Media Nodes Model for Applications/Leads, Verification, Benefits, and Accountability

That was my intention with the “Point of Contact” question. I’ll update it to clarify we need actual contact info, not just a name. Thanks for the feedback!

1 Like

I thought maybe getting a “referral fee” would be another option

I like referral code better.

Do you think the money to compensate Champions would come from the DAO treasury? Any thoughts on what fair compensation might be?

Yes. Perhaps 100 $BANK each?

Here is what I have drafted thus far to update to the committee verification and champion members:

Media Node Committee

  • The Media Node Committee is made of Champion members which will facilitate onboarding media node applicants.
  • Champion members are chosen based on nominations and voted upon.

Media Node Applies or a Bankless DAO member submits a lead

  • Media nodes submit an [application]
  • The application is added to the database of media nodes requiring verification
  • A Champion is assigned to the media node with the responsibility of facilitating onboarding the media node and collecting necessary info for verification.
  • The Media Node Committee is responsible for verifying and approving the applicant as a Bankless DAO media node with a simple majority vote.

How should the champion members be voted on?

I like it!

How should the champion members be voted on?

I think 75% of respondents in support in the first two days after nomination might be a good voting process. I don’t have any logic behind those numbers, except they felt reasonable.

We could have a genesis team member do an @ channel somewhere announcing the nomination and let people vote yes or no as emojis (e.g., :+1: or :-1:).

approving the applicant as a Bankless DAO media node with a simple majority vote.

I think a gut check poll in discord and then a snapshot vote to finalize it. They will be publicly associated with the Bankless DAO brand, so I think a formal vote is warranted.

The Champion can be responsible for writing up their findings from the verification process for the snapshot description.

A referral code sounds awesome. I’m going to add revenue from referrals to one of the DAO benefits/contributions to join. Obviously only if they have a paid service. I’m thinking of it as a donation to the bankless movement.

Yes. Perhaps 100 $BANK each?

I’m down for that.

If the price of BANK ever goes up substantial we’ll probably want to update the reward or peg it to a fix amount of stable coin (e.g., 10 DAI worth of BANK)

1 Like

Does the Bankless DAO have a clearly defined list of Values that we can point to in terms of verifying if a media node is violating the bankless values?
I like that slashing gets put to a vote but “bad behaviour” is an ambiguous term. It would be nice if we could point to a “constitution” of sorts to cast definitive judgment

Also I would like to add that we must ensure that Media nodes do not use the Bankless mantle to advance certain political or social causes. If the mission statement is to reach 1 billion people, then this movement has to be a non partisan movement. We can’t allow side issues to create schisms in the community. If a Bankless media node is using the platform to advance unrelated causes, or conflating them with the movement, then this should constitute “bad behaviour.”

1 Like

@Leemers We need to have a larger discussion about mission, vision, goal. You raise a good point. Luckily we won’t be enacting the media node process for some weeks. Plenty of time to narrow down the details.


Sounds like we have one of our first jobs for the writer’s guild!

1 Like

This makes sense, the DAO as a whole should get to decide if a media node is accepted. If ultimately the DAO should vote via snapshot, should approving the applicant follow the same process as approving a proposal?

Here is process for proposals:
Initially governance proposals will start as discussions in the #proposals channel or through ideas generated on community calls. From there, any good initial ideas and initiatives can be shown support by reacting to the message with an :fire: emoji along with an encompassing discussion.

If there’s a significant amount of support or discussions around the topic, the author(s) can draft up a more formalized spec. Once written, a moderator will open up a specific channel for that discussion, signaling, amends and more.

I think this process makes sense but with more reliance on the champion and committee to facilitate the initial steps after a media node applies. In the end though the information collected to verify the media node and make the decision needs to be documented and presented to the DAO much like a proposal so that the DAO is informed prior to going to a snapshot vote.

1 Like

That overall process sounds good to me!

I think for media nodes, it might make more sense to post in #media-nodes instead of #proposals. My thought process is that #media-nodes is to be a place where “…other DAOs or companies can make offers to the DAO for consideration.” It feels like getting a media node approved is more aligned with that than a proposal. I don’t have strong feelings though if the community prefers the initial vote to happen someplace else.

