Outline for Proposed DAO Reorg Working Edition (1st Edit 5/6/24)

gm gm!

I wanted to start discussing what a DAO reorg might look like, and I’ve outlined some preference below. I’m hopeful this can begin a conversation to move us forward. I’ll be stewarding this proposal, and putting up relevant votes on the Snapshot space for tlBANK holders as necessary rather than use the polling functions here.

I was going to write a longer proposal, but we don’t need any more words at this point; it’s time for action, and the outline serves as a more digestible template for change. I’m excited to get working on the guts of a new org. See you in the comments!

//

NOTES from 5/6/24: after speaking with a few folks (thanks Sam and others!), we would need a custom contract to enact the staking as envisioned in v1 of the proposal. We cannot afford these costs ($50k+ ez), so to start, we’ll need to strike the contractual staking but instead can use social staking via shared Notion page or some other database. Not ideal, but better than not having a nomination process for Stewards and Contributors based on reputation. I made edits in bold or strikethrough.

Mission

  • Onboard people
  • Highlight DAO space

High-Level Overview

  • Need to move away from Bankless branding
  • Need new token
  • Need permissioned shell
  • Content creation
  • DAO experimentation
  • IRL Vibes

Membership/Org Structure

A. Governance/Membership

  • Two token/levels of decision making
  1. Full Membership (Stewards Council):
  • Soulbound token
  • PoH-verification
  • Non-monetary, no economic value
  • Social consensus of current Stewards
  • Need to have X amt of Contributor Token staked to maintain Full Membership
  • Stake to nominate new Full Members who hold X number of Contributor Token
    + Requires three (3) Full Members to stake (nominate) for Full Membership
    ++ Released after X epochs
  1. Contributor Membership
  • Requires staking nomination of one (1) Full Member
  • Requires X amt of Contributor Token
  • Requires Membership Working Group approval
  1. Rage quit function w/ auto treasury triggers for Full Members

  2. Links’ idea about PoolTogether-type Treasury (buy membership, earn yield on amt contributed)

II. Structure

DAO council

  • 13 members
    ~ Multisig + 6 at-large Stewards
  • Makes funding decisions
  • Provides seasonal roadmap for DAO
  • Dispute resolution
  • Weekly public meetings

Guilds

  • Stake to join, Hold X amount of Contributor Token to join, never funded, don’t produce anything, merely an association of members
  • Based on skill sets
  • Open to all
    ~ Writers
    ~ Design
    ~ A/V
    ~ Marketing
    ~ Tooling
    ~ Translators

Trusted Departments

  • Only Stewards
    ~ Infrastructure
    ~ Security

Operational Departments

  • Open to Contributors
    ~ Treasury
    ~ Onboarding
    ++ Contributors
    ++ Partners

Content Workstreams

  • Written Content
  • Audio Content
  • Social Media
  • Community Call
  • Translation
  • Memetics
  • Events

How to Move Forward:

Working Groups

  • Branding
    ~Including new mission etc
  • Onboarding
    ~ Includes Membership screening

Transition Council

  • Responsible for:
    ~ Tooling
    ~ Treasury
    ~ Constitution revisions
    ~ 4-month term (aligned to current season length, Council term will end with the conclusion of Season 11 on Aug 19, 2024)
    ~ How elected?
    ++ 3rd party nomination + Snapshot ratification of tlBANk holders (need majority), capped at 7

Compensation

  • Retro as agreed by DAO for Working Groups
  • .1 ETH per month per person for Transition Council

Thanks fren!
Cheers,
Hiro

16 Likes

Hot template ser. So, in my interpretation:

  • guild roles would be voluntary and honorary
  • department and content roles would be compensated (based on results?)
  • content creation could generate revenue
  • revenue generated would be directed x% to the DAO (to fund roles and build treasury) and y% to content creators
3 Likes

gm good ser! To answer:

I think I would get away from some of the old mindsets around revenue. Revenue should be a byproduct of good work, but when it becomes the pursuit, as the DAO showed (and many have showed), it doesn’t work, not now anyway.

