Member Based Funding bDIP 05 - minor

Title : bDIP 05 (Minor = Change; expands but remains compatible with the previous versions)[poll

Authors : Sprinklesforwinners, p8ul.eth, trewkat

Editors : links,

bDIP Summary:

The Funding section of the BanklessDAO Constitution states:

“Before new seasons begin, all previously funded guilds and projects must submit a funding proposal to the forum for the Grants Committee to review. Funding proposals that pass the Grants Committee review process are packaged together in a single seasonal budget Snapshot vote.”

However, the Constitution does not acknowledge the existence of departments; nor does it give any guidance on the criteria that guilds (or departments, by omission) are required to meet to “pass the Grants Committee review process”. The DAO currently uses member-based seasonal guild funding, a method of funding which was voted on in Season 5 and subsequently enacted in Season 6. That vote also ratified the need for departments to provide a detailed budget for seasonal funding.The Constitution should reflect this method of funding guilds and departments going forward.

In addition, the Constitution text should be further clarified to ensure the method for seeking seasonal and/or mid-season project funding is distinguished from that of funding guilds and departments.


  • The concept of member-based funding was first introduced during Season 3 in the Forum proposal: Guilds As Professional Associations: a new funding model.
  • In Season 4, the Team Taxonomy Forum post provided a refined definition of guilds and articulated the formation of departments as essential services. That Forum post suggested that guilds be funded based on active member numbers as defined by each guild, and that departments be funded based on itemized budget requests.
  • During Season 5, the Member-Based Guild Funding Forum post put forward the rationale and broad criteria for guilds to calculate active members.
  • Season 6 was the first season that used member-based funding. Guilds determined their own criteria for active membership and shared their criteria, calculation, and list of active members with the DAO on their Season 6 Forum posts.
  • The intention of enabling guilds to set their own formula and “show their work” was to do an analysis after the fact to see what criteria, if any, should be used when determining “active members”. The output from this analysis was then shared and voted on as seen below in the results of the Member-Based Guild Funding Retrospective.


The Member-Based Guild Funding Retrospective produced the following poll results:

What do you believe that time window for activity should be?:

  • 67% of the community voted for: 3 months (1 season).

Do you believe that meeting attendance should be counted as active membership?

  • 58% of the community voted for: No, meeting attendance alone should not be counted as active membership.

How do you think guilds should be tracking activity?

  • 68% of the community voted: That Guilds should track tasks/bounties/attendance to determine active members.

Proposed Update to the Seasonal Budgets section of the BanklessDAO Constitution & Community Handbook

The current Seasonal Budgets section under Funding states:

Before new seasons begin, all previously funded guilds and projects must submit a funding proposal to the forum for the Grants Committee to review. Funding proposals that pass the Grants Committee review process are packaged together in a single seasonal budget Snapshot vote. If this budget is approved then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget.

This bDIP proposes that the wording should be updated. Suggested new wording is in bold text but will not be bold in the document:

Seasonal Budgets

Before new seasons begin, all previously funded guilds and departments must submit a funding proposal to the Forum for the Grants Committee to review.

  • Guilds and Departments must submit a funding proposal which describes progress made the previous season as well as plans for the next season.
  • Guild funding proposals must include a list of active members, ensuring that active members have been calculated using the following agreed criteria:
    • The ‘activity window’ for active membership is one BanklessDAO season.
    • Active membership is not achieved solely through meeting attendance.
    • Guilds should track a combination of tasks / bounties / and attendance to determine active members.
  • Each guild’s seasonal funding will be calculated using the following formula:
    • 260,000 BANK (equivalent to 4 role x 5 hours x 13 weeks)
  • 13,000 BANK (Notion administrator role)
  • (# active members) x 10,000 BANK
    …up to a maximum of 1,000,000 BANK per guild
  • Department funding proposals must include a detailed accounting from the previous season and a detailed budget for the next season.

All active member calculations will be reviewed by the Grants Committee. Guilds must be able to produce the exact active member calculation criteria upon request by any Level 1 member of the DAO.

Funding proposals may have funding levels adjusted at the discretion of the Grants Committee. The guild and department funding proposals that pass the Grants Committee review process are packaged together in a single seasonal budget Snapshot vote. If this budget is approved then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget.

Previously funded projects are able to request additional funding on a seasonal basis but this does not form part of the seasonal guild and department funding process. Project teams (new or existing) should follow the process for a Grants Request as mentioned in the Formal Proposals section, including reaching the quorum set by Grants Committee as detailed in that section of the Constitution.

Next Steps

Through this bDIP, gain consensus to adjust the wording of the Constitution.

According to the current Constitution, the quorum for this governance update is 51 votes, and at least 70% approval in order for it to proceed to a Snapshot vote.

Do you agree to adjust the Seasonal Budgets section of the BanklessDAO Constitution to include seasonal budget review guidance for the grants committee?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Unfortunately when I was asked for input on this bDIP I was unaware that bDIP 04 had been posted so I included the text about departments to get them covered in the Constitution.
I don’t think the two bDIPs clash, but perhaps the focus of bDIP 04 just needs clarification - if it is purely about defining a department under the Org Units section, I don’t think there is an overlap.
What do others think?

Also, the bold text wasn’t put in bold when it was posted so ignore that part :laughing:

….soooo it feels like you are making a BIG change to project funding here, one which is not currently in practice at the DAO.

I am strongly in favour of ad-hoc project funding (as evidenced in the team taxonomy post), but I think if this passes, projects are going to be pretty passed.

Any projects have a view on this?

It’s come to attention that my post may be incorrect, so I’m replacing it with something more nuanced.

