Hello @Eren - thanks for posting this! Glad to see our DAO’s social channels in the hands of our capable Marketing Dept.
I wanted to start a discussion about external marketing campaigns that the Marketing Department does for revenue. From what I understand, MD does these campaigns for external groups, uses the bDAO channels, and gives 10% of revenue back to the DAO (correct me if I am wrong on any of these points).
It seems like a natural extension for the MD to do these types of campaigns, but I have some concerns on which I’d love your thoughts:
- Marketing Department “has the keys” to many shared DAO resources (social channels), and is using those shared resources for revenue, but 90% of that revenue is not shared with the DAO. Do you think that this is appropriate?
- note that the key difference between MD and a project like Bankless Publishing is that MD is using shared DAO resources to make that revenue, while BP uses its own marketing channels
- As a consequence of the above, are MD contributors incentivized to run paid campaigns versus mission-based campaigns?
- For example, I was privy to a disagreement this season between MD and Gitcoin Grant recipients, where MD expected to pocket 100% of matching funds from Gitcoin. Should MD be charging DAO members for access to shared DAO resources?
Of course in an ideal world contributors should be paid for their efforts, but Marketing Department also has a unique position in that the DAO social channels are most easily usable to drive revenue generation. No other department has this resource to drive revenue.
I bring this up not because I think that MD did anything wrong, but because I believe that we need to have this discussion as a DAO. Only by having this tough conversation can we really grow as a “network state”.
Thanks again for all your hard work, MD! You are seen and appreciated!