[Temp Check] Season 3

I Believe we are still in a phase were it makes sense to spend alot to grow quickly however i also think its important to start making sure that projects deliver before recieving new funding. Do we have clear milestones for our projects to evaluate this on, or should this maybe be included in the new season? We should imo think about allocating part of the funding after milestones have been achieved instead of upfront. It might even be time to start evaluating if we are funding projects that dont seem to deliver the hoped for value?

When it comes to how the DAO should allocate recources effectively in general my view is that we have 2 types of projects. Nr 1 is our finacial leg, funding here should go to projects were we have the best risk/reward ROI, Nr 2 are mission driven projects that cater to the onboarding 1B ppl, here money should be allocated to projects that in the fastest way onboard the largest amount of people while spending the least amount of money. Most of the time project type Nr 1 cater to the existing crypto community and contribute very little or nothing to the mission apart from bringing in the cockie dough (obviously very imortant). In all the complexity around these questions its important imo that we constantly work towards allocating funding as optimal as possible along those two main lines.


Great overview, thank you! Quick thoughts from me in the order of the topics raised.

The current membership threshold stands at 35,000 BANK to join the Discord. We have the option to increase, decrease, or keep the existing threshold in Season 3.

I voted for keeping the threshold the same. As someone who was able to start 2 projects, receive GC funding and contribute to a number of other projects all while being on Guest Pass, I believe we already have a great framework in place for newcomer experience to not depend on how much BANK they hold. If they want to participate — they participate. Coordinape round is the only example of something they’d potentially miss out on that I can think of. But one could argue that it only motivates teammates to throw bounties at that person to elevate them as soon as possible. I’ve been collaborating with some Guest Pass holders recently that I’d call the driving force of this DAO without hesitation. And naturally, they became L1 in no time.

That was against decreasing the threshold ^. Now, I wouldn’t increase it either since - as we all know - BANK is set to explode sooner than later, making 35,000 BANK reflective of this risk/reward balance shift that’s worth paying premium for from investor perspective. I don’t see the need to multiply that by increasing the BANK number.

Whale: 100,000 BANK (lowered from 150K)

Arming myself with the definition of Whale as someone capable of affecting the market price by shifting liquidity balance substantially, I voted for Whale threshold increase. I don’t believe moving 100,000 BANK around would make a dramatic difference in the near future, and this will be true to a higher degree long-term. I think calling someone a Whale should go with increased responsibility semantics VS being a cool meme.

Note that we don’t have a framework in mind for capping funding if we go with flexible budgets. This would be a fairly radical experiment to see how we, as a DAO, request funding when we are not resource-constrained.

The grants committee has distributed over 90% of its budget in S2. It’s worth noting that most projects have been funded in Season 2 and will qualify for S3 direct funding.

  • Increase Guild Funding (>5M BANK)
  • Keep Guild Funding Unchanged (5M BANK)
  • Transition to Flexible Funding
  • Decrease Guild Funding (<5M BANK)

In my experience, Grants Committee doesn’t have a solid expertise and evaluation framework to rely on when funding domain-specific or highly-technical projects. This would hit hard when combined with flexible budgeting, because now the last layer of protection against inefficient spending — the hard cap — is removed.

Nevertheless, I’m in favour of the flexible budget, however only if it goes along with increasing Guild funding and not increasing GC funding. Guilds would be encouraged to elect their own committees with enough expertise to evaluate project deliveries and asks, because their next season funding would be on stake essentially.

Grants Committee, in my opinion, should not do domain-specific evaluation without at least advice from a guild-level authority.

Additionally, Season 1 and 2 featured the hourly rate guideline at 1,000 BANK per hour. There have been multiple discussions around changing this figure.

I think we could also start thinking about the future model of funding that’s more crowdsourced VS being reliant on treasury 100%.

