[DRAFT] BDAO Discord Channel Code System

I voted no. I’m all for adding some clarity to the mess of Discord channels, but I don’t think this proposal actually solves that issue. I don’t really understand the classifications and question if new users would be able to understand them (i.e. what is a “Community Base”?)

Maybe if you answered these questions I might understand

  • Why were these particular classifications chosen? Why are they better than the current classifications?
  • What are categories? Are they analogous to Discord categories or something else?
  • How is this system BETTER than the current system? Honestly it seems like a lateral move to me.
    • I understand that it could help with some bot automation efforts (i.e. post this message in all Guild general channels), but is that actually a problem that’s happening right now?

I’m also uncomfortable with the opinionation on how Guilds organize their own channels. I can see start here and general, but does EVERY guild need an announcement and calendar channel? Why not have an “incoming requests” channel? I see this as a thin edge of the wedge to standardize guild internal workflows, which I am against.


What classifications? There currently aren’t any. I determined classifications based on a top-down hierarchy, grouped by relevant category. It makes more sense if you look at the Figma.

They echo the discord categories, but further break them down into the sub-categories when the categories get a bit unwiedly.

What system? We don’t have any kind of system right now.

It’s not a problem right now, but it is a feature for the future. Bpetes and I agree that machine-readable codes will be extremely helpful for auto-populating Sobol, when we move to fully integrate Sobol and Discord with each other, after the initial rollout.

1 Like

Have you seen the main calendar? And tried to check for your relevant notifications? Only to be met with walls of text that has absolutely nothing to do with what you’re interested in attending? And then tried to scroll through all the messages, trying to figure out which message was relevant to you? And then gave up trying to find it?

As mentioned in my proposal, the separate Guild Calendar will be in an upcoming proposal.

However, in short:

  • each guild will have their own sub-calendar.
  • all sub-calendars will feed into the master calendar.

This maintains relevance to a member’s chosen roles/guilds, and ensures event notifications don’t get lost.

As for Announcements - the same thing can be said. It may not be a big deal right now, but if you consider Scalability, it is important to consider future guild needs. Already, some guilds have their own announcements channels. Who’s to say other guilds won’t do the same in the future? Standardization offers the option. That is why the annoucements channels in my Figma draft are white. All white post-its are “optional suggestions”.

Hi metamynx, I don’t think it’s accurate to say there isn’t a system right now - the current channel organisation is based (albeit loosely) on broad categories of entry-level / general information, members only, and then by guilds and projects, with some funky stuff down the bottom :wink:
I have been part of the DAO for only 3 months but I was able to understand the intended navigation from the moment I joined. The most confusing part of the onboarding process for me was why First Quest seemed to be somewhat circular.

Personally, apart from the number of channels (and associated scrolling) I have never had a problem figuring out where to find information or how use the calendar. I like seeing the whole calendar - it means I can see an overview of meeting activity and pursue something that might be outside my current scope of interest.

As a librarian, I can’t identify anything about this naming convention that improves comprehension for new users. In fact, I think that if it needs a special explainer then it’s not achieving the goal. I work with data so I completely understand and support the idea of machine-readable channel names, but I don’t think this needs to impact the human-readable versions.

Instead of this proposed action, I’d like to see increased focus on providing the channel topic information for each channel e.g. the no-stupid-questions channel provides this information: ‘Think you have a dumb question? You and probably 100 others. Ask away!’ Many channels don’t have this descriptive information but it could help orient people to what the purpose of the discussion is.

L2s can create channels themselves, so would this proposed system mean they would not be able to do so without checking the naming convention? I can see this being a barrier to the kind of organic growth that happens when people want to pursue a particular discussion.


Actually @Trewkat brought up my biggest issue with the current system - scrolling.

The reason I asked about the classifications, @metamynx is because I had hoped with the “right” classifications I could avoid scrolling (I.e I know how all community channels are at the top, the guilds, then projects, then social, etc). I know it’s not the intent with your system, but I wanted to give you this feedback.

Re: calendars, it’s true it’s crowded, but when I first joined the DAO the global calendar was an easy way to get myself engaged. TBH after I integrated with my google calendar I don’t find it hard to use. Sesh list works exactly as I’d expect. It’s not a huge pain for me yet.


I think this has a lot of potential, but it seems over complicated. I think there needs to be a better balance between machine/bot readable and human aesthetic/readable/mnemonic. I like the basic idea of conventions, but there are certainly better codes that could be used. I think the biggest thing for me is that adding the “_ba02” and the like on the end of channels makes them LESS readable.

I would propose something simpler. Use the upper 2 char code for each section, and that’s the main look up. After that, you have conventions for “standard channels” such as “_cal”, or “_ann” or “_start”. Channels that are specific to the guild could have their own tag with the code and whatever they want (ex: [AV_rocks]).

Let’s use the AV Guild as an example

  • AudioVisual Guild [AV]
    • start-here [AV_start]
    • general [AV_gen]
    • announcements [AV_ann]
    • governance [AV_gov]
    • podcast-incubator [AV_pod]
    • rocks [AV_rocks]

This allows you to search for all things AV by using “AV_” or all general channels with “_gen”. If I just want the top AV channel I can search for “[AV]”

This also makes it easier to remember, and to my eyes “start-here [AV_start]” looks better than “start-here_av_01”. And when I search for all things “AV_”, the name of the channel is next to it which makes it easy to see what it is.

If we recognize that there should be another standard channel, we can add that to the “standard channels list”.

I think this has great potential, but need some finessing. Thanks for tackling this!


Should there be? There’s no services to pay for. It’s all restricted to the Discord. It’s just renaming, channels, for the most part.
What kind of financial implications do you think should be included?

