Use Treasury Yield to Fund IRL Events

[hirokennelly]

Saw this go up on the tlBANK Snapshot a few minutes ago and think we need a place to gather thoughts since to my knowledge the discussion to date has been limited to the community calls.

---

Title: Use Treasury Yield to Fund IRL Events
Proposal Champion(s): links
Date: Nov 1, 2024

Summary

We’ve created a new game to incentivize holding IRL community events. This game will rally the faithful, engage the community, and provide a new way to onboard people.

We request Black Flag DAO deposit 55,000 USDC and 20 WETH of unused treasury assets into no-loss PoolTogether v5 pools. This amount can be withdrawn permissionlessly at any time by the DAO, meaning there is no risk to the DAO. The yield from this will be used to fund IRL community events.

DAO members will get the right to decide which events may get funded. The DAO will also get voting tokens to decide which specific events get funded. Overall this initiative is intended to create some activity and engagement for the DAO, with monthly votes and IRL events.

---

Background

The Black Flag Initiative is a project aimed at fostering IRL connections. To do that we have created a mechanism to fund IRL community meetups sustainably:

1. There exist two PoolTogether pools on BASE which allow anyone to permissionlessly exchange USDC and WETH for voting tokens (and vice versa).
2. These two pools generate yield from AAVE
3. On a monthly basis, the yield is withdrawn and distributed to IRL events based on a Snapshot vote.

More information about the mechanism above can be found on our website: https://blackflagcollective.org/

---

The Ask

We request Black Flag DAO deposit 55,000 USDC and 20 WETH of unused treasury assets into no-loss PoolTogether v5 pools. This is approximately 22% of the total non-BANK treasury and 42% of the total usable treasury. At current rates this would provide approximately $250/month to fund IRL meetups.

It’s important to note that these rates are variable and could change month to month, but the deposited amount does NOT change, and can be withdrawn by the community at any time.

PoolTogether v5 pools have been audited and running for over 1 year with no exploits. They are drawing yield from AAVE, a battle-tested and trusted collateralized lending protocol.

---

What’s in it for the Community?

The biggest benefit to Black Flag DAO is that we are creating a new engagement mechanism for members. This will hopefully gather like-minded people and potentially give them a way to enter and contribute to Black Flag DAO.

In addition, Black Flag DAO members will gain the right to propose a new event to add to the list for funding. We will add some criteria for events to prevent abuse (ie must share pictures on social media, must be a recurring event, etc). The hope is this creates some incentive to join our cause.

In addition to the above, Black Flag DAO will immediately get voting tokens which it can use to vote on which events get funded. This is another community engagement mechanism and also allows the community to ensure the events that get funded follow the community ethos.

Finally - Phase 2 of the project will involve distributing Black Flag tokens on a monthly basis to all depositors, which will also be used in voting for events. These tokens will be distributed based upon time-weighted average balance (TWAB), and unlike the current voting tokens, will be distributable to the community. This will provide the community an additional asset to incentivize community behaviour.

---

Team

links - member of multisig, creator of , and seeker of freedom
Icedcool - member of multisig, stalwart community member

ps. thanks for the edits on this proposal from Trewkat

[hirokennelly]

Hi @links , Saw this, and thought we needed a home to discuss. A few things come to mind when i read the proposal:

1. What is the mechanism to withdraw the tokens? If tlBANK voters, what happens when tlBANK goes away as part of the transition?
2. Who would administer the process on voting on monthly events within the DAO?
3. It’s been challenging to assemble the multisig for action, what mechanisms are in place to ensure responsiveness to withdrawal requests? Should this wait until new multisig elections?
4. Who audited the v5 pools? Please don’t say CertiK.
5. Why is this better than Black Flag DAO doing their own initiative? What are the advantages to using Black Flag Collective for this purpose?
6. Even though the treasury funds are idle, the ask is very substantial. Does it make sense to begin with less, attach some KPIs, and then increase funding if initial targets are met?
7. How is success measured?
8. When is Phase 2 set to begin?
9. Why now? Seems to me this makes more sense after the transition is complete since we aren’t trying to attract new members atm, branding is set to change etc.
10. How many events has Black Flag Collective run to date?

