Thanks for taking point on this @chunz!
Some thoughts on how I think we should shape this:
Membership Threshold
- Opinion: Reduce
I’m a strong proponent of decreasing the threshold for membership access. This will make bDAO membership & contributions more accessible and reduce our reliance on guest passes. I’ve written about the issue before and the membership threshold is the simplest lever that we can pull to minimize the issue.
I’d be in favor of reducing to 10,000 BANK and allowing us to virtually eliminate the guest passes since bDAO would be accessible for most people with a small purchase. However, I understand people’s reservations around this given it’s a large decrease.
Splash Zone
In tandem, I’d be okay with reducing the splash zone access to 100,000 BANK (10K BANK + 100K BANK seem like two very clean thresholds in my mind).
Don’t think there’s a need for the mega whale zone yet.
G-UNI
We’ve migrated our DAO-owned liquidity to Uniswap v3. Gelato is an automated manager for Uniswap V3 LPs and in return for providing liquidity, LPs get ERC20. Given that we support other LP tokens, I think this is a no brainer
Season Duration
Opinion: Increase to 4 months
Think it’s wise for us to start increasing the length of Seasons as we’ve begun to dial-in on processes and understand what to expect on a season by season basis. This will allow us to focus on working and completing milestones.
Funding
Opinion: Decrease
This one is a bit controversial. But after reviewing multisigs across projects and guilds, there is a ton of BANK that is still there, meaning projects + guilds aren’t allocating all of their funding. There’s no need to distribute BANK if it’s not being used. In addition, there’s still 50% of the GC funding left available.
Overall, if we’re not spending and allocating all of the BANK for each initative, there’s no reason to distribute it out. That said, I want to ensure contributors feel well-compensated and want projects to continue to grow and thrive. Just my opinion 
Reducing emissions is also good for secondary markets!
Funding Requirements
Opinion: Increase accountability + emphasize value alignment
I think we need to increase accountability across the GC + PM groups. Projects should be required to report to the GC at least once or twice a season to report on progress and ensure accountability.
The other thing I want to keep pushing for is to ensure each project has some sort of value alignment mechanism. This can be either revenue share with the treasury, BANK buybacks, or membership perks if they’re a non-revenue generating project.
I want to double click on membership perks as I think this is an avenue we, as a community, haven’t pushed for. If you’re a bDAO project, you should create a membership perk by holding BANK! Some examples:
- Bankless Academy → Unlock more modules if you hold BANK
- Bounty Board → Unlock more available bounties if the admin (the DAO) holds BANK
- USM → Get a discount at checkout if you hold BANK
- DAO Dash → Unlock bonus insights when you hold BANK
You get the idea! These are just some high level ideas and should be taken w/ a grain of salt. But the takeaway should be if you’re running a project and don’t have an a revenue stream, ask what utility can you add to the BANK token via your project! Hold, spend, burn, to receive X, etc!
Coordinape
Opinion: Decrease to monthly contributor + seasonal DAO-wide
I think we’re reaching exhaustion on Coordinape and the constant need to allocate GIVE to contributors. I’ve missed out on allocating a few rounds myself. Coordinape is a great tool for compensation but should not be the primary comp mech (ideally it’s from contributing to projects and guilds). It’s a lot of overhead, especially when we do 3x rounds per month.
I’d be in favor of a monthly contributor round and then a DAO-wide seasonal round with a large pool.
Comp Rate
I’d defer this one to the GSE to fix this, but the blanket comp rate for everyone isn’t optimal. It was a short term fix for an issue on how people could value their work in the early stages of the DAO.
I think we’re at the point where we could open it up for anyone to determine their own market rate based on talent, experience, SoW, ROI for the DAO, etc.
Again - gonna defer getting this solved to the GSE but I don’t think this “universal rate” should continue as it dosn’t make sense anymore.
Don’t think I touched on everything but wanted to share some thoughts as we build out this spec for S4!
bDAO Stronk 