The problem here is what I’ve stated above. You’ve now gotta fight the fact that your gov power has a price pegged to it. That’s been the case for a while. So how do you combat it. Ramp up the upskilling opportunities I figure.
Why not just do a new temp check add the provision for the scholarship and the statement surrounding this practice being sustainable?
+1 on creating a temp check on provisioning a scholarship for guests.
@homie Are you creating this temp check?
@homie I agree interviewing guest pass members could provide valuable insights. Feedback from guest pass members will be qualitative and directional without structure and scoring established before each interview.
How do you propose this research be conducted, and by whom? Once completed, how should this research be used to solve the problem of flawed Guest Pass mechanics today?
Sure. I can do that, wouldn’t hurt.
I love the vision, mission and purpose of banklessDAO. However since earlier this year I have a new-born and a demanding job at one of the MBB firms which makes it really hard for me to contribute / participate, at least for the next 6-12 months. Passing the proposal I’d feel left out, not being able to at least get a quick update on the projects that are close to my heart. I hope this explains the motivation behind my NO vote…
Question:
Temp Check on the scholarship or the entire redo of the temp check for guest pass?
I’m unaware of a Temp Check related to a scholarship program design that supports contributing members joining via Guest Pass.
I recommend starting with a Temp Check for scholarships, as it is a different model than the revision to the frequency and duration of today’s Guest Pass mechanic discussed here.
Fair idea indeed. Thanks.
The Guest Pass revision discussed here does not impact access to bDAO for active and inactive members holding 35k $BANK.
Is your expectation that inactive members not holding 35k $BANK should be granted access through Guest Pass for 6-12 months? If so, what incentive is for any member to have 35k $BANK?
This kind of hits the crux of my issue. I think Guest Pass has allowed access to all things DAO and L1 didn’t have much utility as a result. Rather than see guest pass time-limited, I’d rather see it reduced in access while L1/L2 are buffed in access.
For instance:
This change in incentives would allow guest pass access to discord while creating incentive to “move up” in our leveling system
Valid points. To manage guest access, enabling lifetime guest passes onchain would reduce the friction manual Discord role assignment creates today.
The process would be:
bDAO deploys a lifetime Guest Pass membership contract on an EVM network
bDAO would token-enable access (Guild is an option) in Discord for Guests who have a lifetime Guest Pass membership
Everyone is enabled to claim a lifetime Guest Pass from the contract. Guest email addresses should be captured in the claim process to enable bDAO to engage with Guests outside of Discord.
Once claimed, Guests would verify they hold a Guest Pass in Discord and be allowed access to channels and incentives approved by bDAO.
@links Is there a Temp Check for the incentive change to Guest Pass you’ve proposed?
If we reduced Guest Pass to be “you have access to the Discord”, then I don’t even think it needs to be on-chain. Instead of fiddling with on-chain guest passes, we could beef up on-chain L1/L2 (using tools like unlock protocol).
Why? Maintaining on-chain identities is work. It’s more fun (and therefore more sustainable) to put that work into making benefits for L1/L2 rather than into guest pass.
Great idea to capture emails! Does unlock help with this?
Lol, no. I literally introduced the idea two posts above… that being said I would be happy to introduce a temp check for this in September!
I’ve been waffling, but I’ve now decided to change my vote to disagree.
Guest pass as burning incentives.
In order to considerate having sone issuances and measure of guest passes we can do this token gated. Calling for an arbitrary number of 1 k and 50% burned for every member that owns a guest pass and make a little Pool of this other 50% to assure and grant a level 1 incentivized for the top guest passer.
This gamification of the guest passes could give us actually a correct and exact number of passes and also acrue value with this investigations.
I started in bDAO with a guest pass two years ago today. At that time, L1 membership would have cost me $3.5K in my currency, so it was not an option to purchase it. Therefore, I fully support giving people a chance to contribute their way to L1 membership.
A few points to consider in relation to the ‘contribute to earn membership’ pathway:
I do think there should be a time limit on it, but rather than one-size-fits-all we could think about the role Level 2 sponsors could play. For some time we were telling people who asked for their guest pass to be renewed to find an L2 who could vouch for their contribution to do that, however it wasn’t really a strong requirement. While it would be great to manage such a process onchain, even just getting a bit stricter and more strategic about progress reporting could be helpful.
Even with more flexible timeframes in place for those wanting to earn a membership, I think ultimately people still need to aim for L1 and therefore there should be a maximum guest timeframe - maybe 2 or 3 seasons (8 mths-1 year).
Maybe earning L1 membership doesn’t have to be done by having a particular amount of BANK. Could the DAO decide on 5 or 6 key tasks that once completed, are rewarded with a 40K tlBANK NFT? I’m just suggesting that we could create a number of different pathways to L1 membership which would enable membership without counting tokens.
Given the current state of play and the level of debate, maybe three months is not the expiry we want to begin with. We could consider expiry after 6 or 8 renewals instead and that would still be a big improvement.
After two years, I can say with deep conviction that the DAO needs more contributors who do good quality work; we need people who are reliable, consistent, and committed. Giving someone an adequate chance to demonstrate those qualities is in our best interest.
That said, the DAO does not owe anybody a living. Our mission is not to provide onramps to work in web3; it’s to help people adopt decentralized, permissionless, and censorship-resistant technology. While the 1 billion people line gets put out there a lot, this isn’t actually our goal and even if it was, we are not trying to get 1 billion people to join BanklessDAO.
The people we want to join BanklessDAO are those that can help create user-friendly onramps to web3. The reward for such contribution is governance rights. A person who repeatedly chooses to let those rights go in favour of the financial incentive is not aligned with the DAO’s mission. That doesn’t make them a bad person, or an unworthy person, but it does mean we don’t allow them to keep doing so indefinitely. We want roles, bounties, and a say in the direction of the DAO to go to people who will retain and enact their governance rights in return.
Yes yes yes yes yes
I agree with you. I can also concede to say that there should indeed be a time limit to guest pass (as a person who is fairly consistent with their renewals, no less)
As a person who I think is aligned with the DAO, I am curious on your opinion on why people have latched on to the 1 billion idea. I’ve said it. It’s been often thrown around, but (aside from what you’ve said about the mission) do you think the focus should be going forward?
I’m interested to see how this shapes up.