This consideration has already been made when I was working in Figma. It’s also been suggested by others in the above comments, and I’ve also mentioned it in a couple of my initial comments.

The L2s (AAJ, Angyts, Bpetes, Bo, etc) I’ve been working with also pointed this out, but generally agreed that from a scalability perspective (which is the main issue the system addresses, at this point - not the readability factor) it would be better to have a more machine-readable system.

If individual guilds really wanted it, there’s nothing stopping them from wanting additional characters at the end of their alphanumeric code (which would be part of the additional individual guild discussion and voting). For most people in Discord, channels with long names already, won’t be seeing it anyway.

I definitely understand where you’re coming from. But limiting it to a standardized alphanumeric code, instead of a string that the person would have to individually remember, may make a search query more streamlined (imo, obvs). Also, my original proposal was to make it an prefix (as you suggested - and as it is reflected in parts of my Figma draft) and not a suffix, but that idea was shot down by AAJ for readability reasons. Not only that, but opting to go with a mnemonic code instead of a machine-readable code effectively nullifies the need for it in the first place. Why not just type in the name of the actual channel instead of having to remember an abbreviated version of it? (yes, I do recognize the irony). At least with my proposal, a person has the option of going either way.

Yeah this definitely looks more readable.

Like EDU-gen,EDU-gov, EDU-hi, EDU-cool-project…

But hey! isn’t that what we are already doing??

1 Like

Speaking as someone who has plenty of software development experience, I don’t see why there is a need to have _av01 on the end of a channel when something as straightforward as [av_gen] works just as well, and keeps it human readable. The discord community is here to serve people, not bots. To me, this makes is less user-friendly.

Also, having _av01 doesn’t make it any more accessable for a bot either. You still need to know where you want to post something. One guild could have 01 as their start-here and the other could have 02 as their start-here so the numbers on the end are aribturatriy and have no meaning. Tags like [av_gen] serve both purposes.

If you do insist on prioritizing machine readable over human readable, at least put the code at the end like “start-here [av_01]”. Having it attached as “start-here_av01”, at least in my view, makes it less user friendly.

I’m going to have to vote no on this because I think that it makes things worse.


I don’t care for it as it is more confusing than before. You’d have to have this classification thing on hand to get what the arbitrary codes meant for starters. Second, why not have it alphabetically sorted first between Guilds and Projects, (either the projects need to be above the guilds or vice versa, right now there are several projects both above and below.) And once you’ve sorted Guilds and Projects, list alphabetically from there. It shouldn’t have to be overly complicated.


The reference for codes would be right in the Discord list, as indicated in my first example.

Alphabetical could work - I mean, that is partially what this code system is trying to apply, aside from the rather arbitrary (you say it’s alphabetical to a degree, already, but guilds and projects are mixed in… there is a certain level of alphabetization half-way through, then there isn’t any). There’s no reason why we can’t have both - perhaps the standardization of the first 4 channels, then alphabetical for the rest.

I’m really just trying to inject some level of first-glance new-user intuition into it. I did say in my proposal that individual guilds can vote on the order in which they like their chanels - suggesting it doesn’t have to be the order that I suggested. The perspective of a new user VS all y’all that have been around longer than 1 month seems to be vastly different - biased.

I think people are confused as to how flexible the suggestion of this system is. I’m not saying that everything is 100% set in stone. Like anything - any system must adapt to changing needs in order to stay relevant. I suggest a number of times throughout the proposal that decisions still need to be made to iron-out the details. A proposal doesn’t outline 100% of every single detail - it is an outline of what may come.

Excellent proposal. I love it.

1 Like

I shall note to everyone that if it doesn’t work out: it’s easy enough to change it back; it should just be a few hours of work – theoretically, in less time than it would take to do the re-namings in the first place.

Or if it sort-of works, it’s “easy” to collaboratively - of course - evolve the idea over time (as necessary) so that it does work.

Perhaps I should add an additional implementation step of a DAO-wide survey, after some time (say, 2 weeks?) to see how it’s been working for everyone… or it may be time for a discord project channel by that point.

I’m a newbie, technically, maybe not quite, and I admire your ability, you’re really good!But I have some different opinions.Please forgive me.I’ve been at Bankless for 1 month, maybe I’m dumb and based on interest, I probably don’t pay much attention to other channels.Although I’m lost here, at least now I can see two paths.Maybe my comprehension is not good and I don’t last the last modified organization.If I can’t see the new found path, then I’m better off going the original way.

Although our discord needs some reorganizing, I think this is more confusing. Alphabetizing Guilds and Alphabetizing projects would help a lot. And if we could add colors to headers for those of us with ADHD, we could find what we’re looking for faster.


I love colour-coding everything, whenever possible. Or, breaking out of endlessness with visual discontinuity, somehow. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is possible in Discord right now?

Love the colors idea—each guild could have its own color. Can discord do that? That would help with quickly scrolling and finding channels!


Voted no because I agree with the comments that it will still be confusing for new members. But I love the ideas here and think with some revisions this proposal could really help our DAO! I recommend checking in with some talent scouts (I’m the writers guild talent scout, nice to meet you!) because we work with new members every single day. The @Talent Scout tag will summon us!


People who disagree with this proposal are not biased, nor do they prefer ‘eternal chaos & unending confusion’. From the comments you can see a desire to improve the organisation of the Discord for everyone’s benefit, but it seems that the overly complex approach taken in your proposal isn’t considered fit for purpose.
I support consistency in channel naming, intuitive sorting ( like groups together and alphabetical ), and descriptive labelling.
I don’t support machine-readable tags appended to channel names, systems that need an explainer session to understand, or polls that include subjective response options.
Thank you for your effort, but I’d love to see some more engagement with the feedback other than defensiveness.