Brand Clarity Between DAO and HQ

[tomahawk]

I’ll forever be grateful to David and Ryan for teaching me about Ethereum, for airdropping the BANK which gave me L1 membership in the DAO, and for the firsthand knowledge I gained in web3 from contributing and learning with peers. It was a priceless gift.

I came here for the mission. HQ sent out the call to action, and I responded. I believed them when they said:

"Bankless isn’t a newsletter, podcast, or company. Bankless is a movement.

Bankless doesn’t belong to any individual or company.

Bankless belongs to all of us.

This is internet-scale coordination for an internet-scale movement.

This is how we get to 1 billion people.

Join the Bankless DAO….let’s help the world go bankless."

Dozens of folks responded in kind, and many of them now count as close friends in real life. The things we have in common go far beyond crypto. We are humanists. We are truth-seekers. We are dreamers. We are deeply spiritual. And we believe we can create a better future. I would never have met so many amazing people if not for this beautifully written call to action.

Too bad it has been wholly retracted. Bankless is NOT a movement; it’s a brand owned by Bankless LLC. This has been made clear.

I want to believe it was written in earnest, that they didn’t really understand what they were doing by ceding their own company’s brand to a decentralized organization, that they just wanted to garner a little web3 street-cred by creating a DAO, something bigger than just a podcast or newsletter. I really want to believe that because this bold move was the reason I signed up, because considering that it was disingenuous would mean the whole thing was a scam from day one.

I was in complete disbelief when it was declared that HQ would change the name of the DAO and burn their tokens. This was actually announced on my birthday, with zero prior communication to the DAO before pledging such a sweeping, unilateral change. Since that day, many of us have been disillusioned and deeply disappointed. Now I’m not sure if they will follow through with burning their stake. It’s not even mentioned in this post. (I’m noticing a pattern here. Maybe look before you leap, guys.)

Why are folks responding overwhelmingly in the affirmative to the poll that we should redefine the purpose of the DAO to be distinct from HQ? This doesn’t follow. If HQ is the entity that needs separation, they should be able to clarify this themselves. They don’t have a mission statement. They have an About page (easily modified too). IMO there is nothing wrong with bDAO’s mission statement. We already did the work to build consensus around it. No one even sees it. If it’s changed, it does not clarify anything to the public. But apparently the biggest contributors here believe otherwise?

The second poll is a bit pointless. It does not matter one bit whether the DAO believes the brand should be permissioned. It is. HQ owns the fucking trademark. This is the whole point of contention that started this. The name bankless is being clawed back, end of story. Their rights and IP are being reserved.

Poll 3: should we create a legal entity? This one is tougher, and I have a lot of thoughts about it. By creating a legal entity, the DAO would be trading some autonomy and cost for a more defined structure. It isn’t fully clear why this item is included in the proposal language, but I believe it boils down to one thing - limiting legal liability. The DAO may also gain some benefits from legal entity clarity, but the projects that needed to enter contracts and/or hold and protect IP have already created their own legal entities. I’m not sure why the DAO needs a legal way to interact with HQ, when the extent of the interaction for the last 2 years has been some shills, some Twitter spaces, and this forum post. But if there is ever a complaint of serious wrongdoing made against the DAO at large, we are all liable as a general partnership by default, and perhaps HQ by extension. So this piece has some merit and deserves its own forum proceedings.

It is quite clear that Bankless HQ needs there to be a clear separation between its LLC and the DAO to safeguard both their legal liability and their own reputations from actions that may be taken by DAO members. What is not clear, as my eloquent friend flowscience has pointed out, is whether the actions recommended in this post will produce the desired result. But I would say that it likely marks the end of the “experiment” for me. I remain passionate about creating beginner-friendly crypto content and sharing the promise of decentralized technologies, but I need to find a new home, where I can enjoy the fruits of my labor more cleanly and without so much uncertainty.

I remain strongly aligned with so many of you in our ideals and goals, but I don’t know the extent to which I will be involved in the DAO moving forward. I continue to hold all the BANK I’ve been given (minus what has been tipped to other contributors) so I remain aligned in spirit and hopeful for all of us to succeed. But the word ‘bankless’ has a different meaning to me now, and I see risks that go well beyond what has been covered in this forum post. For anyone that wishes to move forward under the Bankless banner, I hold no judgment against you. I know how hard you’ve worked for this community and mission, and I truly hope that your goals are realized.

[rsa]

Thank you for your comment friend.

I can only speak for myself in saying…I’m absolutely doing the best that I can here.

Do you have ideas for a different solution?

[FlowScience]

@rsa

I think a dispute would be a rare edge case if it ever occurs

“Contracts are not for when things are going well.”