@hirokennelly

In addition to the above, Black Flag DAO will immediately get voting tokens which it can use to vote on which events get funded. This is another community engagement mechanism and also allows the community to ensure the events that get funded follow the community ethos.

@hirokennelly

Finally - Phase 2 of the project will involve distributing Black Flag tokens on a monthly basis to all depositors, which will also be used in voting for events. These tokens will be distributed based upon time-weighted average balance (TWAB), and unlike the current voting tokens, will be distributable to the community. This will provide the community an additional asset to incentivize community behaviour.

11. Can you clarify the difference in the tokens the DAO would receive immediately v. the tokens the DAO would receive under Phase 2?
12. This sound like the Collective will issue a Black Flag token during Phase 2, is that right?

Wish we could have had this discussion here before the Snapshot went up ser, but we’re here now. Thanks links.

[links]

@hirokennelly

What is the mechanism to withdraw the tokens? If tlBANK voters, what happens when tlBANK goes away as part of the transition?

Not sure what you mean by this - I didn’t mention tlBANK in the proposal. If tlBANK goes away as there will be some other governance mechanism, so that can be used.

@hirokennelly

Who would administer the process on voting on monthly events within the DAO?

The monthly events would be voted on as part of this snapshot space: https://snapshot.box/#/s:black-flag.eth.

@hirokennelly

It’s been challenging to assemble the multisig for action, what mechanisms are in place to ensure responsiveness to withdrawal requests? Should this wait until new multisig elections?

If you want to wait for new multisig elections, feel free to do so, but I think what this DAO needs most is energy, not waiting.

@hirokennelly

Who audited the v5 pools? Please don’t say CertiK.

Sherlock, Code4rena, and 0xMacro

@hirokennelly

Why is this better than Black Flag DAO doing their own initiative? What are the advantages to using Black Flag Collective for this purpose?

Uh…this is honestly kind of confusing, I have been running this initiative within the DAO (at your urging), so I’m confused as to why you’re acting like I’m some 3rd party service provider.

I’ve been working on this for months, posting constant updates in Discord, at the Community Call, and even in your DMs. I created the Black Flag brand and gave it to the DAO when asked. I’ve done this without asking for any compensation, all in with the intention of creating some sort of initiative within this group.

@hirokennelly

Even though the treasury funds are idle, the ask is very substantial. Does it make sense to begin with less, attach some KPIs, and then increase funding if initial targets are met?

I don’t agree the ask is substantial. I’m not asking to consume treasury funds, I’m asking for the DAO to deposit funds and use the yield. This is sustainable.

There are literally no other projects going on within the DAO and a ton of treasury funds sitting unused - why not get yield and use it for an initiative? Also the DAO can remove the funds permissionlessly, so it feels like a pretty reasonable ask IMHO, but def willing to hear other points of view.

In terms of KPIs and staggered funding…there’s only so much you can do with limited funds. The funds I’m asking for will provide $250/month. That’s not a lot - it’s HOPEFULLY enough to get 5 monthly events interested in aligning themselves as Black Flag.

@hirokennelly

How is success measured?

I would measure it by how many Black Flag-aligned events are being run. How would you measure it?

@hirokennelly

When is Phase 2 set to begin?

There’s no set date on this. I need some help creating a token, but the PoolTogether contracts allow for tokens to be distributed using their UI (no coding required).

Do you want Phase 2 to happen very quickly? Howcome?

@hirokennelly

Why now? Seems to me this makes more sense after the transition is complete since we aren’t trying to attract new members atm, branding is set to change etc.

Why now? Because I’m ready now and I’m putting in the work to make something good happen for our community. It’s going to take time for me to get events signed on and figure out the mechanisms to get those IRL users on our Discord, why not start now?

