[Community Vote] Season 6

Hello BanklessDAO! It's Community Vote time!

For those who are newer to the DAO, this post serves to collect sentiments on specific DAO-wide topics and inform the Season 6 Specification. Discussion is not limited to the polls included in this post, so if you have an idea or change to propose for Season 6, please include a comment for discussion, below.

Membership Thresholds

The current Level 1 membership threshold is 35,000 BANK. We have the option to increase, decrease, or keep the existing threshold in Season 6.
  • Pros of increasing: Requires people sitting at the threshold to “opt-into” the next season
  • Cons of increasing: Increases barriers to entry for new participants
  • Pros of decreasing: Increases accessibility for joining the DAO (less of a need for guest passes!)
  • Cons of decreasing: Leave contributors with less skin in the game.
  • Keep threshold unchanged for Level 1 Membership status
  • Decrease threshold for Level 1 Membership status
  • Increase threshold for Level 1 Membership status

0 voters

The current BANK requirement for Level 3 (Whale) Status is 150,000 BANK. As a follow-up to the L1 membership threshold:

  • Keep threshold unchanged for Level 3 (Whale) status
  • Decrease threshold for Level 3 (Whale) status
  • Increase threshold for Level 3 (Whale) status

0 voters

Season Length

There has been some discussion around increasing season length. Increasing season length would provide longer timeframes to reach project and guild KPIs and goals, but could reduce flexibility of the DAO as funding access is largely tied to seasonal rotation. We should:
  • Stay the same at 13 weeks
  • Increase the length +4 weeks to 17 weeks
  • Increase the length +8 weeks to 21 weeks
  • None of these; I have another suggestion that I’ll comment below

0 voters


In the past, a capped budget constrained many projects and guilds. In Season 3 and 4 we opened the option for a flexible budget following all project and guild submissions to accommodate mid-season proposals and/or Guilds & Projects seeking additional funding (within reason). Historical Seasonal Budget Allocations are as follows:

  • Season 1 allocated 11M BANK
  • Season 2 increased spending to 20.5M BANK
  • Season 3 increased spending to 30M BANK
  • Season 4 allocated 22M BANK + 1.2 ETH
  • Season 5 decreased spending to 19.5M BANK

For reference, the BanklessDAO treasury currently holds 170.2M BANK.

In Season 6, we should:

  • Keep seasonal spending the same as Season 5
  • Increase seasonal spending
  • Decrease seasonal spending

0 voters

Funding Strategy

As an attempt at risk mitigation and increasing accountability, the Season 5 Grants Committee provided half of the requested season funding up-front and then required a review of KPIs mid-season in order to disburse the other half of the requested funding later. This helps to ensure that guilds and projects don’t lose sight of their goals halfway through the season, but it does require additional labor from Grants Committee and the guilds and projects submitting funding requests.

Should the DAO continue to adhere to this KPI-based funding?

  • Yes, continue to disburse seasonal funds in two tranches, based on a guild/project’s progress toward the KPIs given in the seasonal funding proposal
  • No, disburse the full requested amount at the beginning of the season

0 voters

Governance Using Verifiable Credentials

Throughout Season 5, a number of problem areas were either identified or accentuated. Some of these include:

  • Discord role tags used for gating things like Coordinape and voting can be cumbersome and time-consuming. There must be an easier way to do this.
  • How do we keep track of who is active or has been active throughout the season? Or during a given Coordinape epoch?
  • How do we know who should be able to vote on governance polls, for seasonal role elections, as an example?

These are just some issues that have arisen and/or have been present for a while. A few folks in the Ops Department have been thinking about this and are working on a solution in collaboration with DAO tooling platforms like Otterspace and Collab.Land.

As an initial trial implementation, it has been proposed that in Season 6 bDAO members mint an Otterspace [link] “Season 6 Participant” badge at season start. Badge indicates they are preparing to participate and remain active (These badges expire automatically at end of Season 6). We will use this NFT badge in our Collab.Land gating logic for server access control to improve security holes that exist as contributors go inactive (especially OG inactive L2s who have server admin rights).

This initial implementation would serve to track Season 6 participation (though not necessarily contribution) across the DAO in the form of an NFT badge, and could be easily scaled to include solutions at the Guild and Department level. [Related proposal that inspired this MVP experiment here]

What are your initial thoughts on using Verifiable Credentials to help automate and authenticate our DAO activities?

