Brand Clarity Between DAO and HQ

[DAOlexa]

Hello Rsa,

Thank you for bringing this up.

The brand is a very important question that needs a resolution everyone’s on board with, and to enable everyone to operate seamlessly without any “fear” of potential issues.

I agree that the brand separation is needed so both sides can have their peace of mind and bDAO contributors and their ideas don’t have to deal with the same issue again and face backlash (and have their initiatives harmed).

@rsa

Distinction by profit-generation status (i.e. both orgs are meant to onboard people to web3):

• BanklessHQ: For profit
• BanklessDAO: Not-for-profit

This could be a good distinction, however, it would be important to see whether the DAO and its projects (some of them are revenue generating, and others are building towards it) really fit the non-profit criteria and how that would reflect on the members and their contributions.

@rsa

Distinction by output (examples):

• BanklessHQ: To onboard people to web3 through podcasts, written content and tools.
• BanklessDAO: To spread bankless values while incubating people and projects

If we made this very strict distinction between the two, it would cause issues with existing and future projects.

With this separation, it puts the DAO in a role of a preacher not a doer.

bDAO has produced amazing podcasts, content, and other projects that do not do only “spreading bankless values”, they are actually bringing and generating value. If the HQ “keeps” the content production, what does that leave the DAO with?

Further on that note, HQ has done great work on their own, but it’s important to acknowledge that when it comes to the Bankless brand, when someone says “Bankless” Web3 people think the DAO, not the HQ. The podcasts, education and other content that are out there and recognizable were created and funded by the DAO, not the HQ.

While I voted “yes” on the first poll, I don’t believe the question really reflects what was described in the preceding paragraph.

@rsa

Step 2: Create a permissioned system for brand usage

I agree there needs to be clear guidance regarding the brand usage, however, the way it is described in the post it begs the question - what actual branding rights does the organization and its members who were working so hard for it, really have? It seems that it comes down to what the HQ says which beats the point.

If the DAO has a legal entity, it can enter into an IP agreement with the HQ where the DAO agrees to follow the guidelines both sides had agreed to, and it’s on the DAO to enforce those rules. Why would HQ have a say in everything the DAO does if the whole purpose here is to separate and avoid confusion?

bDAO projects would have to follow the brand usage guidelines, and after all - if the brand guidelines aren’t respected and followed, the DAO can simply cancel the funding of the project and take other necessary measures. If that doesn’t work, then the HQ can come in legally if needed.

There is no reason for HQ to control BanklessDAO in any way.

@rsa

HQ/DAO to revoke permission to use Bankless/BanklessDAO brands, if needed

On what basis? How would this function? And why?

The fact is that we have the same intentions and values we are building upon, and honestly, would the Bankless brand be where it is today if it wasn’t for the DAO and contributors who work voluntarily or for some tokens?

HQ should be able to intervene only and if the rules have been broken, and those scenarios to be clearly outlined. HQ hasn’t been involved in the DAO for a while, so why would it have any control, especially the VETO rights over an organization that helped immensely build the brand.

@rsa

The idea is for the Grants Committee of the DAO and HQ to retain the right to grant and revoke access to the Bankless brand for regional chapters

This is wrong for so many reasons.

Why would GC have the right to revoke? That should be done by the DAO, not a DAO unit. We are kind of in a decentralized environment, or am I in the wrong place? This is not a decision to be made by a body, it is to be done by the community.

• Establish clear rules on what is considered to be a brand breach.
• Have an appointed unit, or contributors whose duties are to monitor these and respond to the situation.
• If there is a breach, automatically brand rights are temporarily suspended until there is an investigation.
• When the investigation is done, the community votes.

The community is the judge and the jury, not an entity, or a unit, or a group of contributors.

@rsa

This list will be reviewed in Q4 of each year for approval in the following calendar year to ensure 1) alignment of intent 2) up-to-date contact information.

How is this done? And who gave the GC the mandate to do so? Shouldn’t this be done by the marketing department, ie? I mean, they are the experts on branding.
The idea should be to decentralize the power, not centralize it in one.

Again the poll:

@rsa

POLL: Do you think we should create a permissioned system for Bankless brand usage?

Doesn’t really reflect well enough what this entails, more specifically granting the VETO right which is absurd as that gives the HQ control over a DAO, and the DAO is only community controlled.

The legal entity and entering into an IP agreement can solve the brand usage issues, and doesn’t need the veto.

@rsa

Create a legal entity to hold intellectual property

I agree there should be an entity, for many reasons, BUT we shouldn’t be snowballing with the jurisdiction as there is so much at stake.

@Liza had a great idea, and I would love to hear the answer - will HQ help with the funding of the entity since this mainly benefits the HQ, not the DAO.

@rsa

Create some simple rules for Bankless projects to help promote brand clarity

This is a great idea, and was one of common issues with projects I noticed - there is no clarity, but that seems to be the job for the governance and marketing department, and then community vote.

Could you also please clarify, what is yours and David’s involvement in DAO moving forward (assuming the separation happens)?

Thanks again for an interesting read, and looking forward to seeing how the community resolves this.