Personally I feel the ethos of decentralization is served by empowering those who are willing to put in good work. I think making the Transition Council a dependency on this individual effort doesn’t add anything, in fact it just creates an unnecessary blocker.

In the best case, successes from both the Transition Council and this IRL initiative work together to create a virtuous cycle (ie IRL events create an onboarding mechanism, the TC member work puts those members to use).

@hirokennelly

How many events has Black Flag Collective run to date?

Starting August 2024, we have run 7 events:

• 2 events at ETH Toronto
• 3 monthly meetups
• 2 ad-hoc meetups (Ethereum movie and pizza night)

[links]

@hirokennelly

Can you clarify the difference in the tokens the DAO would receive immediately v. the tokens the DAO would receive under Phase 2?

The tokens the DAO receives immediately are in exchange for any deposits it makes and can be redeemed to get those deposits back. Those tokens get created automatically when you make a PoolTogether Vault. You can see the token if you search for “prize token” here: Cabana App. Since these tokens must be used to get the deposit back, it’s safest that they stay in the treasury.

Phase 2 tokens would also include time of deposit. So if Alice puts in 100 USDC for 2 months and Bob puts 200 USDC for one month, they would get the same amount of tokens at the end of the second month. These tokens would also have some voting weight (to be determined), and CAN be distributed to the community.

@hirokennelly

This sound like the Collective will issue a Black Flag token during Phase 2, is that right?

Yup we will issue a token during Phase 2 to recognize people who have been depositing for long amounts of time.

[hirokennelly]

Thanks for answering, links. Some of these questions I ofc know the answers to, but felt some greater awareness was warranted for other folks. Nonetheless, a few follow ups:

@links

Not sure what you mean by this - I didn’t mention tlBANK in the proposal. If tlBANK goes away as there will be some other governance mechanism, so that can be used.

I really mean what I said, how would withdrawals happen? The assumption is tlBANK since that is the forum you chose to seek authorization on. For example, would it be whatever token exists that confer governance rights to DAO members at the time? I think the answer is yes, but also realize rn for example we have two tokens which do that, ofc taking into account the funding restart forum post which places treasury disbursement authos within the tlBANK space.

@links

Uh…this is honestly kind of confusing, I have been running this initiative within the DAO (at your urging), so I’m confused as to why you’re acting like I’m some 3rd party service provider.

I’ve been working on this for months, posting constant updates in Discord, at the Community Call, and even in your DMs. I created the Black Flag brand and gave it to the DAO when asked. I’ve done this without asking for any compensation, all in with the intention of creating some sort of initiative within this group.

Truly curious to get your perspective here on Forum. I have a sense of what’s happening but that doesn’t mean people who aren’t at the CC or in your DMs do. Your answer seems defensive but not particularly informative as a response to my question. which is why? I could answer it for you tho, b/c you set up the infra to do it. That’s how i’d respond.

I also find the language about you giving the brand to the DAO sorta odd, especially given our convos around decentralization, and also highlights my discomfort with the name from day one and why I voted no for it. You feel like it was yours to give, which creates odd conflicts imo but is outside of this issue, mostly.

Finally, you’ve been talking about IRL events for a long time, but not about asking the DAO for a substantial, even if ‘permissionless’, investment in the Collective, and never in the detail described here.

@links

I don’t agree the ask is substantial. I’m not asking to consume treasury funds, I’m asking for the DAO to deposit funds and use the yield. This is sustainable.

There are literally no other projects going on within the DAO and a ton of treasury funds sitting unused - why not get yield and use it for an initiative? Also the DAO can remove the funds permissionlessly, so it feels like a pretty reasonable ask IMHO, but def willing to hear other points of view.

In terms of KPIs and staggered funding…there’s only so much you can do with limited funds. The funds I’m asking for will provide $250/month. That’s not a lot - it’s HOPEFULLY enough to get 5 monthly events interested in aligning themselves as Black Flag.

