Hello @Trewkat in a few comments above, you will see that we actually reduced the ask by 50%. The guest-list, which are Wildfire’s partners, are ready to be interviewed, and Wildfire will be editing these AMAs and crafting the marketing material to extend our reach beyond the BanklessDAO community by ranking for relevant keywords on Twitter and YouTube. We’re asking for a one time grant so we can be compensated for our efforts of activating an audience for the BanklessDAO YouTube. Also, we reached out to several DAOs that already expressed interest in sponsoring this AMA series with high-profile guests, and we’re currently in the process of finalizing our sponsorship proposal.
We pay 25k up front to get interviews we could get ourselves to get 30% of future sponsorships. Maybe I’m missing something but this stinks to me. We didn’t invest a fraction of that into our GSE program to fix our broken OS. This whole proposal leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Given the price of bank, I question how anyone from Fireeyes thought this was a good idea. Hard no for me.
“that it wasn’t an ask for 50K BANK, but $50K in BANK”
This is incorrect, we’re realized our original ask was out of proportion compared to similar initiatives of this size and scope. We’ve reduced our ask by 50% to be more in line with other projects ask.
“if you are all core contributors of BanklessDAO”
We’re not core contributors though, only Jaris is as far as I know. I haven’t been active with bDAO since February.
“why do we need WildfireDAO involvement? Is it just for the connections?”
This proposal’s purpose was to design and create an ARR vehicle for bDAO and improve the AMA model that was very successful in Q1 & Q2. While creating this process, we’ll be responsible for the media production, content creation, and overseeing the execution, including the decentralization, of it once proven successful. Once fully executed, the end result will be a persistent revenue generating AMA model that will exist well after we have finished our contribution and establishing the process.
“I would rather see the DAOlationships AMA’s continue to grow and arrive at the point where high profile want to come on those”
Exactly, that’s the point of this - we (myself, Jaris, NFThinker) created the v1 of the AMAs and we’re looking to button up the entire process and onboard the large names.
bDAO isn’t a start up - it’s a high profile DAO that is well known and has a reputation established.
The hope/goal of doing this is to generate lots of top of funnel volume for the AMAs and all of the other guilds. Improving the format and driving traffic to YouTube is key to the success of this.
We’re also not impeding the current pipeline of AMA guests - and would encourage the existing AMA model to continue in tandem alongside this. I would advise that new hosts be allowed the chance to participate and be voted on by the appropriate guild (I think DAOlationships, could be wrong).
“to get 30% of future sponsorships”
My original plan was 50% for the bDAO treasury - for reference, most projects (vast majority) contribute 10% of their revenue to the bDAO treasury. My personal opinion is that it should be 50% for bDAO.
Other members of bDAO were the ones who wanted a lower than 50% for bDAO. Again, our original plan had 50% for the bDAO treasury.
Someone wanted us to take a much larger cut for ourselves and less for the bDAO treasury, like most other projects do. I think they were under the impression we wanted a 90% for us, 10% for bDAO treasury model - and we don’t. We want reoccurring revenue for the bDAO treasury so price goes up - that is our intent.
Our goal being to build a revenue model for bDAO, not just produce an AMA series. Also, refining an established bDAO process (again that Jaris, NFThinker, and I created) leveling it up in doing so, and laying the foundations so others can take the mantle and continue to drive success.
The amount in BANK that we’ve asked covers 11 weeks worth of content, and is in line with other media productions budgets that currently exist within the DAO. We did this in cooperation to the initial feedback we received earlier in this thread.
The revenue generated from sponsors would pay for the the grant after the first month if we’re 5/5 for sponsors and there is a 50% split for bDAO (my original plan).
In the end, we’d like to let others host and transition out Jaris/NFThinker when they would like to step away. We’d want other bDAO members to take the mantle/responsibility - just like with other facets of bDAO and in spirit with the ethos of decentralization.
“This whole proposal leaves a bad taste in my mouth.”
Our first version of the AMAs was really successful and everyone really liked it, I linked them above if you’d like to watch - we’re hoping v2 will live up to and surpass the v1 AMAs and create lots of top of funnel volume for the guilds. I’m not sure how you view this as a malicious or otherwise sketchy contribution we’re proposing, but I’m happy to answer questions or explain other areas further.
