No Idea, who made the list or how arbitrary the permissions giving are. @homie
You said a lot of great stuff in your post but this kinda hits on what the ideas above could help with. Right now the game at the DAO is to accumulate BANK (fair enough), but the platform above changes the prize from BANK to brand. Itās a subtle but important change, and I urge people to think about it.
Permissioned BRAND not permissioned DAO. One of BanklessDAOās strengths has been our welcoming nature - anyone who believes in our bankless values can contribute. Permissioned brand means only those who have DISPLAYED bankless values can represent themselves as āBanklessDAOā.
This again brings up the idea of a game where people contribute to the bankless mission to be able use the brand.
The mechanics of the system have yet to be determined. Our bankless value of self-sovereignty means we will have to figure out a way for groups to use the brand without getting blocked by approvals. In general I think we can just approve once for a certain scope and let teams use the brand as much as they want within that scope.
So for Nacion Bankless it MAY be that you could use the Bankless brand as much as you want for Spanish educational and onboarding content.
Just an example! We will have to figure out how this whole permissioning works.
I agree with you. I canāt speak for @rsa , but so far it has felt like HQ is trying to figure out how to do right by the DAO and Bankless nation as a whole. Please continue to help keep us all honest!
Donāt worry - this proposal must stay up at least two weeks, and the intent isnāt to rush. Take your time, and enjoy your break. The discussion will be here when you return in January.
The form the foundation takes still needs to be figured out, but the initial idea is that the directors of the foundation would be elected by bDAO (like multisig or GC). These directors would vote on whether or not a group has rights to use the brand. This part is decentralized IMHO, itās owned by the community.
Founders (only Ryan and David, not anyone else) get veto rights on the decisions the directors make. This is a bit more centralized, but gives us a backstop in case our governance is hijacked.
Basically community can make things happen, founders can stop things from happening. Check and balance.
Does that make sense?
Yes, the proposal is to create permissioned brand, BUT we could use existing power centers (GC or multisig) to be the directors on the Foundation. This could create a link between foundation and DAO, and ensure the foundation works for the DAO (and not the other way around).
Again, this is all to be determined as part of Step 3, so nothing is set in stone.
4 Likes
do I have to change my name to raybanklessDAO?
14 Likes
This sounds like a joke, but in case itās not: no, you donāt have to change your name 
3 Likes
overall, interesting proposal
it is balanced, and yes, it has to take into account both sides, so it does look that with forum discussion, that should be prolonged to more than standard 2 weeks (seems as rather important topic), this could be polished to work nice for both HQ and bDAO
I would like to get a clarification on above one, because our situation is similar
Since I am Banklessadria IMN Champion, and we are providing content in Serbo/Croatian language, it would not be a simple task to get approval from HQ/DAO (if needed), to provide content on language that probably no-one in HQ is speaking? Or that should be a different procedure.
Regarding name, we are BanklessadriaDAO from beginning, so that does seem as in accordance with proposal.
all the best, and happy NY to all, letās make bDAO stronger in 2024
3 Likes
I do think it would be good and important to hear from the HQ founders as to why they chose not to be involved with the DAO and did not deliver on the goals they set out to achieve for their BANK allocation in the Bankless DAO genesis proposal.
It would be nice to have an honest, open discourse on what the challenges were from their perspective and how this might change given the new proposal.
5 Likes
So what concerns me the most about this idea is hiding behind the idea of decentralization.
This is giving Ryan and David powers over decisions without the accountability of partnership. I see @Liza make mention of discussing why they were largely not involved in the first place. Iād like to know that!
I heard about this meeting that occurred between some folks (the usuals) so Iād be interested in hearing whether you got an answer or not. This adds in the veto power (sensible) but not the expectation that this partnership does not, fall apart via communication issues. Thatās one of the set backs of the decentralization comment.
So i suppose Iād want to explicitly see where this partnership comes into fruition, where do folks like you, @Icedcool , and others fit into this, and where do folks like I recide.
2 Likes
This is an important point that would obviously need to be fleshed out if this proposal went forward and further voted on.
Most web3 foundations directors are elected semi-permanently and can only be elected or removed by themselves. Finding a legally binding solution to this, where the directors can be removed and replaced by the community would be important for the decentralisation to stay in place.
Not sure I fully understand the veto right. Would that mean that HQ founders join the foundation directors, or would it mean that above the foundation directors there is a (Iām assuming legally enforceable) right to veto any brand-related decision by the foundation council based on the fact that the foundation is borrowing the brand IP? Iām also assuming the proposed veto right wouldnāt extend beyond brand issues?
2 Likes
@rsa would love to hear your thoughts on this. Itās not in any way a malicious question.
I just think we need to have better understanding from community side, of what prevented your involvement before and what the future would / should look like with this new proposal.
I think itās also important for DAO members considering investing their time in Bankless DAO to have a sense of HQās likely future commitment and partnership levels to the DAO / Foundation.