There is an opinion that we may run out of liquid capital unless we decrease hourly pay or something like that. And I think we can do better than that if we start thinking early enough. The DAO won’t run out of capital, it will be just transferred to contributors. This doesn’t necessarily make it illiquid, it just means that future projects can be crowdsourced, pumping capital back through the DAO value production engine and generating returns for everyone.

Though this would certainly require a more convincing plan for people to invest in, rather than current GC approach which lets us burn BANK here and there. So I’m totally on board with the plan to focus on leveraging our existing products as much as possible!


Got a few opinions:

Mathematically: Regarding the Level 1 membership threshold, we should not just look at the current price of BANK (~$3500 USD for Level 1) but the future cost of Level 1 membership as we increase the value of the DAO. People new to crypto can be priced out in the future if we aren’t flexible.

Socially: The current cost of entry is already steep for those just getting their feet wet in crypto, and is really priced for the crypto natives looking for a good DAO to work for. I think lowering the Level 1 requirement to 10,000 BANK will solve this along with allowing people who want to contribute, to get up and running (and earning) faster.

Philosophically: We should also consider that if our goal is to onboard 1 billion people into crypto, and that’s why the BANK token has a maximum issuance of 1 billion tokens, then this will not be the last time we lower the cost of membership. Under the original spirit of the token’s creation, eventually 1 billion people should have a 1 BANK membership in the DAO and there should be no more whale level at that point.


there is a “secret good morning channel” created by yours truly LOL, not sure if it’s worth the 150,000 BANKs for most people.

But to me yeah, totally worth it :rofl:


I personally agree with the 10,000 $BANK, eventually.

I do agree with slowly lowering it over the seasons, to reduce volatility on the markets, and to let our liquidity programs take full effect first. So i voted 25,000 $BANK for now.

Previously I was one of those who wanted to increase the membership level 1 $BANK requirements, but then, the climate was different.

Today, I feel that we should as a DAO, we should become more accessible for more people. I have been trying to get many people up to level 1 member this season, but it is significantly harder than in the previous season.

So lowering it would really make my life easier. It’s not such a steep jump from guest pass to level 1.

Ultimately what we are trying to do is to get $BANKs as widely distributed as possible before we load up for the moon. And this is definitely something that is in line with what we want to do.

Finding the fine balance between exclusive and inclusive can be hard, but right now the needle should start to move towards the inclusive side: Like multi-language support, lowering barriers.

1 Like

Ultimately I always tell new joiners, it’s a crypto thing, you have to get “skin in the game”.

“Get your feet wet in the technology”.

Whatever you want to name it, but each of us must own this place as our home, for this thing to work.

And that really is a mindset shift. So is it really money that we spent to “buy a membership?”. Think again.


Thanks a lot for the work done @0x_Lucas.

I agree with all your observations. Moreover, I think that reducing the amount of BANKs required to step in the DAO and eliminating the guest passes coordinape rounds are reform that go together. As you eliminate a chance of earning BANKs but at the same time you make it easier to become a Level 1.

My only point of criticism is that we need to implement a mechanism to check whether a project really deserves to be refunded in the light of the achieved results. I would like to see some of the well funded projects creating some output (e.g. Academia, content-gater, workshops, etc.) before defining a new funding strategy.

In addition, I would work on some already funded projects that are struggling. For instance, our website - which is overall nice - looks really sad in this moment: https://www.bankless.community/

All the references are not updated… As I have tried to say in other occasions, I think that it is better to start from the simple things instead of creating THE disruptive technology in 3 months. This means focusing on things that do not look great and try to fix them.


Maybe a radical thought about guest pass → level 1 → level 2. What if we eliminated that? What if instead, we did guest → member?

Money has always been a sensitive issue for me. I never liked benefits and rank being tied to money because then you can always buy it when it’s not deserved. Level 1 and Level 2 assumes rank over other people. If we don’t even know anyone’s identity (except mine I guess since I use my full name and real picture), do you really care about a rank?

