From an very simple perspective - Contributors are adding value but the subjective value of work vs participation in the DAO as a community member need to be considered against the tokenomics of inflationary pressures inherent in compensation, the issuance impact, the impact to influence over the DAO via tokens etc. I like the split because it is a good balance for now between contribution, reward, influence and allows for further adjustments as the DAO and the broader macro economies evolve over time.
2 Likes
It was not very clear as to how the polls needed to be produced.
So thatâs a different issue for a different day. Clarity.
1 Like
Itâs a fact. We have a lot of BANK and hardly any stables. The only ways weâll have stables to pay out is with an injection (earning them or from investors), or if we sell BANK (not an option).
Note, we have had options of taking a loan against our BANK in the past, but that is a much more complicated scenario and could lead to loss and liability.
3 Likes
We could have 2 different opinions on a lot
I mean to say, we can currently reward people with these things because we have them in abundance. When we have an abundance of stables weâll be able to issue them as rewards too.
When do I think we will reach that phase? When income is greater than outgoings. We need to focus on building the treasury instead of depleting it.
Maybe time for another DAO sentiment survey @AshishG @Son ?
Let me put this another way. We have over one year of runway with paying BANK. We have far less than that in stables.
Whether thatâs a lot or a little in anyoneâs view is beside the point
2 Likes
If you follow the idea of disbursing stables to the people who are bringing value to the DAO: the DAO needs revenue, so people bringing value to the DAO are bringing in revenue. Therefore we should disburse stables to people who are bringing in revenue. But if they are bringing in stables already, they donât need the DAO to give them stables.
If we decide to disburse stables, contributors will be encouraged to seek internal revenue rather than external revenue. If we want more contributors to bring in external revenue, then we should not disburse stables.
Put another way, disbursing stables will cause the opposite of a flywheel (a walk square?)
If, instead, you want a virtuous cycle, we should make it easier to use the DAOâs resources (brand, talent, network) to make revenue. Contributors are then encouraged to seek revenue using the Bankless brand and both the DAO and the contributors profit.
4 Likes
- Exactly what resources are you referring to within these 3 categories?
- We donât require anyone who uses the DAOâs resources to give anything back and Guest passes are unlimited. How could it possibly be any easier than it is now?
- Do you really think it is a great idea for either the Bankless Brand that anyone be able to use the Bankless name? For instance if someone uses the Bankless Brand and ends up being the next SBF, wouldnât that hurt the other Bankless projects, and the Bankless brand itself?
But if this is the correct way, what is the DAO treasury to be used for? I think there is an underestimate of what is there (reports are only on ETH chain) additionally, Treasury Dept holdings arenât factored in.
Either way, we fund too much. If only necessary projects were funded, we would see where value is.
The DAO wouldnât need all of these Departments and Guilds with the right people.
@NFThinker what are the education programs that you are talking about?
Brand = the Bankless trademark and brand assets. This is a huge asset when used well.
Talent = people who come to BanklessDAO. Because of HQ we have one of the most talented and diverse set of new joiners of any DAO. If we learn to harness talent we will be doing it well indeed.
Network = all the Bankless people who trust other Bankless people. For instance, tapping into marketing Dept and newsletter project for reach. Tapping into Bankless Consulting for b2b leads and DAOlationships for d2d leads. BanklessDAO is also an exclusive club in many ways.
Most projects arenât really using the resources above to their best leverage. People donât have the knowledge or incentives to do it, so we have some work around unlocking the benefits of these resources.
No, I didnât say that at all. You are making incorrect assumptions about my position.
I think vetted projects by trusted contributors should be able to use the brand.
2 Likes
It is verifiably true by looking at the DAO treasury.
2 Likes
I donât doubt that you are right. This may be seen easier if the Treasury Dept would show an easily readable report. On all chains that included all positions
Easiest check of what is in the multisig is right here:
BanklessVault.eth
The BDAO Treasury reports are getting finalized, as DAO accounting is intensely difficult.
Iâm pretty sure they are close to being complete.
We need to focus on two things. Building the treasury, while retaining quality people who feel valued.
Valid Point. So the DAO could be used a spring board. If you will.
This is a novel thought. Thanks.
Thanks for starting this discussion @homie
Right now we donât have a sustainable flow of stables coming into the treasury to be able to afford paying folks in stables especially at the %s stated here. Iâd like to see a burnrate projection for each of the suggested %s to see our runway for each situation.
Also paying in stables has some legal implications which we might have to address first.
I like @CryptoReuMD 's idea in paying in LPs, but Iâd suggest these tokens be vested for a year atleast.
3 Likes
I want to get paid with stables, but i know we donât have a stable revenue stream yet.
3 Likes
Now this was the question that I hadnât thought of, but makes total sense!
I wonder what those implications would be.