I think the amount is substantial, regardless of the ‘permissionlessness’ of the withdrawal mechanism. Cuz while it might be permissionless, it’s subject to administrative procedures, including voting and THEN getting the multisig to act.

It seems that understanding the mechanisms of withdrawal up front is super important. So would love to get clarification around how you see withdrawals taking place, either using the current tokens available or future tokens and what voting procedures would be appropriate.

@links

I would measure it by how many Black Flag-aligned events are being run. How would you measure it?

If the stated purpose is to bring excitement and energy, I’d measure it by both attendance AND, perhaps more importantly, how many new members join Discord , and how many members are active in the /blackflag Discord channel.

@links

There’s no set date on this. I need some help creating a token, but the PoolTogether contracts allow for tokens to be distributed using their UI (no coding required).

Do you want Phase 2 to happen very quickly? Howcome?

No opinion tbh, but it it’s this confusion I worry about which is why I voted no on the TC to adopt the Black Flag name. I would imagine at some point this community chooses to launch a token, and then there are two Black Flag tokens. Maybe it doesn’t really matter, but it’s sorta hitting that uncomfortable spot for me.

---

I really don’t understand why this didn’t make it to Forum first, can you help me understand why it went straight to tlBANK Snapshot?

---

Final note, it’s hard for me to overlook that you and @Icedcool are multisig signers at the DAO, and the only signers at the collective. I’m curious if you’ll recuse yourself from the multisig transaction if the tlBANK vote passes, since it does appear to be a conflict, even if it’s not intended to be that way. Or maybe if not a recuse b/c you need quorum, a no and yes vote would be appropriate.

[Trewkat]

@hirokennelly

ps. thanks for the edits on this proposal from Trewkat

This line in the Snapshot posted by @links gives the impression that I edited / provided feedback to the point of endorsement, but that’s not the case.

1. I thought I was giving feedback on a proposal intended for the Forum.
2. In my opinion, the discussion was half way through i.e. not at all resolved.

I think this is a good idea, but as I indicated in the feedback I provided, I think the timing is premature.
@links: I believe that posting it now, directly to Snapshot, is a signal that you don’t see much value in what the Transition Council is working towards. The proposal specifies that members of Black Flag DAO can propose events - we don’t yet know what the membership requirements will be. Similarly, the proposal says the DAO will receive voting tokens, but until we have a new governance process in place we have no way of enabling members to inform the DAO’s vote.

I echo @hirokennelly’s comments about the Black Flag name - it seems on the one hand you were actively campaigning that this would be a good name for the DAO to adopt and once it happened you only then claimed the right to give it to the DAO. I acknowledge and admire the effort you have put in to creating a community around the Black Flag but had I known it would end up feeling like two competing entities I probably would have voted against that name for the DAO too.

I see decentralisation as working together to find shared goals; it seems to me links that you see it as doing what you want to do as the first step, thereby forcing others into a binary choice.
I’ll be voting no on the Snapshot for that reason, but would be happy to revisit the idea in future.

[brianl]

Was there a (public) conversation about this anywhere prior to the snapshot vote getting posted? There are still questions about the mechanism itself but the vote is well underway. I think this should have happened the other way around.

[brianl]

I don’t think the timing is right for this proposal, coming just as the TC is spinning back up after it was paused by the challenge to its authority. That is settled now and we should see where we are headed as a DAO now.

I think we should be generating some yield with the funds we have now, but I think the opportunity presented by funding IRL events is small. This is a global, on-chain, online community. We should focus effort and resources to online initiatives.

[links]

@hirokennelly

I really mean what I said, how would withdrawals happen? The assumption is tlBANK since that is the forum you chose to seek authorization on. For example, would it be whatever token exists that confer governance rights to DAO members at the time? I think the answer is yes

Yes! Whatever governance process is in use at the time would be used.

@hirokennelly

which is why? I could answer it for you tho, b/c you set up the infra to do it.

Ah yes, thanks! Because I set up the infra and it’s ready to go.

@hirokennelly

I really don’t understand why this didn’t make it to Forum first, can you help me understand why it went straight to tlBANK Snapshot?

