Crypto Mentorship Program

Thanks for the kind feedback!

1 Like

m.lrn : This is very reasonable. I think that after the first iteration where we test out the basic systems of content prep and delivery, we should figure out some fundamental costs that will help considerably and price them in going forward.

For now the budget request is minimal, because we would like to get this started. I would personally be OK in utilising part of the funds for the next set of lectures. Would love to discuss this at the Edu meeting or sth!

1 Like

Love this! I would consider myself an interested participant in some of the intermediate/advanced defi offerings and love learning in this type of model vs. MOOC.

Agree also w/ discussions around trying to figure out in advance the terms of opex budgets as % of revenue vs. DAO take %age. (i.e. instead of saying, mentors get x%, marketing gets y%, DAO gets z% – which is too detailed and should be up to the project and discovered/adjusted along the way… instead just define ongoing operations expenditures that will be funded (inl. mentor rates + marketing + ongoing dev support + others?) will get 80% of revenue retained to use for this and DAO will get 20% of revenue.

TL;DR --80/20 split, and project figures out how to standup sustainably on 80% of revenue and can just retain in a project safe and govern as ongoing project team sees fit. Leaves lots of room for discovery within the project team (and arguably nothing says they can’t come back and renegotiate in future backed with ongoing operational stats and market data)

So in simple terms, project costing advised as organized as:

  1. UPFRONT: Sum of tokens to stand it up quoted in USDC & BANK (i.e. initial capital outlay)
  2. ONGOING: 80/20 split on revenues, where 80% must be used to create sustainable operations and 20% is the fee for DAO initial investment + ongoing channel to market support as media partner.
2 Likes

Thanks for offering some advice:

  1. If I write up a proposal to request for UPFRONT development funding for this project with BANK tokens, say a ball park 2M banks, do you think we have a fair chance to get consensus within the DAO?
  2. ONGOING revenue split of 80/20 does sound pretty reasonable. And that might help with the point 1.

Love the proposal. Very detailed and definitely support this program! You guys rocked it :).

Great back and forth in the comments as well, it seems this will get in the right direction.

A small suggestion from my end: don’t only use the degen score for a quick verification of someone’s knowledge / involvement. It seems as if it targets many ‘failed’ or ‘scammed’ projects and doesn’t reward points for involvement in some core protocols that have been around for quite some time. Maybe there are more websites that offer a similar way of scoring someone’s wallet and a combination of all of them would be a better representation of someone’s involvement / knowledge.

Anyway, I’m very curious to see where this is going and I’m optimistic for this project in general :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Go angyst, go! Appreciate the continued dialogue on this.

RE: calibrating upfront ask I have two reflections

  1. 2M BANK according to this dashboard would be effectively 3% of total current amount in treasury Boardroom Management Portal – so it’s not a small ask, but I’m not on treasury guild / grants… so I’m not sure not sure how it compares to other asks around the DAO. Another point of comparison I think the entire Season 0 coordinape was 1M. But as another data point I think guilds are getting 100’s of thousands of BANK each in Season 1 funding. So I’m not sure what a fair amount is and how best to calculate that, this deserves some guidance DAO-wide.

  2. I really think that as a DAO we should start considering monthly streaming OR milestone based models for projects with larger sums of BANK requested. [e.g. X% upfront, N% interim demo milestone(s), X% market launch] for larger sum investments like this.

In absence of reputation systems and proven track records of delivery in DAO I think large up front sums aren’t generally a great practice. Is it anticipated that this will be single season or multi-season effort? If single season an upfront and end of season amount is good idea; if multi-season I’d suggest showing a seasonal schedule of payments aligned to delivery roadmap.

Realize that some of this feedback is more for treasury guild vs. your proposal but thx for allowing me the space to consider this hear on your awesome initiative as a means of discussing that too.

:rocket:

2 Likes

Yeah, i’m also on the camp of “bootstrapping”.

I don’t believe that upfront large investments lead to large outcomes.

I would rather deliver products, then retroactively claim for $BANKs. And make small proposals to build things one season at a time.

I’m glad i’m working with diglobo on this project, both of us are quite comfortable with our lives.

1 Like

Voted to support. Thx for all the context/dialogue.
Go team! :man_teacher:

1 Like

Thanks, team, I will love to offer my time for this mentorship especially for newbies in third world countries. How can I participate

1 Like

Hi Angyts, great work you guys have put up so far. A human helping hand in crypto is essential for progress, especially for who was not born into this. I brought a 60 year old friend of mine into the field. He really needed help, other wise he would have given up. I’d love to contribute wherever I can, be it as mentee or mentor. Let’s grow together. Cheers

1 Like

NICE!

Hey Def i cannot find your discord handle, but it would be nice for you to join the #general-edu channel to introduce yourself.

Also consider to join the education guild.

At the mentorship program channel, we are planning up some workshops on walllet and basic crypto security, please join the workgroup there!

Hi Angyts this is my discord handle: Definewbe#2356

1 Like

Sounds good. Discord is defgrip#4269

Moving to archive. Please reply to reopen.