4 Likes
" Dear Crypto Natives,
This will be the last time I address you as crypto natives.
Weāve become something greater.
Weāve become a community formed on the basis of common values, economies, and culture each opting in to the social contract of a common set of digital protocols.
Weāve become a digital nation.
From here on out Iāll be addressing this to the Bankless Nation.
David goes deep into our nation today in his second of two pieces.
He concludes with an action item.
If youāre part of the bankless nationā¦
Bear the banner.
Hoist the flag." - RSA
We hoisted the flag, we still bear the banner, and this is how you treat us. People speak of Decentralization, owning the piece of the Internet now they want the power, a centralized ability to censor and control.
We must ask ourselves do we walk the walk and talk the talk. Are WE the embodiment of the Bankless Nation?
Do we NEED HQ?
Seems like HQ is back stepping. 'Take this ideaā¦ ohh Wow look how its grown ā¦Well thats cool lil Bro. Hand it back over please, people are starting to take notice." IMO.
I see it chicken laid the egg, it hatched now they view it as something within their control. Dead beat parent shows ups wanting you a change your last name and live by their rules now.
Interesting.
3 Likes
Iām catching on this a bit late as it seems.
makes sense in a centralized org imo.
I donāt want people with veto rights on me. Only the community.
How i feel about this is;
Ryan and David : New Permanent GC, above the DAO
Directors : Pre elimination committee
directors make a decision, then it goes to that 2 person and hope it gets approved. There is no meaning of the decision given by the directors in these circumstances. At most directors are just eliminating really bad proposals for HQ. It could have gone directly to HQ then. Directors being 5 (7,9 whatever) people, speaking for hundreds, will have to obey 2 people. Such balance.
āBeing a safeguard for hacksā feels more like pretext.
I wouldnāt use/promote the brand as a decentralized org like this.
And i also agree with frens asking for the context of the first proposal. There are a lot of promises there, including the DAO giving them 250M bank. Seems like only the DAO delivered in this agreement.
4 Likes
This is why I am wondering more about alternative ideas versus this.
It is hard to find a better idea really. I am not able to provide one yet.
Well, I donāt know whatās better. I truly donāt. But perhaps you take the ideas from above, and tweak them.
Or you take other ideas. (Like the DAO punks one) and tweak those.
Or move to other pastures to see what else can be built while still keeping the ethos that was always there.
I know of places around, (Post Tech being one of them) that could use expertise to build out a world for everyone.
It could even be the mixture of the three.
Thereās a lot out there to consider. I think thereās also time to figure the proposal presented above to make it great.
3 Likes
BANK is currently the only social consensus mechanism that exists to align our two organizations. Yet, it has never used for that purpose - despite explicit statement of intent to do so in the genesis proposal.
The brand has always been the prize. Saying that the prize is changing because of this proposal is a fallacy.
The current brand clarity proposal as described contains zero social consensus mechanisms to facilitate value alignment between HQ and the DAO. Itās a complete disentanglement with HQ being given unilateral control via veto.
Without inclusion of the core value both our organizations share and were founded upon - social consensus - this proposal will never succeed in accomplishing its goal.
The two solutions I outlined above seem to address all concerns noted by myself and others (1. arbitration and/or social consensus fallback on future disagreements, and 2. resolution of outstanding hole in the social consensus balance sheet via an honest self-retrospective & follow thru by HQ).
Now that itās 2024, I would like to request urgent and public responses from HQ to these matters. HQās decision to publicly respond to trolls by committing to burn their tokens and force rebranding of the DAO has caused irreparable damage to the DAO far beyond any damage the Arbitrum proposal caused to the Bankless brand. The brand no longer suffers because of the Arbitrum proposal, yet, the DAO still suffers because of HQās public response. To prevent further damage a swift resolution is needed.
The current discussion may have been sparked by DAO actions, but the lack of clarity was initially caused by HQ in how they established the DAO and then reneged on their stated intentions in the genesis proposal. If HQ had being promoting the DAO all along, there would have objectively been less brand confusion. As I said above, this is a two way street. The burden to fix this should primarily land with HQ imo - yet, the DAO is being strongarmed and left hanging in the wind while we bleed out because we trusted that HQ wouldnāt rug us like this.
I realize my writing here may rub some the wrong way. Iām using passionate language because Iām passionate about this. I remain optimistic a positive resolution can fix this mess, but it needs to happen ASAP.
HQ has had more than enough time to resolve this. We need answers, quickly. Please and thank you. @rsa @links @Icedcool
4 Likes
HQ has had more than enough time to resolve this. We need answers, quickly. Please and thank you.
Thanks! Iām not clear on the question. Can you clarify the answers youāre looking for?
1 Like
@rsa bump on this question.
3 Likes
Thanks for asking for clarification. I can see how my requests got lost in there.
