[bDIP-N]: GC purpose and quorum

Update 1: added clarity on 'Distribution of the Brand.

Title: [bDIP-N]: GC Purpose and Quorum

Authors: Baer.eth
Editors: links, OrnellaWeb3, Icedcool.eth Paulito
Working Group: Grants Committee
Forum Proposal Date:


  • This bDIP changes the purpose of the Grants Committee in enabling the disbursement of more assets other than the BANK token and the DAO Brand.
  • The bDIP also changes the quorum to a simple majority.
  • All the changes are proposed according to the sentiment check made by the Grants committee on the BankklessDAO forum.


The BanklessDAO Grants Committee faces operational challenges, including an unclear mandate, member retention issues, and a contentious funding process. The committee is proposing reforms to clarify its objectives, optimise member engagement, and streamline the grant allocation mechanism to better serve the DAO’s long-term mission according to the outcomes of the temp check.

The Challenges outlined in the temperature check.

  • Unclear Mandate: The purpose of the GC is not clearly defined, and the GC cannot distribute resources other than the BANK token, leading to confusion and differing goals among members.

  • Difficulty in Attracting and Retaining Members: The relatively complex structure of The GC is causing problems in attracting and retaining members and has struggled with achieving quorum, which is essential for its operation.

    Read more on the challenges faced by GC in the temperature check


Current Form Proposal
“This Committee is responsible for vetting all funding proposals and ensuring funded organizational units provide ongoing transparency.” in Section 4.6.1 The Grants Committee disburses BanklessDAO resources to encourage the long-term pursuit of our mission
Current Form Proposal
“The Committee has a quorum with five members'' in section 4.6.2 The Committee has a quorum of a simple majority of elected members.


The proposed changes have been checked with the community, and the authors expect the following impact.
The updated quorum enables the Grants Committee to operate democratically regardless of the number of Grants Committee members elected.
The updated purpose makes it clear the GC’s job is to encourage long-term pursuit of mission (rather than just looking at each grant request in isolation)
The updated purpose empowers the GC to disburse any DAO resource (including the brand that the DAO’s Brand owns).


The Grants Committee’s efficiency as part of this proposal’s room can be measured by its ability to reach a quorum. In the last 8 weekly meetings, quorum was reached 5/8 times (62.5%). With this change, we expect quorum to be achieved 100% of the time.
The updated purpose will allow the GC to align and report on KPIs to the DAO. Success can be measured by time since the last status report to the DAO (since we’ve never had status from the Grants Committee, this currently sits at 28 months).


Achieve approval on the forum.
Submit the proposal to Snapshot.
If the Proposal passes, amend the constitution with this bDIP.


  • Approve
  • Abstain
  • Reject
0 voters
1 Like

I don’t think having NO quorum is smart, but I would support reducing it to 3 from 5 if that’s necessary to allow it to function. Still 3 feels pretty small.

And to confirm, the quorum is for how many people must be present and vote, right? (As opposed to the number of people voting a particular way)

1 Like

Is this because of attendance?

I’m curious about potential solutions regarding “interest”.

Having a clear mandate as suggested above is 1. But does this mandate (specifically your next steps) go far enough In solving the efficiency in grants committee?

yah and No.
The GC started this season with just 5 members, the quorum needed according to the constitution. In season 8, we had members who weren’t active at GC and in the DAO.

One of the major feedbacks we got after the GSE initiative from @AboveAverageJoe and Saul was the compensation. I could wonder if that is the case here considering the responsibilities. @links’ temp check also included this point.

1 Like

Indeed. I can only ponder because I haven’t been in your shoes.

1 Like

No quorum at all seems risky. Tend to agree with @thethriller on going with 3/5


@thethriller and @Liza, the GC originally consisted of 7 members, and we need help filling all the seats; the proposed quorum in this case will be 3 of 7 members, which is less than the simple majority. We thought to make the process as robust as possible.

I understand the need for the GC to be able to administer DAO funds beyond BANK but the proposed changes to the Constitution increase ambiguity as opposed to reducing it.

At minimum, the type of resource should be identified. Do we want empower future GC cohorts with the disbursement of any element of the DAO treasury? I would say no.

However unlikely, DAO “resources” could be interpreted broadly to include resources beyond the contents of the treasury (social media accounts, etc.).

If the GC is no longer tasked with “ensuring funded organizational units provide ongoing transparency”, which DAO unit will do this? As proposed, the GC would administer funding and encourage (or hope) recipients act in long-term pursuit of our mission. Can we task the same unit that administers funding to recipients with some way to ensure accountability to the DAO?

1 Like

@0xbaer @links @Ornella @Icedcool @Paulito

THANKS to the GC for a THANKLESS task (taking the spirit of the GC retrospective)