  • I can’t smash the go button fast enough!
  • I have some concerns and will express them in comments below.

0 voters

Contributor Rewards

Throughout Season 5, many have raised concerns about Coordinape, how we use it for DAO-wide recognition and compensation, and at Guild/Project level.

Many feel it is an essential mechanism to compensate efforts that wouldn’t otherwise be captured by Guild/Project-level compensation mechanisms (roles, workstreams, Coordinape, etc).

Others feel the DAO-wide Coordinape is an inefficient way to compensate these important efforts, and instead dilutes and convolutes attempts at compensation, as it is impossible for most to know whether a given effort is already being compensated through a role or some other mechanism at the Guild/Project level. Further, many have recognized the social gaming concerns where many simply GIVE to the people they like, are their friends, etc.

Late in Season 4, it was discovered that a small number of individuals had developed a way to game the DAO-wide Coordinape by (purportedly) creating a group of Level 1 accounts and allocating GIVE within the small circle of false participants. This sustained gaming effort spanned seasons and ultimately resulted in BANK being inappropriately allocated to a small number of individuals. Due to the scale of the DAO-wide Coordinape, it is difficult and time consuming for those responsible for its administration to identify gaming attempts like the one described above.

It is important to capture and compensate efforts that don’t fall within existing compensation mechanisms, which is why we’ve been using Coordinape. There are, however, other ways to achieve this. It’s here that we’re seeking your input:

Do you feel Coordinape is working effectively to allocate remuneration?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Should we make changes to Coordinape?

  • No, keep it the same
  • Yes, change it in some way - I will comment below
  • Yes, get rid of it completely and use a different mechanism - I will comment and provide context/suggestion below

0 voters

What is(are) your preferred method(s) of compensation within the DAO?

  • Coordinape at the DAO-wide level
  • Coordinape at guild/department/project-level
  • Bountied tasks
  • Salaried roles

0 voters


Discussion has begun about the need for increased utility for BANK. A number of community members have suggested that we reduce BANK issuance, focus on its utility, and adjust incentives in a way that could decrease sell pressure on the token. Some have suggested we focus on revenue-based tokenomics and implement some sort of holder incentive program like delegated governance or a staking contract.

What kind of action would you like to see BanklessDAO take?

  • No new action
  • Reduce BANK issuance in some way
  • Investigate Delegated Governance
  • Investigate staking
  • Some other kind of change affecting BANK’s utility - I will share my idea in the comments below

0 voters

Grants Committee Member Removal

Grants Committee currently has an inactive member who cannot be reached. This member still has another 3 months left on their term. The consensus in Grants Committee is to remove this member by a unanimous (6/6) vote by Grants Committee. The spot will be filled in the upcoming Grants Committee election.

Do you agree with this course of action?

  • Yes
  • No
  • I need more information before I can decide

0 voters


Please keep in mind that none of these poll results are final. They simply represent the DAO’s sentiment as we build out the Season 6 Spec, which will go through its own independent governance process.

If you feel anything is missing, or you would like to include something for consideration for Season 6, or you have thoughts and ideas you’d like to share on what has been presented here, please comment below!


Thanks for getting this community vote out, it’s very important to understand the sentiment of the community.

How do we decide what gets voted on in these votes? I’m a bit surprised at some of the questions.

  • Why do we vote on L1 and Whale thresholds every season? It doesn’t seem like there is much impetus to change these specific thresholds, the previous community votes have always kept them the same
  • Why are we voting on season length again? We voted in the past and decided as a community, and there has been no discussion on changing season lengths since then as far as I can see.
  • Why are we voting on 2-tranche funding? I have not seen any discussion about this on the forum or jokeDAO. I also think that the authority to disburse project funds has already been given by the community to Grants Committee, so asking this seems to step on this groups authority and responsibilities

In addition to the above, I feel there are some big pieces of missing information that I need before I can vote.

  • what were the results of the OtterSpace pilot? Was it considered a success? What lessons did we learn? What are potential stumbling blocks to roll this out at the whole DAO level?

I have other questions , but perhaps you can answer these questions @0xZFi.eth ?