The whole point of outlining this agreement imo is to resolve future disputes. I disagree this is a rare edge case and dismissing it as such is a non-starter.

Re veto: is social consensus a core value of both orgs? If so, the veto is a non-starter (at least for me). This proposal relies upon mutual values between both orgs, namely social consensus imo.

Lastly, you referred to BANK as a gov token. I agree. However, you then mentioned there would be a return of “funds”. Will there be? It still isn’t clear tbh.

Also re: gov v financial: I agree that DAOs are better at generating alternate forms of capital than financial and with current systems of money they aren’t viable as startups. But, we can coordinate to put value on other forms.

As such, whether any BANK is sold by HQ doesn’t determine my view on whether this saga, specifically your tweet saying you’d burn & force a renaming, has rugged the DAO.

[rsa]

I do want to be clear, this proposal is not forcing the DAO to rename.

It’s proposing that the DAO keep the name BanklessDAO (if it chooses) and it’s proposing brand clarity for subentities using the prefix Bankless. We’re submitting this for governance vote.

@FlowScience

As such, whether any BANK is sold by HQ doesn’t determine my view on whether this saga, specifically your tweet saying you’d burn & force a renaming, has rugged the DAO.

One thing I’ll say about my tweet on rebranding, we stated our intent to submit a governance proposal for BanklessDAO to rebrand. Basically, the governance proposal was our chance to have a discussion with the community - the discussion we’ve been having here, and in other places. Through the course of that discussion, we ended up with a proposal which doesn’t call for the rebrand of BanklessDAO.

The reason I felt I had to announce an intent to submit a proposal on twitter, was to quell the angry twitter mobs and delete the issue…i’d say that part worked actually. The attacks against Bankless and the DAO quieted down. The twitter post was not meant as the last word, or even a msg to the DAO community - our conversations with DAO leaders and this proposal is that. Maybe we should have done things in a different order, idk - it was a messy holiday weekend - personally, i’ve been struggling with extreme burnout - idk it’s hard…and twitter is a toxic place - sometimes any move on twitter is a bad one.

Anyway, you are definitely entitled to your opinion my friend, and I appreciate you sharing in a candid way, so thank you.

[Liza]

@rsa and @links thanks for the proposal and answers, I feel that you have come up with a reasonable proposal for the DAO and a largely fair, productive way forward.

One question / thought that I would have is whether HQ is willing to fund Bankess DAO at all with an initial grant to go with this proposal. My reasoning being that creating and operating a legal entity has real world costs. These can add up really quickly, and don’t just go away if there’s no money being made be the DAO.

I’ve been running a DAO with a Swiss legal entity for a couple of years now and have this experience first-hand. Here are some of the costs I’d expect us to incur just for having and retaining an entity over a year. Some of these may be low-balling, if there is a lot of work to be done, and may be high-balled if there is sufficient expertise within the DAO. Keeping clean books for annual reports will be important once there’s a legal entity and all the crypto transactions the DAO makes will need to be carefully logged and accounted for at end of year, otherwise the directors will face issues because of their direct liability / fiduciary duty.

• Crypto accountant: $10-$20,000
• Rent for postal address / post-scanning service: $1000
• Salaries for multisig governors (they now have real-world liability): $100,000+
• Legal advice for any questions that arise in the country of domicile: $50,000

Can you potentially do it cheaper, if DAO contributors provide some advice / support etc?

Probabaly, yes!

BUT Bankless is a large beast in terms of the many projects and initiatives and sub-DAOs and IP and tokens and payments that are going on. The work will add up if things are going well, and the directors who face the fiduciary duty will need to be sure that the people giving that advice really know the legal ins and outs and accounting requirements in the country of domicile.

Why should HQ potentially fund some of this?

Well, there’s certainly no obligation but there’s a few potential reasons I see that could speak for it:

• A show of support and goodwill toward the Bankless movement for which the DAO is carrying the torch

• Because the legal entity being put in place largely serves the interests of HQ in this proposal

• Because it will help sure up confidence from contributors that HQ genuinely sees this as a partnership and that there is belief in the value that Bankless DAO can provide for the Bankless brand.

• Because there are certain governors within Bankless DAO who have shown extreme commitment to the DAO over the long-term and they would, imo deserve salaries from day 1 as multisig holders / foundation directors for their fulfilling their fiduciary duties to the legal entity, and I’m not sure that the DAO has the funds to provide this at this time (I see it’s impossible to trade BANK at the moment because there is no liqudity). I also assume based on this, that there are limited fiat funds in the Bankless DAO treasury.