I put it up on the tlBANK snapshot space because I wanted to move forward and as a tlBANK holder I’m able to post proposals to that space. There’s no requirement for a forum post so I didn’t do one.

I see now that there are a lot of questions around it, and I could reduce those questions via a forum post.

@hirokennelly

I’m curious if you’ll recuse yourself from the multisig transaction if the tlBANK vote passes, since it does appear to be a conflict

Given that the community is checking the proposal before it gets to the multisig, and that we have trouble reaching quorum, I wasn’t planning on recusing myself.

So far we havent had any multisigner recuse themselves. We run a monthly tx where multiple multisigners are reimbursed for paying SaaS for the DAO and none of them recuse themselves. I also executed an update to the tlBANK snapshot space based on a new member proposal (Humpty). Some members also signed on the OP disbursals that they were named on.

Personally I don’t think these are an issue, but if you think recusal is necessary then we can have a discussion about it. I’d be wary of halting DAO progress tho - it’s already pretty hard to get tx signed.

@Trewkat

This line in the Snapshot posted by @links gives the impression that I edited / provided feedback to the point of endorsement, but that’s not the case.

Sorry - my intent was to give credit not to infer support. I can see how people would think the latter. I’ll try harder in the future to avoid this.

@Trewkat

I believe that posting it now, directly to Snapshot, is a signal that you don’t see much value in what the Transition Council is working towards.

That was not my intention - I feel I’ve been pretty supportive of the TC and will now publicly state that I do see value in what the TC is working on.

[Rowan]

Thank you @hirokennelly for initiating additional discussion on this topic as I agree it’s necessary.

I agree with @links in that he was following procedures established for our current state of transition and I think this highlights the need to revise those going forward. Though posts to the forum add time to any governance decision, it’s what we’ve relied on historically to ensure arguments for or against can be shared.

This proposal has also highlighted an important consideration for the staking and allocation of corresponding yield: What measures would be necessary in the future in order to unstake any assets for use by another initiative in the DAO? It’s easy to pull assets out of a staking protocol but the required governance actions or thresholds are unclear and should be identified prior to financially empowering an initiative like this, effectively indefinitely.

While I support @links and his action-bias to promote activity in this community during our state of transition, I don’t feel irl events are a meaningful use of yield on our assets at this time. I would echo what @brianl said above:

@brianl

I think we should be generating some yield with the funds we have now, but I think the opportunity presented by funding IRL events is small. This is a global, on-chain, online community. We should focus effort and resources to online initiatives.

Beyond this, the Transition Council (TC) has recently identified the need for funds to complete its tasks as outlined in the recent BANK snapshot vote to ratify TC authority. Given the limited yield we might realize on our assets that are currently staked, I strongly believe that any additional staking of our assets should be used towards our current core operations so we minimize any treasury reductions.

[hirokennelly]

Hi @links,

@links

I put it up on the tlBANK snapshot space because I wanted to move forward and as a tlBANK holder I’m able to post proposals to that space. There’s no requirement for a forum post so I didn’t do one.

I see now that there are a lot of questions around it, and I could reduce those questions via a forum post.

There are a lot of questions around this proposal because there wasn’t really any discussion around it, and it’s novel, at least for our DAO. It def needed a Forum post first.

I have a few more concerns apart from what has been raised by me and others and fwiw I do think you and @Icedcool voting both Yes and No is appropriate. Don’t have to recuse, but you should cancel your vote out while still being able to ship the transaction based on necessary wallet quorum.

Now more questions/comments:

1. I note that the Forum post you dropped to restart funding limited the funding to:

@links

The Multisig will open up retroactive funding requests for current tlBANK holders who minted before Nov 26, 2023 for the following purposes:

• Define the purpose/vision of the DAO.
• Define the membership structure for the DAO.
• Create a new brand for the DAO, if needed.

