I’m surprised that was in the constitution given that it was supposed to consolidate and not change our current governance rules, but there seem to be many changes.
Oh well. TBH it’s not far from the definition of “guild” that I put into the Team Taxonomy post 5 months ago when we started working on Member-based guild funding (before we had a definition of guild): Guilds are responsible for attracting, retaining, and upskilling talent, and nothing else.
Member-based guild funding wasn’t meant to be the end state of guild funding, just an incremental improvement. Guilds tracking active members create a framework upon which they can then “categorize” members based upon their skill level.
Personally I think it does help the DAO measure some of the other things you’ve mentioned because it has incentivized all guilds to start measuring their members.
Are guilds meant to be self-sovereign? I couldn’t find that anywhere in the constitution. Member-based guild funding has gone through several rounds of consensus, and is built on the idea that there is some part of guild funding that should be perpetually funded by BanklessDAO, because guilds are part of the DAO’s core infrastructure. I DO think that it would be good for guilds to be able to stand on their own, and that’s why there is a cap on guild funding in the member-based model.
The mission of BanklessDAO is to help the world go Bankless by creating user-friendly onramps for people to discover decentralized financial technologies through education, media, and culture. To me, simply by attracting members, guilds are helping us towards our mission.
Of course we can definitely refine this over time by understanding what kinds of members are being attracted and retained as you have suggested. # active members is just a starting point.
REALLY surprised to see you frame guild funding this way.
First, all grants are “free BANK”. So you’re saying that all the BANK you have received thus far has been “free”, but that’s not quite true, is it? You’ve worked hard for your BANK. You have created groups which are building infrastructure and products to help reach the world. Our guild members are doing the same.
Second, look around. Do you think the community calls, newsletters, infrastructure, social accounts, and various projects all came from nothing? No. They were built by our hardworking contributors, who were granted BANK as a reward. The BANK that has been granted thus far has created what you see, so it was not “free”.
I encourage you to continue iterating upon our funding mechanisms, and I see nothing in member-based funding which precludes any changes which you have mentioned. It’s just a starting point.
That being said, I do urge caution on adding a bunch of “rules”, and instead suggest thinking about aligning incentives. Rules can create a lot of overhead, and encourage a central authority. Incentives can be aligned with less overhead and centralization.
Sheep need rules, self-sovereign individuals thrive with incentives. Which kind of contributor would you like to attract?