My concern is that we’re throwing ourselves into something in a rush to do more, for the purpose of doing more, at the expense of the confidence we’re placing in our own people. In funding this project, and at the amount being asked, we’re basically undermining the value of our existing media projects. We’re basically saying the combined effort of our podcasts and newsletter publications is worth substantially less than what WildFireDAO will bring. Whether we choose to look at this way or not, we’re sending a clear message that we’d rather spend our BANK elsewhere–and at a cost to the token’s value, given it’s going to be sold off–than to our internal projects working to the same end that this project proposes.
I tell my clients all the time: the slow way is the best way. Anyone can decide to run a marathon, sign up, wake up, and run it, but without training, the overall cost to the body is immense. Our podcasts and newsletters may not be raking in 10k USDC per publication right now, but we’re building out systems and processes that will make these projects sustainable over the long term. It’s an investment in our own people. I just don’t see it that way with this proposal.
If WildFireDAO came to us and said “here’s this idea. We want to leverage your platform, and get this rolling at no other upfront cost, but we’re asking for this split in sponsorship funds once they come rolling in,” then I’d be all for it. But to ask for as large an amount as 50k USD upfront, with no guarantee of deliverables, and no clause in place to get BANK back on track, it seems the overall cost to our body will just be immense. We’re going to be paying for this for a long time.
I’d even support a proposal with a sliding scale on sponsorship funds. Include a BANK buy-back clause, in addition to 60%+ being returned to the bDAO treasury until the 50k USD in BANK is recouped, then shift the percentage over several months so that WildFireDAO is getting the lion’s share, as originally suggested.
And as long as we’re considering this proposal, we should consider matching the start up funds with a distribution to our existing podcasts and publications. I feel this would garner good faith in our own community. “We’re spending 1.9 million BANK on this external project, but we’re also going to distribute 1.9 million BANK to our own projects to help further build them up, because we believe that strongly in our own people.”
Agreed. The long term benefits don’t seem to outweigh the short term costs. And we’re not even considering the social impact to our own community. To me, funding this devalues the efforts of our existing podcast and newsletter teams.
Hey @nonsensetwice, thanks for taking the time to read and review the proposal.
I think you missed certain parts of the conversation earlier, but we’ve reduced our ask by 50% to be in line with other projects. You’re operating under the impression we haven’t already been cooperative in discussing this.
“we’re basically undermining the value of our existing media projects.”
why do you view it like this? I vehemently disagree with this point.
You appear to be very happy to degrade the existing social capital the existing bDAO projects produce - and project malintent where none exists.
“Our podcasts and newsletters may not be raking in 10k USDC per publication right now, but we’re building out systems and processes that will make these projects sustainable over the long term.”
They do though? I’m not sure how familiar you are with bringing clients to bDAO to get work done, but the last time I did it (Feb) all of the guilds were charging this or more for services? Important to note: we already have interested clients in sponsoring the AMAs at this rate.
“If WildFireDAO came to us and said “here’s this idea. We want to leverage your platform, and get this rolling at no other upfront cost, but we’re asking for this split in sponsorship funds once they come rolling in,” then I’d be all for it.”
That’s what we did already. It’s the v1 of the AMAs, linked above. You’re basically saying to do it again with no budget.
"But to ask for as large an amount as 50k USD upfront, with no guarantee of deliverables, and no clause in place to get BANK back on track, "
I just feel like you haven’t read anything else I’ve written in this thread. The whole point is to generate revenue to bring price up for bDAO. It’s also to create an ARR vehicle for bDAO, with a large percentage of the sponsorship cut going to the bDAO treasury to fund future projects/initiatives. You’re still quoting the $50k ask, something which we worked on together earlier in this thread to bring in line to be more reasonable and in line with the other grants.
“The long term benefits don’t seem to outweigh the short term costs.”
An ARR vehicle is net negative long term? At 5 sponsors at $10k a month and a 50% rate for bDAO, you’ll pay for everything after 1 month. I couldn’t be more clear here about the vision of the end result.