Based upon this criteria, your use of the tlBANK space for the purposes stated in the Snapshot are improper by the terms of the Forum post you dropped on behalf of the multisig. It’s neither retro funding nor does it have to do with the transition. If anything, it should be done on the BANK Snapshot space after a Forum post and proper discussion per the guidelines in the Constitution.

2. It doesn’t appear that the tlBANK Snapshot you initiated is set to the proper block height and should be taken down on that fact alone. It’s set to 21,093,437 rather than 18,652,139.
   

   

3. Finally, a note to the multisig (@AboveAverageJoe @senad.eth @Rowan @Icedcool @Jengajojo, @0x_Lucas, the seventh being you links), based upon the tlBANK Snapshot Announcement, I’d ask the members to consider taking the Snapshot down as improper for reasons 1 and 2, per the guidelines set in tlBANK Snapshot Announcement, the text of which provides:

@Icedcool

The Multisig will be integrity checking snapshot proposals and votes.

• If anything seems out of order the multisig will invalidate the proposal on the space, and share justification on the forum.

4. I really dislike having to police your Snapshot like this links, but I suppose that’s just the result of moving too fast. IMO there’s action-oriented and then there’s just impatience. All of this seems due to the latter, not the former. Love you brother, please pull the Snapshot down on own and let’s start the discussion we should have had in the first place.

[links]

@hirokennelly

Based upon this criteria, your use of the tlBANK space for the purposes stated in the Snapshot are improper by the terms of the Forum post you dropped on behalf of the multisig. It’s neither retro funding nor does it have to do with the transition.

The criteria listed there are what the multisig said they would consider for funding purposes. This is a guideline for the community, but other funding requests have been entertained by the multisig which don’t meet the guidelines, including the OP Intents campaign.

@hirokennelly

It doesn’t appear that the tlBANK Snapshot you initiated is set to the proper block height and should be taken down on that fact alone. It’s set to 21,093,437 rather than 18,652,139.

The snapshot height is no longer required, as the snapshot space was changed from a complicated tlBANK setup to a list of ETH addresses to allow for a new member to be added to the list as per this snapshot proposal: Snapshot

In fact I don’t believe it’s possible to change block height anymore.

If a member of the multisig wants to pull down the snapshot, they have that ability, but I’m not planning on doing it myself. As the vote currently stands the community wants this initiative.

Just because the vote passes doesn’t mean it has to be implemented right away, we can have a discussion. I can commit to that right now. But I also don’t think it’s right to invalidate peoples’ votes on this.

[hirokennelly]

Thanks for clarifying re: block height.

I knew you’d counter with the OP vote, which in my mind is so materially different as to not be a useful comparison. For one the MS was always supposed to be a pass-through entity for those funds, and two, it’s at least retro funding. But TBH, I wish someone on the MS would have had the presence of mind to say it should have gone to BANK Snapshot tbh, since it wasn’t anywhere near the spirit of the funding restart, unlike the payment for brianl’s work, which was directly related to it.

Unfortunately it seems you’re determined to see it through, but am happy you’re willing to have a discussion after the fact. Mindful you didn’t respond regarding neutral voting so I assume you don’t believe that’s necessary for whatever reason, which is a shame, but alas.

That’s interesting you see the restart post as only a guideline for the community. I see it as a guideline for the multisig more than anything, to determine which kinds of funding requests are appropriate. There is no language in that post which broadens the purpose of the funding restart beyond the purpose stated above, so to call it only a community guideline but not a multisig guideline seems odd, unless ofc you don’t see the MS subject to the confines of the post, even tho the MS is made up of community members. The post is very clear when funding should be disbursed, and this is def not it.

[NFThinker]

I like the initiative. I was confused as to why it didn’t hit the forum first, as I usually base my vote on prior discussions had here.

