The move towards DAO 2 DAO trading is surely inevitable
I am excited to try to contribute to the move towards DAO 2 DAO trading, in both directions. Firstly, Representatives from other DAOs coming to present their wares to bDAO. And then bDAO Ambassadors going out to other DAOs to explain bDAO services and products to them. As one with an engineering persuasion, I look at these flows, and am aware that every DAO is open to enquiry, from anyone who has walked through the front door.
I see the likes of dYdX and UniSwap offering grants, where they are seeking more talent with different skills so as to grow faster. Some day bDAO might reach that position.
But I am very often confounded in DAOs by the human agreement processes, the cat herding needed.
Complication factors make internal agreement difficult, Darwinian competition may prevail
It seems to me there are a good number of complication factors at work here. So I propose to list them, and then make a proposal at the end about how this might work across Bankless.
High interest levels
I have checked back to the beginning of September, and made a note of all those who tagged me directly about the subject. A lot of people spoke up, at least ten, and no doubt there are others I didn’t speak to. But I am tagging all those I spoke to, with the intent to try and get agreement on at least an initial point.
Is professionalism needed right away?
In one sense, I view this as a Web 2 concern, very often used to raise barriers to contribution and access. In Web 3, I think we seriously need talent, and such talent can work at different levels. What these levels are can be determined, but spotting and referring an opportunity should not be prevented because converting the opportunity is a higher skill set but not present
Is centralisation always wrong?
As my wise friend @links has pointed out, a single solution will bring more consistency and harmony to bDAO working practice. But other factors at play may mean a single solution is harder to achieve, at least at first, and may not be possible the first time round. Equally, different guilds do have different working practices. What works for Research Guild may not work for Project Management Guild.
Do bDAO need CRM involved?
Customer Relationship Management is a Web 2 term that still applies in Web 3. If bDAO are to trade with other DAOs, there must be a means of doing so. Traditionally, a CRM logs a customer contact name and details, logs discussion details, and may even suggest next action points and dates. There are certainly also internal contact points as well, to allow a smooth “handover” between host organisation members. bDAO have not quite got to that point yet. Equally, a contact register is still needed for the converse situation, where partner DAOs visit bDAO, pitch to bDAO, the pitch is stored digitally for future reference and perhaps future use. It may be bDAO feel a better pitch can be constructed, so the pitcher can become a prospect instead.
Can DAOs handle arriviste new members?
Some members may arrive in a DAO with different life and project experiences, and may find the recipient working group, project, guild or even the whole DAO hostile to “new” ideas. How can established DAO members be willing to listen, willing to examine their own experience, and willing to embrace change even if suggested by someone else, someone new? This needs to be a balanced discussion, if at all possible.
Can DAOs manage establishment intransigence?"
Some folks are just rather unbending when it comes to group situations, and it’s their road or the high road. This can mean compromise / blended / richer solutions become very difficult, or even impossible. In this situation, more typically, a single way forward will not be possible, and multiple ways forward will become a necessity.
Does bDAO have a process for arriving at compromise answers in short order?
As I’m writing, and what I have seen, of course limited by personal circumstance, I don’t see a differences resolution process, a standard way to negotiate beyond individual skills in that discipline. bDAO do have an ombudsman process, but that feels too late, because disagreement has already taken place, and sides already taken, that I’v seen.
Do proposed Grant Seeker processes already exist?
Again as I’m writing, I have submitted one flow process, and @senad.eth has suggested a role structure with division of proceeds. These might work together. Some folk have expressed concerns about these processes, but I haven’t as yet seen alternatives. And of course Daolationships already have a CRM in use, and have done for maybe 12 months.
Commitment and commitments
A big concern is the number of folk saying they don’t quite have the time to support the agreement and design process, despite having strong views about what is needed. I am no better, having had to step back from the cacophony and chaos of Discord to even get to this much clarity, for which sincere apologies.
So what is the way forward?
Submit one or more proposals, folk and Guilds can choose which to follow
The complexity in evidence suggests Guilds may need to go it alone with Grant Seeking at first. So where folk feel strongly about one route or another, then proposals should be put forward, perhaps on a Guild by Guild basis. I believe currently Research Guild are perhaps more advanced in their design discussions, but it will matter to have Daolationships involved as well. And as @Grendel has noted, other guilds are also involved and interested. For observer guilds, there are then choices they can make about which path they prefer to follow. If voting takes place on a Guild by Guild basis, that might offer consensus at least at Guild level, and then each guild can move forward.
So what choices are needed by a Guild?
I suggest there are three choices to make.
Where strong feelings are in evidence, and resource is willing to take part, then a proposal can be constructed, which can be shared with other guilds.
If a guild feels a creating guild has a workable Grant Seeker process, they can choose that process and engage with the creating guild to absorb Grant seeking into their own processes.
If a proposal needs changing for certain features that are not catered for in a particular guild, they can take a copy of that proposal and modify it for their own purposes, creating their own audit trail.
What vote is needed here?
I think the choice is simply whether to head for a centralised approach, which could be longer, harder, and might not even be feasible, or a decentralised one, which may suffer from a lack of resource, but will probably deliver faster, and allow later choice by guilds following on. Perhaps there is also a blended option here that I can’t see, so I’d love to hear folks’ views to see whether a hybrid version might be possible.
Perhaps someone like @ernest_of_gaia could engineer an answer, and navigate the path or paths needed, I know they have strong abilities here.