The more use cases that require the BANK token the more demand will increase for the token and the less of it will be sold. Lot’s of good ideas floating around


Otterspace pilot hasn’t hit the start line yet. The above question is to temperature check the design for the intended Pilot (i.e. do a Season 6 participant badge and use it to control discord server access better - particularly the L2 security issue). The intention is to start w/ small scope for the upcoming season, in parallel working on automation that reduces the overhead of upkeep for the ‘allow-lists’, and then expand into additional use-cases more sustainably if it’s a successful pilot.


Is it just me or is it kind of strange that we want to keep seasonal budgets the same but reduce the emissions of BANK? Not entirely surprised by this though. I’ll be monitoring these 2 closely over the coming days as it’s a fascinating tension.


I agree with all @links comments and especially want to highlight that a process for how questions get included in this process is required. Let’s include this in the retro.

Additionally, the poll option for Verifiable Credentials “I can’t smash the go button fast enough!” is pretty out of character compared to the rest of the polls and pushes an obvious bias. Let’s watch for this next time, please.

Otherwise excited for this and really happy with how the season planning is coming together! Thank you!


Where can I learn more about this?

I’m all for experimentation and I am worried about accessibility issues. Will people be shut out of governance with this change?

With jokeDAO, even with them airdropping tokens for free, we still didn’t get the same kind of engagement we get here on the forum. I suspect it was just degens who voted on ideas. How can we avoid this for an OtterSpace pilot?

It’s pretty predictable, isn’t it? It’s exactly what happens in real world politics. People want to reduce the deficit but keep services. It is a take as old as time :wink:


To my knowledge, there is no defined process for choosing these questions, and frankly, it made me very uncomfortable to be the one to try to come up with them. Without an established procedure, I sourced most of these questions by referencing the Season 4 and Season 5 Community Vote posts, from discussions I heard throughout Season 5, and from the discussions taking place on JokeDAO. Two of the questions were added by @chunz, so I can’t speak to the sources on those.

I saw these questions asked on both the Season 4 and Season 5 CVs, so I simply followed the pattern.

This was partly following the pattern, but it also something that I have heard discussions about multiple times throughout this season, so it felt relevant to include, given no other framework.

The #3 and #6 highest-voted topics on JokeDAO referenced KPI-based project funding. To open the discussion further, for those not following these discussions on JokeDAO, I attempted to create a balanced, un-biased poll to ensure those who may disagree with this approach were not left out of the temp check. As these polls are non-binding, I didn’t feel that any authority would be diminished by proposing this question, nor was it my intent to do so. This is just the first season we’ve implemented the new method and it felt prudent to look back to determine if it positively or negatively impacted our processes.

This I do not know. I was of the understanding that it had not been launched yet. This was one of the questions I did not source. Maybe @chunz can help answer this one.


Always a pleasure to cast my votes on this post and discover whether I’m in majority or minority with my opinion opinion.

To add on @jameswmontgomery.eth’s comment - I suggest a simple solution for polls using the following scheme

  • For (or no objections)
  • Against (or objections)
  • I have concerns/questions and will express them in comments before I vote.

Ultimately you want to find out who’s for or against and help those who need clarity before they can utilise their voice.

One very important thing I’m missing here is a follow up on the GSE Deliverables. @0xJustice and the GSEs did an amazing job flashing out the first scope of deliverables in their recent GSE Deliverables - Cohort 1 post.

I think we just missed an opportunity to follow up on these recommendations by getting votes on a several poll options to gauge sentiment on their recommendation. With the poll set up I’ve suggested above we could have casted community feedback on some points (such as the seasonal pass) to measure level of consensus in our community and thereby give the GSE signals additional signals to further support the implementation process. I wonder if I’m the only one missing this?


Thank you for this feedback. It will be noted for future Community Vote posts.

They did! I’m still reading it.

I agree that not following up on the GSE deliverables was a missed opportunity. I apologize for this and I hope it gets the spotlight it needs elsewhere.

This, too, I’ll add to notes for next time. It seems a mid-season coordination between the transition team and the GSE team could be a better way to approach the Season 7 Community Vote.

1 Like

I choose to revamp coordinape. I suggest we use some tool which can gather data from discord, forum etc and only allow those participants to allocate GIVE additionally the amount of GIVE one could allocate should be proportional to the investment each contributor has put in. Maybe their thrivecoin or credscore scores can be used.