To state it again, we already have interested sponsors at the $10k rate. I view the long term challenge is not getting the initial sponsors, but making sure that there is a substantial pipeline built to sustain the sponsorships.
Reactive much? I didn’t come here with vitriol, but if this is how you perceive my response, so be it. Perhaps your ability to understand nuance is lacking, but actions often have consequences beyond their intended scope. I didn’t initially think there was ill intent here, but rather wanted to address the finer point of what funding this proposal could do. Given your response, however, I’m willing to change my consideration; this may, after all, be a money grab for you.
If this is the case, why not amend the proposal and make clear those edits? I read the proposal. I read the comments. The proposal still states 50k USD in BANK. If I voted yes on this proposal as it is written, I would be voting yes on 50k USD in BANK. You’re content with saying you’re cooperative in discussing this, but still maintaining the original amounts.
Again, given the tone of your response to my message and the lack of updating the proposal to reflect these changes, it further appears to me to be a money grab.
Please show me evidence where each of our publications are receiving 10k USDC in sponsorships, and which ones they are.
Yes, I’m still quoting it, because the proposal still says it.
Again, missing nuance and ignoring potential underlying consequences. Not everything is about money. Emphasize only the money, and all we’re doing here is bringing the tenets and principles of the old financial system into the new one: only money matters.
Ah, okay got it! There are enough people who know myself and Jaris to testify this isn’t a money grab.
NFThinker isn’t in WildfireDAO - he is a highly respected member of the bDAO community. He has already attested that this isn’t a cash grab and he wouldn’t involve himself in any project with those intentions. I’ve also worked with him for quite some time now.
I hold bDAO very highly in my heart and don’t take kindly to being ascribed bad intentions or being told that we’re diminishing the value of the other projects. bDAO aided immensely when I first got started in this space - the members of wfDAO all want to contribute to it’s success.
"If this is the case, why not amend the proposal and make clear those edits? "
Respectfully - that’s it? I can personally assure you, and yes you may absolutely use this as written confirmation, that we will provide a copy of the proposal that we present to the grants committee. I’ll ask Jaris to update the OP with the doc that we have currently.
“Again, given the tone of your response to my message and the lack of updating the proposal to reflect these changes, it further appears to me to be a money grab.”
I love to say this: text doesn’t convey tone properly on the internet.
I wasn’t the OP, but again, we will post the revised proposal. I appreciate your concern for bDAO and attempting to prevent cash grabs.
“Again, missing nuance and ignoring potential underlying consequences. Not everything is about money.”
I appreciate your perspective - it’s one that I would normally share. Please understand: the entire intent of this project is to create revenue for bDAO so token goes up and in turn generate new attention/opportunities/traffic for other guilds - it literally is about money this time. I share your broader vision of web3 and what we’re building - 1 year ago when I started my journey, it was all I could think about and I’ve been building non-stop since.
There are a lot of other initiatives with lots of other DAOs that cover lots of areas of philanthropy and collective ownership and explore the new frontier of work and decentralized governance and empowerment - this proposal is not that. It’s a one time grant that’s about establishing a professional AMA model that generates positive network effects for all partners and provides ARR in a sustainable and decentralized fashion.
“Please show me evidence where each of our publications are receiving 10k USDC in sponsorships, and which ones they are.”
Of course - the marketing guild had a tiered plan for projects whose highest plan was $15k back in February. I’ll try to dig up the pricing chart I was provided.
Found it - they’ve upped their rates: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
I just tried editing the proposal, but I see I don’t have an option to. I have the option to edit comments, but not the proposal itself.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I still have concerns regarding the potential impact to morale in the DAO, but that will always be forefront in mind when I review proposals. Being clear that this is about the money allows us to pursue the potential value in other ways upon execution.
I sincerely apologize if my message suggested there was ill intent behind the proposal. I didn’t read intent of devaluation, but rather that it could be a consequence of the approval of this proposal. Given that intent was read, I can understand why you responded in such fashion. Ultimately, I care about the people involved, and want to see bDAO’s success as including the success of its members. It appears we’re on the same team in this regard.
