[PROPOSAL] Convert Inactive L2 to Alumni

Title: Convert Inactive L2 to Alumni
Authors: links🏴
Squad: links🏴, brianl
Date: Dec 2, 2023


This proposal seeks agreement to convert L2 members who have not recently engaged in Discord to a status of Alumni members, without Discord administration privileges. In addition to addressing security considerations, this will also make it easier to distinguish current contributors from past contributors, which is important during DAO-wide conversations.


The BanklessDAO Constitution describes L2 Contributors as follows: “Level 2 Contributors (L2) are verified L1 Members who have also earned special recognition from their peers as valuable and committed members of the DAO.” Currently, the main benefits of L2 status is social recognition and additional Discord administration permissions (i.e. create/delete messages, create/delete channels, create/delete roles, and more).

The Constitution specifies how Members can gain L2 status, but not how they can lose it (except if they don’t maintain L1). It turns out that there are many L2 Contributors who no longer contribute to the DAO, but still have their L2 status. This is a problem, because it means there are many inactive L2 Contributors who have extended permissions in our Discord, which is a security risk.

The Idea: Use Discord Activity as a Metric to Prune Inactive L2s

Discord activity doesn’t actually prove you are contributing to the mission, BUT if a Member hasn’t engaged on Discord in a few months, there’s a high probability that they are no longer active. In short: if a Member doesn’t engage on Discord, it’s likely they are no longer contributing.

In fact, it turns out we have a TON of L2 Contributors who match this criteria. Some L2 Contributors have not posted on Discord for two whole years.

I did the math using the Ops Dept L2 Member List. Depending on the time frame….

  • If we count the last 3 months, 82 of 177 L2 Contributors are inactive
  • If we count the last 4 months, 72 of 177 L2 Contributors are inactive
  • If we count the last 6 months, 61 of 177 L2 Contributors are inactive


  1. Create a new “Alumni Contributor” role in Discord which doesn’t have administrative permissions.
  2. Based on the vote below, move inactive L2 Contributors from the L2 role to the Alumni Contributor role.

Alumni Contributor Role would have the following characteristics:

  • Must maintain L1 to retain Alumni role
  • You can either be L2 OR Alumni, not both

Success Metrics

  • # of people removed from L2 role (i.e. reduced security risk).

Useful Documents

POLL - Should we change inactive L2s to a new Alumni role?

  • Yes, change the L2 status to Alumni for Contributors who haven’t engaged in Discord in the last 3 months.
  • Yes, change the L2 status to Alumni for Contributors who haven’t engaged in Discord in the last 4 months.
  • Yes, change the L2 status to Alumni for Contributors who haven’t engaged in Discord in the last 6 months.
  • I don’t support this proposal (I will comment below).
0 voters

I would support the proposal if it is amended to include that alumni who reactivate can have l2 reinstated.


There should be some way to guarantee that the reactivated L2s actually wanna contribute and are not coming back for a short time. I’d say the standard process of L2 nominations should apply in this case which is aligned to signaling long term contributors.

@links will there be a separate bDIP after this proposal?


I understand why you would want this, but personally I think it would be better for the alumni to be encouraged to contribute to regain their L2 status. I think we need to direct all of our incentives toward contribution, and if we allow a “shortcut” for previous L2’s, it reduces their incentive to contribute in a meaningful way.

Yes. In general the L2 role needs to be updated, but this is only a partial update and a bDIP should be more than just this change IMHO


what’s the motivation, and is now the best time to do this?

I’d venture a guess to check out the L2 “nomination” process before dealing with inactives.

I don’t think the inactives solve the problem you’re looking to solve.

Solidify a new path for L2s first, then tweak the current L2s to adhere to the new L2 “format”

Just my thoughts.

1 Like

The motivation is to ensure that our social signals are up-to-date at BanklessDAO.

Unsure if this is the best time, but this is the time that I finished the analysis and proposal, so I posted it. Based on the votes, the DAO seems to agree so far.

The problem I am trying to solve is to ensure we don’t have unnecessary security risks on our Discord due to inactive contributors who have administrative access. I’m not sure how the L2 nomination criteria helps solve that problem - can you help me understand?

1 Like

While not foolproof you can sometimes gauge whether a person is going to be inactive by seeing how they set their intentions before hand.

Life gets in the way so even the most active person can have a moment where they are away. That’s why I say this isn’t foolproof.

But catching those who are truly consistent with their activities before hand could aid in solving this inactive situation before hand.

This gives a different angle to tackle security.

There are more than 9 members in the DAO.

As of this writing, 13/15 people who voted think we should Convert Inactive L2 to Alumni. That’s ~87%. I’m not saying 15 people is the DAO, I am saying that so far people seem to agree that it was worth my time to write the proposal.

1 Like

I’m all for this, except I think alumni should be an immutable and perpetual role. More of a badge of honor, even if you lose L1. We want people to wear the badge even if they have to sell or their wallet gets compromised.


I support this idea very much, but not the engagement lengths. Although consensus seems to be moving in the 3-month direction, it would be cleaner and more easily managed if this aligned with seasons.

@links I suggest an audit at the beginning of each season to change tags for anyone who hadn’t been active in the previous season.

If L2 expires after “x” months, we would need to do an audit every day.


lmao i did it again where i deleted a post rather than comment wtf lol. +1 to having the period fit seasons. and just to reiterate what i deleted, Alumni not the best term cuz that’s anyone who was in the DAO, but something honorific like Emeritus would be perfect for old L2s


So I understand and I am just trying to gather the thoughts around why this happened to exist at this point in time.

Thanks for the help

I like “emeritus” here. If nothing else “alumni” opens up a whole word-nerd debate about singular vs plural and gender.


The recent increase in scams makes this a perfect time to increase security. A likely threat here is an abandoned Discord account being compromised and used to post scams which appear to be from a trusted contributor.