PSA: The scope of the initial experiment WILL NOT tinker with governance.
(your concern of moving too fast is very valid)

Learning more…

  • Tuesday’s Ops-guild meeting is the place we’re scoping experiment and planning implimentation.
  • Presentation coming to a community call ASAP – wanted to see sentiment and questions here first

Current S6 Pilot Plan:
Scoped to be a very simple experiment of ‘hardening’ our Level2 pass and making sure you’re active to get the server admin rights that this tag awards. If there are cont’d deep questions here or in the community call we’re planning to write up a detailed spec and post it in the forum here before Season6 starts. Welcome additional suggestions for sharing more as the scope finalizes.


My only comment on the verified credentials is whether this can be performed in a way to retain pseudo-anonymity. This is not necessarily my immediate concern but rather I do not want to discourage active participation in governance by individuals who might feel the need to remain anonymous for any number of legitimate reasons.


Fair enough friend, I think in the DAO, done is better than perfect, so kudos on getting this out. I hope it’s clear that my comments aren’t meant as a reproach to you and more as feedback into the process.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of what the 2-tranche funding actually entails. As the person who spearheaded the initiative, it is not “KPI-based funding”. It’s closer to “Report-based funding”; if you report your agreed-upon KPIs, you will get funding. KPIs in this context are not goals or milestones.

Looking at jokeDAO, I’m not sure whether or not these ideas were actually referencing the current GC KPI collection process - it feels (to me) that they want milestone-based funding. i.e. you hit milestones to unlock funding.

Hopefully the jokeDAOers will come here and comment on that.

Awesome, starting small is a great idea and I look forward to hearing more!


If we cancel DAO Wide coordinape, how do we reward contributions from members that are not role holders ? I support @Jengajojo we should use DAO tools that can actually help identify which member can participate in the DAO Wide coordinape. Salaried roles is fine but for folks who don’t hold any roles whatsoever and contribute in ways that are not bountiable I don’t see how we reward them if we scrap the DAO - Wide coordinape, maybe we can reduce the total amount of BANKS we allocate for the process itself but scrapping it is just a big move that’ll surely affect the DAO. I am a role holder the decision doesn’t really affect me but what about the other member that is not a role holder ? I implore everyone to think again and see reason in what I have spoken no disrespect to anyone, just an observation I feel should be brought to everyone’s notice. BDAO Strong :muscle:t4: :rocket::rocket:


Great question! Hope this response clears up how pseudo-anonimity is preserved with non-transferable NFT solutions as credentials. This is an important thing to preserve and the folks at Otterspace have considered it up front in their design.

  1. It’s important to mention that Badges are in no way tied to personal identity but to your wallets, for which you don’t have to reveal your identity.

  2. Badge metadata is generic to all holders of the badge, it isn’t unique to the account holding it. I.e. there is no space for individual metadata that could be used to identify someone. (e.g. It does not associate you to your discord handle directly or anything like that). The account address is the identifier they are connected with nothing else.

  3. The DAO will not choose which wallet is added to the Otterspace NFT allow-list, you will get to submit which address you wish to use so you can use a different wallet for collecting these if you wish vs. say an ENS wallet which is more identifying

  4. Badges are consented - i.e. they need to be claimed by the holder via signature. This prevents malicious doxxing via airdrop. We will not send you the badge, you are just added to the allow-list and may choose to mint or not

  5. After season is completed and the badge has expired (i.e. primary utility is no longer there) the user can choose to ‘burn’ the badge if they wish (or keep it as verifiable proof of participation aka. secondary utility). It is 100% up to the wallet owner.

  6. If badges in future are used in voting, (note: that in this S6 experiment they initially won’t be as we are going with smaller use-cases to test it out at first), then the above described remains true and only your wallet address will be shown in the vote record and no other identifying information unless you choose to attach it to your wallet (e.g. ENS)


Bounties are the first thing that comes to mind for me.


thank you @Bpetes this explanation provides great clarity. Education guild has been in limbo trying to decide on this as some members were concerned about the US government easily
identifying them based on VCs. But this explanation is very good. Going to snapshot this and paste it in the guild for more folks to see.