To NFThinker’s point, if this indeed fills a hole that we’re not addressing across any of our existing media projects, and if the plan is to decentralize and move in a direction with greater bDAO talent contribution, I would like to see that included and highlighted in the updated proposal. I think this will strengthen the proposal overall and address the idea that this is not supplanting or undermining existing work, but rather providing a framework to level us up in a space that we’re missing.
Well … yeah! lol. I proceed with caution. I like to see everything laid out. If the terms have changed, I want to be able to speak to those changes. I see voting on the forum as a direct response to the forum proposal as it is written.
I want to point out that I recognize that you continue to address concerns despite having gained quorum for the proposal on this forum. That speaks to your willingness to gain full community support, and–at least for me–gives weight to your statement about this not just being a money grab. I appreciate your continued engagement and look forward to reading the updated proposal.
Hey @Walshy thanks for your continued engagement and discussion. I appreciated that you even hopped on a call with me to discuss this proposal.
I took a look at the AMAs you posted as precursors to this proposal, and had a chance to partially watch the Idols AMA. A few questions have come to mind from this:
- I appreciated the production value - are the same people who recorded/produced/edited these example AMAs going to continue on for this AMA proposal? On the call we had, you mentioned that WildFireDAO would be doing post-production, so I wondered.
- What does “really successful” mean? The view counts on the AMAs are maxed out at 457 on the idols AMA, is this your metric of success? Or is it something else?
- What kind of reach are the sponsors you’ve been talking to looking for?
- On our call, you also mentioned that you would be trying to market these AMAs to the communities that we host/interview. Can you describe a bit more how the marketing will work?
First of all, thank you so much to all that provided feedback on our original proposal, special thanks to @links @Icedcool @nonsensetwice . Your thoughtful comments and extremely thorough due diligence are appreciated and helped us think in more depth through the implications of this initiative on the rest of the DAO.
Hopefully we have addressed most concerns within our previous replies and, considering the approval rate is 82% with 67 total voters after two weeks of discussion, we feel ready to take this forward to the Grants Committee. That said, we would like to take the time to sum up the main amendments we are making to the original proposal before moving it forward, to avoid any confusion.
1/ The original ask of USDC 50k equivalent in BANK has been reduced to USDC 25k in BANK.
As has been pointed out by others, the USDC amount is proportional to the amount of work required on our side to set this up, though we have not realised how much this would be in BANK, compared to other funded projects, due to token devaluation over the last few months. The USDC 25k = ca. 1.8M BANK at current rates, is more in line with the 1.2M BANK funding for Crypto Sapiens, in both Season 4 and 5, or 1.65M funding of Podcast Hatchery in Season 5.
Moreover, we want to reiterate that we are asking for a one time setup grant only, unlike most projects. After this, the project will become revenue generating from sponsorships, expected to create a faster ROI than other funded initiatives to date. The sponsorship revenue will be split 30% going to bDAO - which is 3x more than the usual for other revenue-generating projects.
The BANK we are requesting will be used to fund our effort sourcing guests, doing research, preparation for, and hosting the AMAs, doing additional marketing to increase social media reach and viewership, doing post-production, sourcing sponsorships (creating a pitch deck and creating and managing a funnel of sponsors, follow-ups, etc), and any other associated tasks needed to make this a success.
2/ Can’t just the current bDAO guilds do all of this?
Yes they can and they will continue producing the current AMAs with startups, as before. However, other than us bringing in some big names to kick this off to the next level and sourcing sponsors, the kind of comprehensive cross-guild effort necessary to make all this happen has simply not materialised over the past couple of seasons, and is unlikely to materialise on its own, in a short span of time.
We are offering a ready-to-roll solution to kick this off here and now, and start yielding ROI by the next season, which is a shorter time frame than it would take for this to start materialise otherwise. We are not trying to replace anybody’s job within bDAO (we are ourselves busy enough with other things), and the aim is to gradually and eventually hand this over to the right guilds - so the AMAs can become a fully internalised and autonomous initiative within bDAO in the medium-to-long term, and so we can move onto helping in other areas. Once again, we are simply facilitating making this happen, and putting in a lot of upfront labour that’s required for this.