With that:

  1. Guild roles would not be compensated i.e. receive none of the new token for disbursement. Civic orgs rarely pay their ranks.
  2. IMO departments should receive funding b/c their operation is critical to structural well being. I would imagine a similar model to the Transition Council where it’s a smol ETH payment for some core contributors on a regular basis. Content streams would be seeded with Contributor Tokens. Perhaps there is a place for RPGF there.
  3. content creation could generate revenue
  4. that rev would go to the DAO and the creators, yes.

BUT, paradoxically, I don’t think trying to build contributor sustainability into the model is sustainable. If revenue comes, great. But I wouldn’t lead with it as a purpose or goal.

4 Likes

Thanks for taking the time to try to knit us back together Hiro.

The way I see it, we have lost the attention necessary to make our organization be successful, for not just one reason, but many.

We do need something akin to a big shake-up and visible public launch in order to gather back the attention of interested parties. Once this attention has been gathered, it will be up to the DAO to direct this energy into productive avenues.

I’m not much of an org builder but love to watch and learn. I think if we setup as Hiro proposes and focus on establishing a game within the DAO to keep contributors active and interested, then there is plenty of opportunity to do something great.

I think we all want/wanted to make an impact when we joined the space. The DAO should be a lens, focusing the core ideas of each individual member through the energetic contributions of all members. If this structure can get us there, then I am fully on board.

tom

2 Likes

Are these workstreams different from the guilds

Will the election criteria for the 6 stewards be the same as that for the transition council.

1 Like

Gm Hiro,

I appreciate the effort you’ve put into this proposal. I’ll miss saying “Gm bDAO.” But I’m sure there are solid reasons for transitioning away from the Bankless brand.

Your proposal’s awesome. I’m hopeful that your execution is as good as your writing. It’s crucial to move from discussion to action, as this is the only way to validate our ideas. Do we have an action plan yet?

As a way to identify full membership, contributor membership, and new DAO members, I support the idea of using retroactive compensation, RPGF incentive mechanisms.

One aspect of Web3 that I find compelling is the freedom to experiment with novel concepts. I’ve only been in bDAO. I’m not sure if other DAOs like FWB or NounsDAO have set best practices for setting up DAOs. Either way, I’m in for the long haul. I’m eager to contribute wherever I can to our collective success.

My two cents.

1 Like

Thanks for the thoughtful note Tom. TBH, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to recreate the energy we once had, but we also don’t need to and shouldn’t try to. We just need to build a home for like-minded people to do good, meaningful work, with our face in the wind, boldly looking to the future.

Faulkner once wrote that “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” And while that’s true, living in the past and attempting to recreate it is a doomed mission. Better to think about what we can do than what we could have done.

4 Likes

Yes, which is why they are not listed under Guilds. My opinion has always been that Guilds and Departments should never do ‘work’, as that is the provenance of Projects. In this new iteration, you could consider Content Worksteams to be Projects, in that they are made up of contributors from Guilds and Departments united to do common work. I just don’t think the name 'Project" is very useful to describe what’s being done. Would rather think of the Social Media Workstream than Social Media Project.

Good question, I see I left that undefined. My preference is definitely for 3rd party nomination, majority of tlBANK holders confirm or deny. So yes, same basic mechanism.

1 Like

gm sianjon! I def hear you on having to relearn how to relate to the organization, including saying bDAO or Bankless, words I have literally typed thousands of times.

No surprise, I deeply believe we have to move away from all things ‘Bankless’, even if many of us have real emotional attachment to movement that took its name. For a time, the Bankless brand provided a great tent under which to do important work, but that tent is not longer available to us, and TBH, I’m very happy for that. Under different circumstances perhaps I’d be more remiss, but given the last six months (and for a long time before that) I’m much more interested in constructing a smaller tent outside of which we can hoist our flag and be truly independent, free in ethos and spirit.

I appreciate the nice words about writing and execution, but this is not something I can execute alone. I can reply and post and offer opinions, but as always it’s the people in the org who will determine its fate.

you’re looking at it ser. I would like to take a full seven days for feedback, and then begin posting polls to the Snapshot Space at the end of this week.