The current constitution, IMO, leaves the question on whether or not projects need forum consensus to the Grants Committee i.e. it’s up to the Grants Committee to decide whether or not they want to enforce forum quorum on projects. During the last 3 seasonal funding rounds (in which I was a Grants Committee member), we did NOT enforce this requirement. It’s true the constitution could be read differently (i.e. that it is REQUIRED that all projects get forum quorum already), but in practice, this requirement has not been enforced.

This bDIP will require that all projects get forum quorum for seasonal funding. I am FOR projects needing consensus every time they ask for funding. I just believe that we need to ease the DAO into it, because it is a change from what has been happening over the last year (or more).

1 Like

The alternative is that projects just post their budget, get …how many votes to pass? … and then get wrapped up in the seasonal snapshot. Was trying to separate that process from the seasonal funding for guilds and depts because that funding is somewhat guaranteed, pending amounts.
It already says in the Constitution that projects go through the grants request process. This just makes it clearer, in my opinion. What is the big change?

Also, why should a project team that perhaps in new or doesn’t need funding at the change of season have a completely different process for seeking funding than that of a project team who times their ask for the seasonal change?
The suggested wording simply clarifies that project budgets are assessed by Grants Committee, and may or may not be passed, whereas guild and dept budgets are reviewed with the intention of approving them each season.
There is a project assessment framework up for a vote on the Forum right now - are you suggesting that project budgets timed to coincide with the guild and dept seasonal funding should not have to go through that process of assessment by GC?

This issue deserves far more discussion upfront.

I’m not really suggesting anything, TBH, and I definitely not suggesting projects should not be assessed by the GC.

I’m simply saying this change could lead to many projects going unfunded if it’s strictly followed. In practice, projects are bundled in the seasonal snapshot which reduces their requirements for funding (because there are tight timelines and many other projects/depts/guilds also asking for funding).

I don’t agree with the above, I think it encourages projects to burn through their funding seasonally whether or not they need to…but a change like this could be pretty disruptive from projects pursuing our mission. I’d rather it was its own forum post for discussion.

Thank you for the updated version @Sprinklesforwinners and crew. This offers much more clarity! kudos!

What if someone disagrees that this is a minor change?

Is it ultimately the discretion of the multi-sig whether or not this goes to snapshot if passed?

  1. I completely disagree that any guild should be given a free pass on funding, without having proven it’s ability, time and again, to add value to the DAO.

As we have seen with the recent coordinape incident, we do not have sufficient anti sybil mechanisms in the DAO to guarantee that the current scope of active membership is not being gamed

Help me understand this please

TMK, projects that receive seasonal budgets are not required to be voted on. The projects that receive seasonal funding do not submit budget proposals. They submit budget requests. Proposals = need a vote requests do not

This seems to be a constricting centralized loop. If only the multisig signers can post to snapshot, and to change the constitution requires a bDIP that eventually needs snapshot approval. Basically only (what 10 ppl) can change the constitution. These signers were voted in Snapshot based on this DAO Control of Treasury Multisig which states One month before the start of a season elections will be held to determine the multisig wallet holders for the upcoming season has this ever been done?

1 Like

If I understand correctly, you are only now disagreeing with the text of the proposal that you decided was ready to post. You asked for my input, and I made all my changes and additions as suggested edits. Did you not take the time to read and consider them?

This is a general reply to those who are objecting to the proposal on the grounds that previously funded projects should be included in the seasonal funding Snapshot after producing a budget ‘request’, as opposed to presenting a budget to Grants Committee and being assessed for the next round of their funding.

We have had discussions recently in the Community Call about ensuring that we allocate BANK in a sustainable way, and that we keep our ‘runway’ in mind when funding projects.

Prior to the Season 6 funding period, there was maximum confusion around what the process for project funding would be. Not one person responded with certainty to questions about whether Forum quorum would be required for project proposals to proceed to the seasonal Snapshot, and GC members said they were not responsible for vetting the proposals.

The Constitution text clearly says that Grants Committee is responsible for project funding.(* see below re bDIP 01)
This bDIP’s suggested wording simply clarifies the fact that projects are not the same as guilds and departments. This is not to say that guilds and departments get a free pass, but it has been generally accepted that as talent pools and operational units respectively, they should be funded, but that we look carefully at the level of funding required for each.
A project, in contrast, could well run its course or never fully get off the ground. Regardless of when they ask for more funding – whether it’s timed for the season change or not – a different level of scrutiny is required.

It’s my strong belief that having GC review project proposals once, when they are still an idea, and then if approved, funding that project every season based on a request, is a sure way to waste BANK.

This bDIP is aimed at articulating the process for all teams. It’s not introducing a new process; it’s clarifying the existing one.

*Post script: bDIP 01 already clarified the procedure under ‘Formal Proposals’ but did not go as far as articulating it in the ‘Seasonal Budgets’ section.

1 Like


You are not understanding this correctly. I am unsure the context that you derived this from.
I was pointing out that currently projects that receive seasonal funding are not required to be voted on prior to GC review process. Because they submit funding requests. Not funding proposals. This process is unclear as there are no directives on funding requests. This bDIP would correct that, which I agree with.

1 Like

Also, simply pointing out the constraints to this and any proposal that is required to go to snapshot.

I cannot vote for a bdip that does not use the template

Good point
@Sprinklesforwinners maybe this vote should be closed.
I’d like to split it into two anyway - one about the member-based funding description to be added to the Constitution and one about the more contentious issue of seasonal project funding.
Do you agree this one should be closed as it is not on the template?

1 Like

Good point. It is closed.