I have no idea about BanklessHQ’s finances, and it’s possible that this proposal isn’t feasible for them, but if a grant of $100-200k is feasible, or even a proper seed investment from Bankless Ventures, it would give me a lot more confidence in the decision to create a legal entity. It would also give me more confidence that Bankless DAO’s future is bright, and that it is still a DAO worth contributing to.

[tomahawk]

Thanks, Ryan. I understand, and we all gotta do what we gotta do. It can be emotional, but ultimately change is good. Hardships force us to get stronger and more resilient long term, and to do things better the next time.

Please know that I do not blame you guys or hold anything against you personally. You have done amazing work building Bankless, and out of it has grown a big family. It’s one with strong bonds and successes but some chronic struggles and failures too, as all families do. But I remain grateful for the shared journey and have learned a TON.

My thoughts for solutions since you asked:
I see it as a brand ownership problem, so perhaps the DAO will need some guidelines on what is and what is not Bankless for future cases (at minimum). If I were HQ, I’d consider doing any or all of the following:

• publish a list of brand stewardship guidelines that bankless-aligned projects should adhere to (and ask they consult HQ with inquiries for edge cases)

• move forward with the projects deemed a fit for brand licensing, and support them going forward to ensure success (i.e. biweekly meetings, summary of goals, milestones, status, roadblocks, funding)

• draft detailed brand licensing agreements with the projects carrying the brand (including responsibilities of each party and mechanisms to mitigate risks or resolve disputes)

• publish a lessons learned and update the public on your path forward

Netting things out, the whole experiment can only be called a success. We created some pretty badass projects, and pooled some talented people (liaisons and project managers and consultants and writer-editors and designers and A/V techs and translators) that work well together. We could actually wind down the DAO or shrink it substantially and consider it a hugely successful pilot, the incubation of a web3 talent consortium, and a range of business startups and subDAOs for the purpose of web3 onboarding.

I’m not necessarily saying anything needs to end (maybe guilds tbh), but I have thoughts about DAO restructuring as well. Lots of consensus to attain to make that happen, and it would detract from the purpose of the post, so I’ll save those thoughts for now.

[innov8tor3]

@rsa

I think we could agree to take $BANK vote and foundation board into account in a dispute

Firstly @rsa , thanks for your constructive approach to all this. I saw the Arbitrum proposal, and thought it was attracting or would attract comment.

The idea for a four step proposal seems like a way forward, and like all DAO matters it will be interesting to see how well it works. We will learn in the process.

You mention leadership, and you mention FrogMonkee. You didn’t mention delegation, which here in bDAO has worked so well, and is a key but often overlooked growth factor. FrogMonkee’s awesome spirit lives on in bDAO, and it was a sad loss to bDAO that he had to leave.

Why so, for me personally?

bDAO brought me into Crypto, educated me in the possibilities, and allowed me to find some great people to work with. Still true today. The spirit of inclusivity in bDAO is truly awesome. I’m an older Brit who had given up on / was given up by the corporate world. So bDAO was literally a new beginning, a rebirth. bDAO also spawned some awesome offshoots. So the generative capability here is clear, if at times difficult.

(In the meantime, post @frogmonkee , it’s good that @links has become a trusted connection point. )

I think I share some of the frustrations about bDAO, in that I feel the ability to trade with other DAOs needs bolstering. DAOlationships was where I started with bDAO, courtesy of @Brustkern . Personally I think that frustration at lack of speed / progress was the root cause of the push and haste in the Arbitrum proposal. Having looked at DAO 2 DAO trading myself, I feel it could and should be stronger, because trade and service exchange is what makes any wider community stronger, and ultimately builds market value.

We can go North again in W3. Boom, bust, build. (bDAO could even do more trade internally, with a suitable proposal and sponsor. If I earn enough BANK maybe I’ll bounty some projects, but is that okay to do?) A rising tide lifts all boats. bDAO and Web 3 can lead by example here, in trading with others. And we can’t be all pump and dump speculation, we have to build service and value to W3 community members. Further to inter-DAO trading, I’m even working on a proposal at the moment to add market evaluation to bDAO proposal processes. Again perhaps some here want to see bDAO start to be a little more trade minded, somewhat more effective and less random in development projects, maybe even a little more commercially minded. So then again maybe that needs some consideration around brand and commerciality. I don’t have huge clarity around this yet, it’s more a gut feel I’m working towards.