An alternative is just two roles. You’re either a guest or a member. Guests are unproven. They haven’t shown commitment to our mission or values. They must prove themselves through their production of value. You can’t buy that. Guests are encouraged to provide continuous value through working on projects, educating themselves on Bankless, BanklessDAO, and web3, getting to know members, and just all around being active. In order to become a member, a guest pass must be nominated and seconded. Nominations can come from anyone who has worked with the individual. Maybe in order to be eligible for a nomination, you need to complete X number of bounties or see 2 projects through from start to finish. I really like the idea of doing monthly ceremonies to welcome guests to member status. These people have shown they are committed to our mission and should be celebrated.

Once you’re a member, you get all benefits. That includes access to member perks, any cohort style knowledge shares, product releases like Sobol, etc. An exception to this is financial perks which I think come at a certain level? I don’t know what those are but I heard about them. Can’t find anything on Notion… Anyway, maybe that is “member+” or something.

My point is…eliminate the ability to buy rank. Create the opportunity to earn it.

A first thought after reading this might be, “If people don’t buy BANK to become level 1, that would hurt our treasury.” Maybe… Maybe not.


still don’t know much about the community, just keeping learning and thank you for your information.

1 Like

Thanks for all members’ contribution!

1 Like

I’m so exciting I can join in Bankless Dao , actually I always focus on Bankless DAO development and I vote every proposal. I think should rise the Bank price (value) is better than increase pay bank token !

1 Like

Very honoured to be one of BanklessDao member.

1 Like

Name suggestions:



That’s it. :relaxed:

Nothing here is concrete)

This is a good idea in theory, however in implementation, there might be many challenges.

The inherent thing about all things crypto is you either buy BTC at $10 or $50,000 or $500,000.

So either you have the social connections to be in BanklessDAO early or wait till a later stage and pay for a higher price to get in. The “membership” perks are mostly social as well, nothing much as a rank.

Level 2 contributor cannot be bought, but it’s a recognition for work done, with level 1 being a pre-requisite.

The skin in the game is important, so we cannot think of it as “buying” $BANKs, but rather buying some commitment to get involved and create value for the tokens that you hold.

What if you earn enough BANK for L1 but have to sell so you can pay your rent?

Personally I’d like to see contributor track separate from voting. I’d you have 35K BANK, you get to vote in snapshot. If you’ve ever earned 35K BANK, you’re an L1 contributor. If you get enough support, you’re L2.

What is the benefit of having ultra mega whales (wallets with > 1mm BANK)? It concentrates liquidity and voting power into a few wallets. My preference is to have many whales and as many level 1’s as possible with even maybe lower tiers for different regions. For example, in emerging market countries, the level 1 requirement could be 5k or 10k BANK. If anything, Bankless DAO should be creating incentives that optimize the distribution of wallets below the whale level.

I agree 100%. Having a basic boundary to make a separation from the “rest of the world” is important but once that’s achieved the levels are just confusing. I think it’s better to call the leaders and deeply engaged members other titles since it’s very easy to conflate a higher level with higher self worth.

1 Like

1000% agree @ManuelMaccou! Thank you for speaking up what I can’t express in words :yellow_heart:

1 Like

The main topic of discussion here is 35k bank increase, decrease or unchanged? As new as i am here less than a month learning through the ropes day by day i voted to keep the Bank at 35k. Only issue the early adopters were exchanging bank at 5cents for 35k bank membership then costed 1750usd. mid november when i was joining the community bank was retailing at 11cents then membership cost at 3850usd. Now in mid Dec Bank has hit highs of 22cents meaning membership would cost 7700usd. Hypothetical scenario here with all the projects banklessDAO undertaking the level of Bank can only appreciate in the mid to long run assuming end of season 3 or four bank at 1usd meaning membership would 35,000usd. what does that do to fresh talent and new ideas to keep the DAO strong they will be locked out we will have a Brain drain to other DAOs. A suggestion can we quote membership in USD i.e 1750, 2000, 3000 or whatever amount agreed to be exchanged at bank rate for new members at the time joining.

1 Like