3/ Marketing & sponsorships
The current twitter engagement of bDAO is relatively low (less than 20 per post, based on 58k followers). Therefore, considerable effort is required to extend our reach when advertising these AMAs. This is one of the fronts our initiatives will be focused on, and something that people on our team have expertise in.
We are putting together a sponsorship pitch deck detailing bDAO’s standing, track record, and the efforts being deployed to maximise the AMA’s viewership. So far, we have shown a draft version to a couple of prospective sponsors and the reaction has been positive. We are actively working on building and growing a strong sponsorship funnel.
We will continue to work on improving both viewership and the value proposition for sponsors over the next season, which is where a lot of our resources will go towards. We have enough time to make this happen and we will be sharing updates on the progress of this, along the way.
Once again, thanks to all for the feedback and we hope this puts the minds of the remaining minority somewhat at ease. We are happy to continue answering questions in ever more detail going forward as more parts of this initiative start to materialise. Nevertheless, we do feel the updated proposal is now ready to move forward to Grants Committee.
Most of my questions have NOT been answered (even though some have been), and therefore I would consider the diligence that was done on this project NOT to have been thorough.
I’ve asked for a document describing use of funds, which you have not provided. I have asked questions about your reported sponsorship leads, which you have not provided.
Crypto Sapiens and Podcast Hatchery have something like 30 contributors, and you have 4. The Newsletter Team (who has sponsorships) has something like 40 contributors and also asks for 1.2M.
From what I understand, this 30% will need to go to contributors to continue running the project. So it could end up being considerably LESS than other projects. We don’t know, because you haven’t submitted a use of funds or answered my questions about who is responsible for what.
So your team will use the grants to pay for your time to produce/promote the first round of AMAs, and then drop the project without any plan for funding the guilds who you want to transition the work to? Or is the plan to use the 30% that bDAO gets in this proposal to pay for production?
This post had 55 positive votes in 2 days, and then over the last 2 weeks bDAO members came in and voiced their dissent.
That’s your right. But I hope you come to Grants Committee with the answers to the questions I have asked both in this forum and in synchronous calls with your team.
“I want to point out that I recognize that you continue to address concerns despite having gained quorum for the proposal on this forum. That speaks to your willingness to gain full community support, and–at least for me–gives weight to your statement about this not just being a money grab. I appreciate your continued engagement and look forward to reading the updated proposal.”
Thanks for kind words @nonsensetwice. We remain committed to helping build out a new v2 AMA process for bDAO that will built to last and hopefully provide bDAO a much needed ARR source that will help bolster and increase BANK price.
“are the same people who recorded/produced/edited these example AMAs going to continue on for this AMA proposal? On the call we had, you mentioned that WildFireDAO would be doing post-production, so I wondered.”
As I told you on our call @links, I’ll be taking over post-production for AMA v2 until we can fully transitions this to bDAO.
“What does “really successful” mean? The view counts on the AMAs are maxed out at 457 on the idols AMA, is this your metric of success? Or is it something else?”
You’re asking for KPIs, but just like most v1 projects, we didn’t keep track of any months ago as they weren’t relevant to the success of the project.
The Idols AMA is the #2 most watched video on the bDAO youtube, the AMAs were well received by bDAO (not sure, were you around at that time? maybe you remember them?) hundreds of attendees joined us in discord, and the Twitter spaces were also attended by hundreds of bDAO members and interested parties. The projects who participated were grateful and were satisfied with the outcome. bDAO earned revenue from these projects. It was a win-win for everyone involved. This v2 will be taking this up a level or two.
“What kind of reach are the sponsors you’ve been talking to looking for?”
So far, they’re just interested in sponsoring and haven’t asked about KPIs. From my own experience so far, this is quite common when good bizdev leads the charge. I’m sure some sponsors will be asking for KPIs eventually.
“On our call, you also mentioned that you would be trying to market these AMAs to the communities that we host/interview. Can you describe a bit more how the marketing will work?”
Typically, co-marketing includes social sharing and campaign planning. We’ll be asking our partners to market to their community, usually via Discord/Twitter engagement and additional posts highlighting the project/partnership. Co-marketing plans typically end up being the same thing across the board, regardless of project.
