and makes perfect sense, as does a trial period to see what can be achieved.

A minimalist approach to installing Perpetuity Mindset across Bankless would be to say that Guilds can restart function and funding once they have submitted a Perpetuity Structure to eg Governance Department, or the Grants Committee, to show they have embedded that thinking in their local governance.


Timeframes for success are still needed, whether they are called Seasons or something else. Working groups, in concert with the Grants Committee, will need to iteratively evolve the back and forth to underpin and develop Perpetuity Protocols. If Guilds continue, they may want to continue a particular project, even if not self sustaining, but funded by other projects they are running.


As with all new projects, it takes time to see if they will work. How long that is may vary project to project. Electric cars started in the 1980s, and had to wait another forty years to become a viable possibility. It is accepted that not all projects will succeed, and so there needs to be a level of failure tolerance.


To counter balance the trials, working groups need to have a Perpetuity Product, one that provides income for the a working group, and meaning it is an offset against Perpetuity Trials. This means there is still no threat to overall Perpetuity of the working group.


It becomes a bigger responsibility, setting up a new working group, to find a path rapidly towards a Perpetuity Product. It behoves folk wanting to set up such a group to look at past Perpetuity Examples, and say how a new working group will build from there, or bring in new Perpetuity Protocols to trial. Setting up such groups in the past may have taken a more lenient approach to beginning something new, but probably now more serious scrutiny is needed, by applying this set of procedures.


These need to work the same way as for New Working Groups. Working groups can’t take Perpetuity for granted, and it seems apparent that Bankless do need to take this aspect more seriously in order to relaunch. This must happen group by group, to provide more secure foundations.

As part of this wider exercise, GD may wish to consider a specific working group that checks on Brand Usage across bDAO, focusing on the risks posed by Brand Damage when considering Bankless HQ. It’s therefore necessary to create forms of cross charging between Guilds for services provided, whatever the activity provided is.


One of the best things about Guilds in history was quality of output. This was achieved by ensuring apprenticeships were available in each trade. While guilds eventually gave way to capitalism, there’s no reason Web 3 can’t find a middle ground that might make Web 3 blended Guilds - more reactive and less rigid - a distinct possibility. It therefore makes sense to make sure Apprenticeships are available and properly supported for key working group roles.


This proposal aims to minimise disruption to existing and already part working Bankless structures. As working groups start to regroup and reform, they can individually submit to the GD, basing submissions on prior Perpetuity Examples or on very sound Perpetuity Protocols.


It may be that GD can ask known Bankless contributors to form a working party. This task will certainly need more than one person.

This is a team based proposal, where previously it was suggested that one individual could take charge of a Bankless restructuring. This was mooted then as a proposal to have a Bankless Mayor. But the Bankless community did not vote in favour of this.


Undergoing this journey, much valuable learning will take place, in both working groups and eg the GD. This learning needs to be captured, so future cohorts can see how Bankless grows and thrives.


Perpetuity Examples - AI can help define how the fledging or spawning DAOs became self sustaining.

WG Perpetuity Protocols - can be produced season by season, and are the bedrock for WG Perpetuity. Again, to be documented in Notion.

Perpetuity Product - per WG, Bankless want to see a growing number of these in Notion, to underpin solid, long term working group growth.

Working Group formation, or reformation Guidelines, based on Perpetuity Mindset and specific Perpetuity objects.

Notion based Perpetuity Learning guidelines, showcasing past Perpetuity Examples. Probably best if produced gradually.

Many Perpetuity Examples are already recognised in AI search by Gemini and Perplexity. Bankless can select case studies as needed.


Proposal Concerns Table

innov8tor3 will set up a concerns table, to document all concerns raised in response to this proposal. Where concerns are diametrically opposed to proposal elements, innov8tor3 will attempt to apply “creative difference” approaches to finding better compromises and resolutions, so more folk can sign up to moving forwards.


1 Like

There’s no exception here for things that are almost always cost centers. Either you generate revenue or you’re a charity case. For something like InfoSec I’d rather see that group focus on keeping us safe from the constant hordes of scammers, not figuring out how to sell their services elsewhere.


Can you explain this to me bit further?

Are you saying that this plan should be (in theory) a way to go forward with respect to future DAO actions?