- Would HQ agree to arbitration and/or social consensus fallback on future disagreements around Bankless branding? As BanklessDAO branding would be governed by BanklessDAO according to this proposal, it already has onchain social consensus & dispute resolution around usage baked in to decisions about whether to provide/revoke permission. I believe without a dispute resolution mechanism in place this could end up happening all over again.
Example/Context: imagine a project abides by the agreed upon set of mutual values and branding requirements without violation, but is either denied use of the Bankless brand or has usage revoked. How would this disagreement be resolved? I suggest either 3rd party arbitration (e.g. Kleros) or fallback to broader social consensus (community wide $BANK vote) would provide mechanisms to resolve potential disagreements about specific instances.
- Would HQ be willing to provide an honest retrospective on fulfillment of commitments made in the genesis proposal, and follow through on whatever HQ decides to do with its BANK allocation, before this brand clarity proposal (or a version of it) goes to vote?
I think this second point is intimately linked with the first - especially if thereās a preference to rely on $BANK vote as a dispute resolution mechanism.
3 Likes
With clear expectation around brand usage (some of which are outlined in this proposal), I think a dispute would be a rare edge case if it ever occurs. The existing entities (e.g. Bankless Africa, Bankless Card, etc.) provide a pretty broad set of examples that we can extrapolate moving forward.
I think we could agree to take $BANK vote and foundation board into account in a dispute, but ultimately weāre proposing that BanklessHQ have veto right on commercial use of the Bankless brand for proposed subentity products or services . Note: BanklessDAO could use āBanklessDAOā in any context and āBanklessā prefix could be used for non-commerical usage and/or regional chapters as determined by the DAO, including via $BANK token vote - I donāt think BanklessHQ needs de facto veto right for non-commercial usage.
- Would HQ be willing to provide an honest retrospective on fulfillment of commitments made in the genesis proposal, and follow through on whatever HQ decides to do with its BANK allocation, before this brand clarity proposal (or a version of it) goes to vote?
The original proposals I put forward as draft to leaders in the BanklessDAO included language around BanklessHQ burning or returning its portion of BANK allocation. The leaders of the BanklessDAO encouraged us to remove it from this proposal.
It remains our intent not to sell BANK tokens or receive economic benefit from them for two reasons.
-
Iād like to indisputably put to rest with onchain evidence any claim that myself, David, or BanklessHQ has rugged BANK holders or has been on a mission to pump then sell the price of BANK - as far as weāre concerned, the function of BANK is as a governance token.
-
I donāt think we earned our BANK governance allotment.
As far as a retrospective on our fulfillment of commitments, Iāll say we tried some things such as BanklessHQ sponsorship of leaders like Lucas Campbell and Frogmonkee in the early days - thereās more i could list - but ultimately, i donāt think we fulfilled all of our commitments - hence the return of funds.
As far as why we werenāt able to fulfill the full vision of the genesis proposal, iād say a few things.
First, DAOās are hard - like harder than I knew 3 years ago - thereās enormous energy, but channeling that energy into productive output is hugely challenging. I think DAOās do very well as open social clubs, but further coordination requires some type of hierarchy for decision making and resource allocation. We may have signed up for mission impossible in the original proposal.
Second, we took on too much and didnāt have time to lead the DAO - BanklessHQ has been so focused on producing podcasts and fulfilling the Bankless mission via our media company that Iām not able to help coordinate a DAO. Even if I had the time, i donāt think iād be the operator it needs. It requires an mega-operator that we never found. The ābeautiful chaosā of the DAO was overwhelming and exceeded our ability to channel.
Third, it very much seemed like the BDAO has been succeeding on its own - maybe not in its full capacity - but it was doing many things without our leadership and those who opted in seemed happy. Maybe thereād be a way to integrate BanklessDAO and BanklessHQ, maybe crypto would discover a governance breakthrough, so we kept that option open - we kept kicking the can down the road.
tldr; HQ didnāt have the skills nor resource to plug into the raw energy of DAO and itās unclear whether DAOās have the governance structure to succeed as commercial startup entities - they have other unique advantages that are hard to marshall.
10 Likes
If weāre going to talk about brand clarity, are we not doing a disservice to the brand by not initially acknowledging that the brand surpasses both DAO and HQ individually or as a whole? I believe it to be essential for both to categorize content wisely for future clarity. While the Bankless DAO emerged independently, the existing HQ has reasons to emphasize differences. Yet, it should acknowledge its own integral role in the Bankless Nation.
Any dedicated Bankless āHQā social media account should mirror that of the diverse Bankless nation, embracing music, lifestyle, video, business, finance and beyond. Perhaps categorizing content under bMedia, bPublishing, bEducation, bLifestyle, etc., from all Bankless departments could bring added clarity.
Maybe the current HQ might be more aptly named BanklessMedia, encapsulating its content essence?
Bankless extends beyond financeāitās a lifestyle. Larger than the current HQ,
3 Likes