Reasons I’ll vote yes:

• putting inactive assets to good use
• incentivises community engagement
• no direct cost
• yield can be allocated elsewhere in future through additional snapshot vote

[links]

Hey team, just FYI I updated the spreadsheet for the IRL events initiative based on feedback (thanks for the feedback everyone!) to answer some questions and issues. Some top-level questions/answers:

• How much treasury will be left for use if we do this proposal? The proposal aims to get about $100K USDC worth of assets into the yield pools, which would leave around $177K readily available for other DAO initiatives split across a couple of assets, including about 18.62 ETH (ETH+rETH), $18K stablecoins (USDC/USDT/DAI), $64K worth of OP, and various other assets
• Which assets would be used for this initiative?. The spreadsheet now has a table which shows the moves the MS could make - basically using 3 WETH, swapping 17 ETH 1:1 for WETH, 20K USDC, swap 25K DAI 1:1 with USDC.
• How do we measure success?. Success for me is event attendees, because those could be used to secure future sponsorships and reach. My goal with this initial proposal is to have 5 regular events running around the world with 10 attendees each. With 50 regular monthly attendees, I think we could get sponsorship from orgs like BASE, Zora, and more. I’ve already spoken to some BDAO members and have 4 who would run IRL events, so this is a very achievable goal.

Spreadsheet here: Multisig Assets - Google Sheets

[coffee-crusher]

I voted in favor for this proposal for the following reasons. Initially I had two reservations about this proposal due to not having a clear understanding of how these IRL events would be measured for success, especially since events are hard for quantitative measurement, regardless. My second concern was around not so much the total ask (which I do agree is high - both % and total amount of treasury), but more so for the remaining useable funds left in the treasury.

I reached out to @links about my two concerns. Here’s his response back to me:

• the remaining usable treasury would be approximately $177K USD, split across a couple of assets, including about 18.62 ETH (ETH+rETH), $18K stablecoins (USDC/USDT/DAI), $64K OP, and various other assetsst item
• in general, KPI for in-person events is attendees, because this would allow us to get more sponsors. My goal is for this proposal to get 5 events with 10 attendees each month, and then try to use those numbers to get other sponsors (like BASE, Zora, etc) to add more money into the PoolTogether pools
• We would ask that every IRL event takes pictures and posts them on social media to confirm attendees. This is how we can handle accountability at first.

In theory, I support how IRL events (as an experiment) will help build and engage the community.

My concerns regarding the remaining funds were around available funds left for the DAO that the community could use for future expenses for the building of our new DAO. I believe that the remaining usable funds of $177K USD in the Treasury could be sufficient in the short/mid term for DAO building expenses.

I believe that the measurement of these events is good for initial events, and I had suggested to Links that later events can be measured by multi-event attendance measured with a NFT or POAP.

I do have one concern, in the long view, I believe that this Snapshot vote should have gone first to Forum post for more community engagement. I believe that this might have focused this proposal earlier, based upon the communities feedback.

For future proposals, I believe that more discourse (on Forum) should be the standard for all Snapshot proposals (tlBANK and BANK), especially when there is a monetary ask. This was one of the biggest faults of this Snapshot vote, and a consideration for the community to resolve for future funding requests.

[didierkrux]

Sorry I missed the Snapshot vote earlier; I wanted to vote no for this proposal, even though I’m not completely against it.
I 100% agree with Hiro—I think it’s not worth the coordination and protocol risk.
But I definitely love the impact of this initiative.

[thethriller]

I voted ‘no’ on this proposal primarily because I think it goes against the guidelines set by the multi-sig when they unpaused funding for the DAO:

While @links argued that the proposal does fall into these categories, I do not agree.

To me, these guidelines, and all the work the transition council is doing, puts us on a path to first figure out what our DAO is about (purpose/vision), redefine our membership structure (e.g. tokens, member admission, etc), create a new brand, and then only when all that is done, to start normal business again.

And, while I’m not totally against the idea of doing something sooner (depending on the specifics), generally I like that plan.

While I understand the desire to move fast sometimes, and especially do understand feeling impatient that it’s been almost a full year since this DAO refresh started, I actually think it’s more important to be patient and wait for our transitional processes to complete (we’ve getting close) before doing much in the way of new activities.