It sounds like the overall flow is application submitted → committee assigns a champion → champion verifies → champion submits to #proposals/#media-nodes/#someplace for a gut check yes/no poll → if the media-node receives sufficient support → genesis team moves the poll to snapshot to finalize.

1 Like

I think all the feedback so far has been worked into the google doc. I tried to update the main post to reflect the current iteration, but I don’t think I have the ability to edit it anymore.


Just read through the proposal and have some thoughts / input:

  1. What’s the goal for the poll on champion members? Get it done quick or get a represantive vote? Because two days seems quite short to get a lot of people involved. Also would the Champion need to introduce himself in some form before the vote?

  2. In terms of verification it might make sense to implemend a scoring model to judge on legitimacy or trustworthiness. This would lead to more objective decisions and might fasten the process. But it was just a quick thought and would need a deep dive as to figure out if it is possible to identify criteria which are comparable between different kind of nodes.
    Another idea would be to have at least two Champions who need to validate. But not sure if this is to resource-intensive.

  3. Validating reach: what about metrics like TAI or CPM, Number of followers, subsribers…i think every node that which is doing it as living will provide them in some form.

I suspect it would be a quick vote. Read here. Champions would be chosen by the people that are the most involved with media node management. People who are closest to the ground. Two champions per app could work too.

1 Like
  1. You make a good point. What if the process was updated to say a Champion has to volunteer with a blurb on the forum about why they’re applying and their qualifications and then the DAO would do a soft consensus vote with emojis with a five day voting period.

  2. Adding some objectivity to the verification process sounds great to me. I’ll keep it in mind when we’re working on the verification template and let you know so you can help or give feedback if you’d like.

  3. Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll try to work it into the application. Any suggestions on the best way to word that question?

Right now I’m leaning towards applications being submitted as posts on a forum and then there’s a five day voting period that’s open to DAO voting members. My reasoning is

  • The media nodes we accept will reflect on the DAO, and the Champions are the first line of defense to protect the DAO’s reputation. It would be good to know a little about the people doing that vetting and make sure everyone has a chance to read the application and voice their opinion.
  • From a long term perspective, it might be good if support of a current Champion isn’t required to apply. It can be a fail safe in case the committee gets corrupted and stops acting in the DAOs best interest. I have no reason to think that will happen, but it might be nice to have a lever to pull in a worst case scenario.
1 Like

I guess that’s true and in this case 2 days would be enough since people are involved and know they need to vote. And in combination with 2 champions risk for wrong behaviour is reduced.

Yes sure, keep me in the loop. Still trying to find a role so looking at different topics. I created a scoring modell within my master thesis. Maybe this could be adjusted.

Will think about it tonight if not too late already.

Overall, this proposal is very sound… An intro to “media nodes”, their role and purpose as it relates to engaging the community would be a good up front edition to the proposal. I am trying to unpack that in my mind, so if something clicks, I’ll make a suggestion. I really like that this is building a virtuous commercial relationship between Bankless and those members who become Media Nodes. I’m not on the discord yet, so I don’t have background, but I think the Web 2.0 analogy is affiliate programs… You do realize that if you build that, you would be disrupting a multi-billion dollar industry :). Just saying and yeah, i want to be a part of that, so if anyone has any influence on how to get Devin_S into the discord, I’d love to join a meeting of the minds as you initiate this program… I’d love to be Media Node 1 if I could or top 10… I have an aggressive growth plan myself and this provides a very ideal win/win support model, if I read it right.

1 Like

Solid. But one big Q…why are we giving away BANK (via staking)? Why Staking and not just instead burn it or add it directly to the treasury?

Why do we need to reward nodes with more BANK (via staking)? To me, the BANK that is needed to become a media node could be more of a ticket - and you need this ticket (BANK) in order to enter the DAO as a media node (you could possibly burn this BANK upon onboarding). I think the DAO can/should provide benefits that will justify the needed BANK to enter. I am just super conservative with spending BANK when we really might not need to. I guess I am just questioning the need to a “staking BANK feature” for nodes.

Thanks for the feedback! I think I might not have been clear enough about what I meant by staking. The idea is that the media node would have to provide 35k BANK to stake, either acquired on the open market or by completing bounties. That would not be provided by the DAO.

Moving this to archive as its in flight.