Hey everyone
I’m excited about the engagement on this posr (and in general on forum, lol) despite crypto-winter and the bear market. Some of the most valuable contributions a community member can make is engaging in discourse, trying to solve a complex problem to come closer to the truth, as a community. This contributes to the process of building the organizational resilience we need in order to thrive as a community, during ups but also during downs!
GC Mandate & Compensation
Per bDAOs constitution, the GC is responsible for reviewing midseason funding requests. The GC had a strong focus on governance in S6. We had two weekly 1hr calls (one on Monday one one Tuesday) leading to very vibrant governance discussions. The impact was several proposals submitted to the DAO, including project & department funding templates, a project assessment framework, and a purpose-driven guild funding model (as alternative to member based guild funding).
The S5 GC cohort had the DAO-wide coordinape round to cover for governance procurement. Before Coordinape was games, this was a good way to receive recognition for governance related work. Given that DAO-wide Coordinape rounds aren’t conducted anymore, one could argue that the 100k ask by the GC was to somehow compensate for that. However, one can also argue we had less midseason grants request to review, so the S6 cohort workload must have been lower than in S5, hence why the 250k Coordinape could have been enough to compensate for that. On the other side we don’t have enough GC applicants, so the GC could need a raise to incentivise members to apply for positions. It seems to me that no matter how you turn it, there is no ideal solution. However, I think it’s clear that the S6 GC had no bad intention asking for more governance rights in form of BANK for the governance related work that has been done, especially given that DAO-wide coordinape rounds were paused.
Setting the GC up for success
What the S6 cohort may have missed along the way was to reevaluate whether asking for a 1-time funding is the best solution to account for the two-folded approach we had in S6. This is why I’m really glad @links started this discussion. Asking for a 1-time funding hasn’t really setup the next cohort for success but a raise in general maybe would have? I don’t know, only 28% of the members seem to support this.
Multi-Signers - Governance - Rights & Responsibilities
To also add my 2 BANK to the multi-signer discussion.
Most bDAO multi-signers aren’t active community members today. They may represent our values and the DAO IRL, however they don’t really serve the DAO as active community members. @Icedcool & @AboveAverageJoe are doing most of the work. Work, that’s supposed to be done by 7 people. This begs the question whether our mulit-signers are set up for success? Certain rights & responsibilities on the smart contract level shall define the roles of our multi-signers are thing and they should be active community members!
I consider multi-signers to be some sort of community leaders. They are able uphold the DAOs’ vision, they hold contributors accountable, they move consensus on-chain, they „ideally“ are a diverse set of people (as bDAO is very diverse), they could be geographically decentralized, so spread across the world. These folks are responsible for bDAOs core governing body and could give the community direction, help innovate, drive culture & value to the DAO. They are the guardians of our funds and the DAO. They ensure we have our stuff together on the core level, so all other organizational units can work properly and value-aligned. If a tree trunk suffers, its branches will suffer. Currently, bDAO suffers and over 50% of our signers are not here to help. I don’t imply causality, but there may be some correlation. Maybe people don’t feel led. Maybe people need a voice of faith in difficult times. Our signers could ensure the bankless values transcend over time. They have a track record and served the community in the past and they are ready to serve the community going forward.