There’s also no poll

I’m sorry but that Gemini material is inaccurate, as are most AI-generated materials.
This whole proposal feels AI generated to me, and I’m not sure what action Is being suggested.


Gm @Trewkat,
I can guarantee you that Innov8tor3 has spent time writing this. Why do you think it’s AI-generated? He might have used it for some phrases of course but even that would surprise me.

Agree about the clarity of what action is being suggested. @innov8tor3 can you clarify?

Also can you and @innov8tor3 give a ref to what you mean by Concerns Table? I’m more used to legal risk matrix … .eg one major DEX we’re spec’ing work, we have a L’expert on monthly stipend who’s role is to work the channels to get out statements and poll their likelihood (perceived) whereas our pool of legal engineers guestimate impact based on what we can see of their token/contracts and past caselaw.

Hi guys, thanks for responding.

@Trewkat , I know DAO Punks spawned from Bankless, and I’ve seen others. I accept AI is not 100% accurate, but is it 100% wrong? My options to try all the OG founders and fledgers from Bankless are pretty daunting, and more probably impossible. I’m only one person.

My recommendation if this project gets a go ahead would be to note a possible fledge, and then explore each fledging with each fledged DAO. I do believe there are lessons to be learned, and that Bankless would benefit.

We may start at less than 100% reliability on our hit list, but the process would over time make sure each case was valid.

Overall, you think the whole proposal is AI generated. Should I be flattered that it’s quite complete, something AI is pretty good at, and more complete than most of us humans can manage? Or should I take offence that I’m seen as “no better than a robot”?

No foul, no harm, though. I don’t imagine this will be complete, by any means, and OTOH have to live daily with my frustration about my own limits as a below average wordsmith.

For reference, the text was all written by me, although I did ask AI to do some summarising and suggesting at an earlier point, which I did find helpful and relevant. @oakfloors did review my work and contribute, but still can’t make a silk purse from these raw ingredients.

Unlike mainstream media, I think AI is much more useful than the MSM crowds would have us believe, since I am personally engaged in extensive testing. I would also rather trust my own judgement, faulty though that often is, rather than MSM, which as you know is all too happy to write off crypto. And yet here we all still are.

Perhaps I could ask you judge this proposal on it’s merit, rather than bringing in external worries about whether AI can or does do a job for us or not?

I will take feedback into account, but I’d like it to be about the proposal itself.

Overall, the action proposed is to create a working group that can bring a better mindset to Bankless, and bring working procedures that give Bankless a chance at keeping its head above water, guild by guild. I thought the TLDR was actually pretty accurate, but that’s just me. Brian has certainly pointed out an omission.

@homie , thanks.

I was aware I couldn’t find the POLL button, but I think AI found me a solution. I will try that with the next incarnation of this proposal. Although I think second incarnations are often frowned upon as “tried it once, didn’t work, won’t check again next time”.

If the proposal is not well enough written, that is down to me. My style can sometimes offend people, being a little bombastic at times: direct, blunt, brusque, and occasionally I hit send a bit too quickly having not fully checked my content. I think on the other extreme it can be quite bland. I try to improve, but I’m still all too human.

I’m not even the ideal person to be doing this proposal. But I don’t see others stepping up, when I feel fully that Bankless is worth making the effort for. This is worth doing. I just need to find ways for folk to agree something doable is possible. Maybe it will simply stimulate others more capable into giving it a try.

If I stepped though this with you here, to aid my communication, that may in itself again produce a better version. Your help is much appreciated if you choose to do that.


Yes you are right. As promised I will create a concerns table, and add your concern about Cost Centres. Just one point on that, cost ventures only work when there is revenue coming in. And the typical solution for cost centres is to cross charge to functions / guilds who are making profit, since as you say there are universal internal functions that do benefit all. @drllau has also made similar comments about Legal, which seems the same to me, and I will add his concerns about Legal / brand into the concern table as well.

I will publish this table shortly, hopefully getting more comments in the meantime.


Risks are separate from Issues. I don’t deny a risk register would be useful here.

There is a pretty clear risk that no action will mean the DAO slowly drains and dissipates as people drift away, expecting someone else to provide a fix.

What we need to do is to find and call in the fixers, altruistic people who will take action, make fixes, and worry about reward at a later stage.

Yes, ironically that’s counter to the thrust of this proposal. But retroactive reward is a definite thing in Web 3. And altruism is still a reason to take action, reward or otherwise.