“Most of my questions have NOT been answered (even though some have been), and therefore I would consider the diligence that was done on this project NOT to have been thorough.”
Technically we’ve answered a majority of your questions way before this post - given the large amount of questions you’ve asked so far in this thread as well as over voice sync. The earlier part of my post answered the remaining few.
“I’ve asked for a document describing use of funds, which you have not provided.”
We’ll be presenting this to the grants committee.
“From what I understand, this 30% will need to go to contributors to continue running the project. So it could end up being considerably LESS than other projects.”
The intention of the project is to create AMA v2 and set up an ARR vehicle that will provide bDAO with a source of funding indefinitely in order to help with BANK price. When the time comes to transition this project to bDAO, we’ll work closely together to make sure that both parties win and bDAO isn’t left out in the cold - which is the whole point of this. Does this make sense to you?
“So your team will use the grants to pay for your time to produce/promote the first round of AMAs, and then drop the project without any plan for funding the guilds who you want to transition the work to?”
What? Why would we do this?
This is what I am talking about. You continue to attribute malicious intent towards us.
bDAO was my first DAO ever. Jaris is actively involved in multiple areas of bDAO. Mgoes just did a presentation to DAOlationships last week. We wouldn’t just ‘drop’ this without a plan for the bDAO transition and you suggest it as if we’re malicious actors attempting to screw bDAO over. This isn’t some cash grab and don’t plan to just ‘disappear’.
The answer to your question is no.
90% of voters want this project to happen, and I believe we’ve been very cooperative in working through this with the community to ensure the desired changes are made, including answering a significant amount of mostly well-intentioned questions (even though, as was mentioned earlier, we aren’t required to answer any more questions at this point).
Thank you for everyone who has read this thread and asked great questions regarding our proposal. We eagerly anticipate bringing you the final product!
Sorry that I made you feel that way. Let me state right now that I’m not trying to say you and your team have malicious intent.
I’ll say again that I LOVE the idea for the project. What I’m trying to figure out is how this project functions in the long-term. Even if the idea is great, if the project isn’t set up for success, then I wouldn’t want to fund it.
What I’m trying to do is reconcile your answers to my questions. There are some things that seem inconsistent to me. For instance, both you and @mgoesdistance have stated that you don’t want to be part of this project long-term, you’d like to transition it to bDAO guilds. But I’m not clear where the budget is to transition your pieces of the project to bDAO guilds.
Heck, I don’t even know what all of you will be doing for this project! You have mentioned that you’ll break that down for GC, so I will wait for that, but I’ll just mention that there is a reason that most startups have ways to lock founders in for 3-5 years. You have stated that you, @Walshy will be handling post-production and the sponsorship pipeline. If you leave the project, there’s no guarantee anyone will be able to replicate what you have accomplished.
Thanks for your engagement, and I will wait for this project to show up in Grants Committee before commenting further.
Hey @Walshy, just want to jump in here and back @links—links has been very supportive in DAO channels on Discord regarding this initiative. Malicious intent is definitely not something I read here, and given his general support of the initiative, it’s something that shouldn’t be read into his responses.
I do find it concerning that you have jumped to this conclusion in both his response and my first response. Neither of us have suggested this is the case, but rather have concerns regarding the initiative and are not willing to simply sign off on it. And that’s okay—dissent is just as important to the process of governance as consensus is.
From my view, I see someone (you) who wants to bring something of value to bDAO by way of these AMAs, and someone (links) who is taking their role as a Grants Committee member seriously and working to keep the best interests of bDAO in mind. These are not misaligned; however there is miscommunication here. I, for one, would like to see links’ concerns addressed, as this is pertinent to how many in our community will view the funding of this initiative.
The majority may be in your favor, but as in so many cases—and I think you’ll agree—the majority isn’t always right. And links point about the bulk of the yes votes happening before community members voiced their concerns has merit.
In the end, I think we all want bDAO to win. If this is, indeed, the case, then really, the concerns that are brought up here are naught more than details. Links has shared his own enthusiasm around this initiative, but is still being responsible in his role as steward of DAO funds, and this ought to be recognized and celebrated. While it doesn’t make things easier, it does bring more value to the process, and more faith in your initiative should it be funded.