1 Like

Okay this is cool. Lets ride on this. Great work @hirokennelly.

2 Likes

Is there a reason to have guilds?

I’m not in touch with a good reason, when they should likely be a project?

Thinking out loud on this.

3 Likes

Nothing that couldn’t be accomplished in a general channel tbh; it’s really about shared interests and vibing. But there probably aren’t enough folks left to justify it. Could always do it later.

I do wonder the same abt Depts, as those could just become workstreams too. Workstreams could have some basic criteria for admittance.

Would note that it sounds like we can do staking with Hats (need to learn more and update post), so i do like the incentive aligment staking in Guilds provides, but perhaps the same could just be done for workstream channel access.

Links expressed concerns about too much structure at the recent gov meeting, so getting rid of Guilds and Depts for now could streamline org structure.

4 Likes

Hi Fam
i miss reading all the proposals in the forum, we have been very quiet. As part of this evolution, abandoning the Bankless brands it’s something that we are doing, we are creating a protoDAO called Be-DAO, that will allow itself Nación Bankless, inside our beloved ex BanklessDAO for the “Brand New DAO”.
Just an update, but i’m not sure were we are going to live, we are acting not only as translators, we are like a mini DAO that its evolving in their own content, application and budget. Are we going to be living in wich category haha, like the Guild/Department/Project. I’m a little confused.

2 Likes

gm ser! It’s a great question, and one that I wasn’t really sure when to address and was waiting for someone to bring up. If Bankless branding is gone, then you really don’t have a great home for ongoing orgs like the various subDAOs and Nodes that carry the Bankless name.

That said, you may not want to fully abandon our legacy, so one idea would be to create a Bankless channel w/in the new Discord to have a container for things that are bDAO.

As for your work good ser, I’d look at it as a partnership. We wouldn’t share branding or funding; rather we are mission-aligned humans doing similar work and play (assuming we end up keeping the onboarding and DAO focus outlined in the Proposal) so a partnership would be natural fit and that would give you a channel in Discord to have as a point of contact.

1 Like

Hey Hiro, this is great. A plan is coming together!

I have a couple of questions that have no bearing on my opinion of agreement or disagreement because I like this and I am happy that there’s a plan so I’m all for that. I just want to know. :slight_smile:

This is fancy!!!

What happens to the ‘old’ bank token? Not regarding this soul bound token (which sounds like a reputation type thing to me which I can co-sign onto this idea 100
Percent)

Is there the tlBANk path for that token, or

Is V2 token is created could you potentially create an LP pool for bank/V2 so perhaps people don’t think it’s “abandoned” (do people think it’s abandoned? I really don’t know)

What does this mean?

What does this mean?

What would the screening entail?

RE: membership/council/so on, perhaps you guys can enlist some of the farcaster DEGEN tooling that is bopping around. Vocodoni comes to mind here… maybe?

I believe the meeting times are 3pm est which now makes it next to impossible for me to join, but it sounds like this is going in the right direction. Right on guys.

1 Like

gm homie! Thanks for the questions.

Up for us to decide, but I’d imagine a burn of old token and drop of new token to current holders. Do think token should live on an L2 as well.

There would be a staking component to it, yep.

BANK liquidity would migrate to new token, so no. Also BANK and new token would be wayyyyyy too volatile for token pair.

re: DAO experimentation, could be governance, tokenomics, org design, whatever

re: PoH-verification, Proof of Humanity or some other type of system that ties a wallet to a human. Tons of protocols for this.

What does this mean?

I think a layer between token acquisition and full membership is super important to keep out grifters, scammers, and assholes. Process TBD, but could be as simple as vouching/staking + a general ok from the group, could be something much more complex. But to start, the more simple the better.

1 Like

Yeah, Could you imagine! lol.

I’ll have to follow how this works. It doesn’t seem like something I’ve ever experienced before.

This will likely be something developed by the council and iterated on as you go thru seasons,