@Icedcool , @AboveAverageJoe , @hirokennelly , I’d welcome some comments from you.

If there is even a germ of an idea here folks can build on, I’d be happy to see the bDAO movement regain momentum, in any form.

PS The Concerns / Issues Register now exists, showing status and comments for each response so far.

I think some people are thinking about specific concerns after a restart, but we need to get to that point first. This won’t happen unless people engage with this proposal, or something better from someone else.

1 Like

Nah, I wouldn’t say it’s well enough written. I know you to be an intelligent person for sure.

Just got a bit confused regarding how this all breaks down.

I like the overall attempt of an idea for sure!

Also, it’s caused people to think. That’s always a plus.

Sure. Why not!

There’s a governance call that happens also. This could be something to bring up there maybe. Or create your own call and ask for feedback there.

Permissionless creation! :slight_smile:

Thank you for your response. I see AI as a tool to improve our intellectual output, to be applied judiciously, and I don’t think it’s useful in this scenario because there is not enough information on the web about how BanklessDAO and other DAOs actually operate. It’s too generic. What’s needed instead is the tacit knowledge of the people who have been part of the DAO and active in its operation.

This proposal suggests minimum disruption to existing structures and assumes that all org units should be cost centres going forward. This is at odds with much of the discussion and polls which show most who voted want to restructure the DAO, want a fresh start away from the Bankless brand, and want to contribute to an organisation with purpose whether it makes revenue or not. While it’s good sense to ensure that costs are covered in a sustainable way in future, perpetuity means forever.

So maybe it’s just about semantics or word choice, maybe it’s about verbosity, but I can’t support this proposal because I don’t think it’s what we need right now. I don’t disagree with the idea that new working groups or streams or whatever should be intentional and about structure and purpose, but before we think about working groups we need to figure out what the DAO will be.


Hey @homie .

According to @Trewkat , the vote has been that folk no longer want Bankless, they want a bigger relaunch, sticking less to what Bankless were. She is not keen on the word Perpetuity, which indeed could be making a big commitment, and probably needs more folk to get on board.

That path would indeed take a much bigger beast than I to suggest this and carry the voting.

I think I should submit this proposal anyway, so folk can at least see attempts are being or have been made, verbose or otherwise.

In respect of our discussion and other contributions, perhaps you and I could talk, maybe in a Discord channel to allow folk to show up if they want, where we could talk through the elements I proposed. Maybe then I could make some changes and submit a proposal more successfully. I suspect the key point Kat is making is that I’m not close enough to community sentiment on this, and that could well be critical.

I will DM you on the subject, which would likely be 4pm, and might also be in Twitter. That would mean the recording can be listened to by others in different time zones. I don’t know how to record in Discord, hence my suggestion.

I was listening to the conference call on Friday and I began to consider a thought.

We are in a permissionless area, so there’s always an aspect of executing a fork to the nature of Bankless DAO. But perhaps present your thought to the community call first.

I’ll explain

There is always an aspect of permissionless to a lot of the decisions made in web3.

In my interactions with some people, including @FlowScience , @Trewkat , and others, I’ve learned that every person has an aspect of a good point in their actions, whether they are going fully permissionless ask for forgiveness rather than permission or if they are fully going the consensus route before they act.

Both ways can work out just fine, if they are acting from a place of good intentions.

I’ve had my fair share of moments where I’ve attempted to go my own way, with push back. Which is what I notice that’s happening here, I think it may be happening because the happy medium could be the best way forward with respect to something so pivotal.

I’d love to sit and have a chat with you, because quite frankly I think you are brilliant. However my voice may not be the best voice to help your cause. Perhaps you add in those folks that I’ve seen around cooking for months.

Regarding leaving bankless vs. sticking with. I suspect that the vibes behind the NAME banklessdao be fading. But the MOTIVATION that drove BanklessDAO may be getting stronger. That could be why there’s a better move towards a new ideal (I really just mean a new name kind of)

I’ve just noticed the recent proposal from links , and that plenty of people are engaged.

I will continue to browse the 14/6 meeting, because it will help get me up to speed.

I’m hoping my wallet is among the 187, but maybe it isn’t. I’d love to help, because as you say, the reasoning in use is wonderful, even if this incarnation is perhaps now a little battered.

I like the idea of :black_flag: as way forward.