Final point, (should have warned about TLDR), on trust and disputes. Working with people is a fantastic way to understand the trust we can have in them. Again, bDAO is awesome at this. But perhaps trust isn’t a tangible skill for bDAO folk to recognise. At Gravity DAO, they fully recognise and practice trust processes, including NVC, and have dispute resolution processes in place. Over 20 actual cases handled so far. I don’t think bDAO are at the point of dispute here, yet, but it can help a negotiated position, if needed, if skilled mediators are available and can act to calm community concerns. So maybe not this time, but in the event of any future dispute, you guys might like to look into Gravity DAO. (Disclosure: yes I’m connected with Gravity DAO, no I’m not trying to shill them, sadly that’s not my skillset. You can tell, right? But I do think dispute resolution is something that has significant value, I even checked with Bard, and it could be something W3 could lead in).

If you’re still reading, thanks, and hopefully this is a useful contribution.

[FlowScience]

I think we could learn a lot from how ReFi DAO incentivizes, tracks, supports, and evaluates their local nodes.

Regenerative Journeys: ReFi Local Nodes 2023

They clearly value brand identity a lot and seem to have established a robust system for managing it across nodes. I still need to research this further beyond the article above (particularly the legal entity structure, permissioning, and dispute resolution) but sharing here for others to review & integrate as well.

Tagging @rsa and @links for visibility, not requesting any response.

[rsa]

yeah this does look cool, nice find.

[links]

FYI to everyone - @rsa will be at the community call tomorrow to discuss this proposal. You’re all invited to attend.

[thethriller]

Hey All,

I agree with most of the original proposal/post from @rsa above. And I respect many of the contrary opinions shared by others above.

The two items that stand out to me that I want to comment on are (1) founder vetos and (2) legal entity choice.

Regarding Founders Vetos

Regarding founder vetos, I do not like the idea. I know they have it in Nouns and Nouns-ish DAOs, and I think it’s useful in the early stages of a DAO when someone can easily come in and sweep all the governance rights and drain the DAO. But in the later stages we are in at bDAO, it just does not make sense to me, and there are other protections we can put in place for disagreements, such as arbitration, proposals with different time periods / quorum requirements, etc.

To be clear, I do think BanklessHQ should retain the proposed veto power over use of the Bankless brand and Bankless DAO should retain the proposed veto power over the use of the BanklessDAO brand. What I do not like is that the founders of each of the entities retaining veto power over their entity’s decisions. In the case of bDAO, the original post proposes bDAO having both the Foundation’s Directors and the DAO’s founders have veto rights, which just feels very non-value-aligned and unnecessary to me.

Regarding legal entity choice

First, a disclaimer. I have spent the last 2.5 years of my professional life working on legal entities for DAOs, specifically the Marshall Islands DAO LLC, for which I wrote the legislation (three laws over the past three years) with the help of dozens of crypto lawyers from all over the world. I am also a founder of MIDAO (which stands for Marshall Islands DAO), which is the registered agent that helps Web3 projects create DAO LLCs in the Marshall Islands. I think this means (1) I have a very informed opinion and (2) I have a very biased opinion. Also, I am not a lawyer, and so nothing I say is legal advice. But I will reiterate something I’ve said in the past: lawyers do not make legal decisions; they advise business people who make legal decisions. Both are an important part of a process like this.

Note that I have offered MIDAO’s services, which would normally cost $9,500 for all the services related to the creation of a DAO LLC, for free (now and forever) to BanklessDAO! Of course, we’d still benefit from having another client to brag about, but at least I won’t be directly financially benefiting if bDAO chooses to go Marshall Islands.

The reason that several people and I started MIDAO is that three years ago, we needed a legal entity for AdmiralDAO (the DAO that governs the Clipper Exchange), and when we looked at Foundations and Corporations and Trusts and Cooperatives, etc, we saw that they all forced us to make meaningful compromises we thought most true DAOs would not want to make:

Compromise 1: requirement to have a board, directors, officers, trustees, managers, or similar.
Compromise 2: requirement for those people and all other members to give their real names and physical addresses to the organization and often to the government.
(I’ll skip the other compromises for now)

So we set out to - and successfully passed three laws in the Marshall Islands, already a leading corporate jurisdiction in the shipping industry, creating a DAO LLC legal entity similar to but better than Wyoming’s DAO LLC.

Why should banklessDAO consider the Marshall Islands DAO LLC?

• So that bDAO does not have to have a board or any trustees or managers with any kind of veto right whatsoever. Note that we can have Managers or others with veto power if we want to, but we don’t have to, so if we wanted to do so temporarily we could do so. Oftentimes, supporters of the Foundation model say, “But you can obligate the Directors to act in accordance with the DAOs wishes.” The problem with that, is that you can legally obligate them to do it, but they still don’t have to! They can act on behalf of the DAO in a way inconsistent with its wishes, and then the DAO has to take them to court to try to reverse course. In a DAO LLC, the DAO members actually have direct legal control over the legal entity. Even if the SEC or another law enforcement agency tells us to do something, it’s up to us as the DAO members to decide whether do it or not!
• So that there is the absolute minimum of KYC required. Only any Managers, initial filers, or holders of 25% or more of the governance tokens would have to do KYC. Everyone else can be completely anonymous, except for the wallet address they use to hold their BANK
• No cost from the Marshall Islands or MIDAO, and no requirement to hire local lawyers or independent directors like you have to do in Panama, Cayman, etc

Of course, this is a very complicated discussion, and we’d have to get way deeper into it, including hopefully with (pro bono?) lawyers working for banklessDAO and/or HQ. But I want to really encourage my fellow DAO members to consider why me and many other people have spent years of our lives creating this new DAO-focused legal entity, why 100 other DAOs have already chosen it, why Balaji himself (and others) have invested $1M into our company, etc, etc… and at least give the MIDAO DAO LLC consideration here!

[Ornella]

gm frens Thank you to everyone who worked on this proposal, governance is necessary but it’s always tough work. I truly appreciate the time investment, care, and dedication that everyone has put into to this topic.

That being said, since governance is not my part of my superpower skillset, I’ll go straight to the point and share what I really care about.

I really hope BanklessDAO can keep its name and continue to be a place to create, to grow, to learn how to ‘go bankless’, to experiment, and a place to meet other like-minded humans navigated the frontier and new technology.

The name is what unites us, it is part of our identity and changing it would implicate starting all over again. Thankfully, I understand that this is not the goal of the proposal.

I believe that the DAO, in its current form and status, and with the current amount of active contributors that it has, doesn’t really need to be a ‘Bankless brand distributor’. It just needs to be a community, a trusted environment to come and thrive and learn how to ‘go bankless’ through DAO contributions or maybe just by being and lurking in the server.

I really feel that in the future the DAO should have a membership so it can be sustainable and continue existing. For frens that don’t have the monetary means, we can have scholarships or limited zero-cost memberships that you apply for.

Having eternal guest pass renewal only dilutes the value that the DAO can provide. What’s the real value? The attention and the time that its contributors dedicate to it. If the DAO losses attention, then it’s difficult to turn that around.

I feel that in this new phase of BanklessDAO 2.0, new members should be continue to be motivated to create projects, but they should have its own name and not be called Bankless something. All BanklessDAO born projects should always wave the DAO flag high mentioning how BanklessDAO helped them get started. These grants could even be retroactive. The DAO does not need to create more Bankless-ish things to thrive. The community is so much more than that.

Having a brand distribution system requires skilled contributors working full time on this, and I don’t believe the DAO can pay for this. Why don’t we consider removing this blocker then? Maybe in the future we can reconsider it, and BanklessDAO native projects can maybe apply to be a Bankless brand, but right now, the distribution part is moving away attention from the (at least for me) real question situation that we should be addressing, which is: how do take care of the DAO so it can continue being the amazing place it’s always been.

I voted yes for differentiating the DAO’s branding for this same reason.
I voted yes to creating some rules for Bankless projects to follow BUT here I believe this should apply to the EXISTING projects so they can continue existing as long as they provide positive value to the brand and the movement.

I really see no need to create new ones.

Having less Bankless-ish things can also help the DAO focus on its own branding as a community. With time, people in the ecosystem (not bots or fudders of course) will learn the differences with the HQ team! I’m pretty sure this is possible, but the DAO needs a branding team, and it has to invest on its own branding.

I also voted yes for the legal entity but I believe we should explore more options since I’m not familiar with Panama.

The only reason why I believe the DAO should have a legal entity is to make it clear that it is a non-profit entity/community to help with the differentiation from HQ and also to receive grants and support so it can continue existing.

I’m foverer grateful for the DAO and the bankless movement. The DAO has been my web3 home, the place where I learned how to ‘go bankless’ and I would really love for more people to be able to experience this for many years to come <3

[rsa]

Thanks to all who attended the community call today!

I mentioned the TED vs TEDx brand clarity as a model for BanklessDAO.

Here’s a link with more detail:

Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.

[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.

[FlowScience]

I think it would make sense if HQ wants to support a DAO of only regional nodes, but it don’t think it makes sense for a self-sustaining entity to consist of only regional nodes without a complementary mandate/purpose independent and distinct from HQ (as discussed above).

However, I think the only thing needed to extrapolate your thesis beyond regional nodes to include projects, guilds, and departments is a more coherent ROI framework. There’s no reason the DAO can’t support any variety of activities, if the financials make sense.