What should Bankless DAO focus on, jokedao results

Governance
1

Results are in
Bankless DAO wants to focus on… Tokenomics!
The most important suggestion presented by raybankless.eth and voted on by 25 persons with a total weight of 27% of all votes was this (summary from datadump):

We should focus on utilizing BANK. Give it a usage to decrease the sell pressure on it

So the Bankless Tokenomics department is a DAO wide priority!

The top five priorities illustrated below:

image
image802×495 24.8 KB

Participation
a total of 110 wallets voted on jokedao, significantly lower than our hopes but still a decent figure!
No proposal had an super committed crowd putting 100% on it in general, most people voted for more than one proposal.

To continue this with the next step, our partners at Polygon DAO will airdrop matic tokens to everyone that voted with an extra allocation to Ray for the winning proposal. The purpose here, which will be reflected in the value is to cover gas for this and a few more contests. (of course no cost to Bankless DAO)

Reflections
Some personal reflections from my end here, this should not be seen as something conclusive but rather food for thought.

Did we as a DAO lose focus on our mission and our community?
Apart from maybe the media house proposal, very few of the suggestions would focus on onboarding the next billion users into crypto. Most of them touch on tokenomics or remuneration, maybe project funding. All important areas, but for me, while governance and tokenomics is important for our longevity they won’t help the DAO survive if we’re not aligned on the purpose. We can set great governance and funding terms but without clear direction how can we fund the most important projects?

There is a clear risk, to me, that Bankless DAO becomes a web3 incubator for projects looking for funding and while they may be great, they don’t result in any new people finding web3. I fear that this path would be very hard to turn back from once started. We already have a lot of different projects.

We see the bear market impacting our USD term payments for work in BanklessDAO, and this is hard, how can we sustain our new contributors if we can’t pay decent level of compensation. I get it and its important that the token represent more than membership, and it might be even more important to figure out how the kick-back from the great projects using our brand can be used to offset BANK only compensation.

Next steps
The next jokedao race, which will be initiated with an airdrop during the coming weeks. I suggest we will explore the utility of BANK to reduce seller as the DAO indicated the importance of this. After this vote I will suggest we break-down the GSE list to see where the DAO wants to focus more.

Feedback on this during the week will be very appreciated!

You can reach me on Discord if you want to discuss in private.

8 Likes
2

Fascinating results! And thank you for the airdrop

Do you have any suggestions on how the DAO can achieve and execute consensus on purpose?

Are there any metrics which the DAO can use to objectively evaluate this for each funded group?

Why is it a disadvantage to have several teams working on different initiatives?

Can we run parallel races? Any suggestions on pros/cons of either approach?

1 Like
3

Just to be clear again these where just my top of mind reflections and I might be very wrong.

But, in general I think of Bankless as a mission driven DAO and as such I have a hard time imagine the value drivers if its not people combining to reach this mission. Especially since project kickback has so far been quite limited.

For consensus on what projects we fund, the first easy answer would be to use two possible categories that we and/or GC can fund, infrastructure (guilds, tools etc needed to coordinate) or mission driven projects (IMN migh be a good example). If we fund nothing else, it would hopefully reduce spend, which would reduce BANK in circulation as well. I loved flipper tool on a personal level, but I’m not sure it contributed to Bankless mission in the end. While we could argue something like consultancy can act to onboard projects/companies to web3.

I think metrics for people onboarded might be harder to be objective about, I would rather see it as a criteria for funding where projects have to argue how they fit in.

I wouldn’t put it as several teams and projects, I see an issue with a finite amount of BANK and a wide range of funding areas. If we want to serve as a web3 accelerator investing for kickbacks from all projects and accruing value like this we can continue down the path of funding projects in all areas. If we want to make a business out of onboarding, maybe we need to focus our attention and talent here, also I see way easier community bonding for these projects.

We can of course run parallel races, if we wish to do so! I guess there is a discussion to be had around if we will have more people with parallel or continuous races, this I have no idea about, wdyt?

1 Like
4

Tokenomics and revenue i think, it’s a constant evolution, meanwhile the social layer of Bankless it’s going stronger every season. Maybe if we can see trough the wild of this bear market, the sun is coming =).

5

You have given a good assessment of the opportunities, risks and shortcomings. I could imagine that the reason why the proposals focus heavily on remuneration and tokenomics is that, in a bear market, this is perceived as the most pressing issue, even if this is more a symptom than a cause. Talent is the core capital of bDAO - in particular attracting and retaining it. Retaining by ensuring “good vibes”, giving a sense of purpose in meaningful contributions (and compensation - sure), be it in guilds or projects, a place to meet interested and interesting people. I was told by a member, when I asked why he joined bDAO: “Because I can have great conversations with bright people here.”

A further aspect is that there are a lot of contacts to other protocols/DAOs which seek collaboration with us. While this can be a brain drain risk it is also a possibility to enricht the community and take on board new ideas. And a wonderful marketing channel for our products in which we excel: newsletters, writing, media. And this media savviness is also ideal to market bDAO projects and products, or to provide these service to others.

4 Likes
6

Season 5 was a tough season for quite a few people.

I really think the biggest efforts that should be placed in the DAO focuses on onboarding and utility.

If we can nail down some serious onboarding efforts to improve upon things like first quest and bankless academy , and be more open to explaining gov issues (we could say that we are)we will be fine, but by default there will always be room for improvement.

Too many egos missing the point of trying to help other people, not themselves

2 Likes
7

We need to make sure that we do keep sight of bringing people to go bankless, and to also be empowered to move forward in bankless. We’ve seen some people do a lot of bank hoarding, and when they finally get ready to sell (they tend to) then price goes down.

We could do a better job of making sure that the bank balance from role holder to contributor is more even (120k for role holder versus 20k for some contributors in some groups is super uneven)

We could empower guest passers with the ability to be able to earn L1 status (by adding more opportunities, not by lowering the amount)

I’m trailing off, but it’s definitely a thought.

1 Like
8

there wasn’t even any discussion available about the Joke DAO submissions. total waste in my opinion of time and energy.

9

I’m happy you offered your very non-constructive and valuable opinion on experimental governance and the efforts people make to further the space.

10

So how are the joke tokens airdropped there was another BDAO one too on governance, but I never got the airdrop ( I have +35k BANK). So not sure what happened but if you know it would appear much appreciated

1 Like
11

I think we can learn from the non-profit sector in that if we focus on the mission we will have a continual reliance on treasury funding (replicating the non-profit industrial complex). I agree that if we are to fund projects, there should be a pathway not only to financial stability but community health as well ( maybe incorporating collaboration with guild campaigns or apprenticeships). I think we lost focus because tbh there isn’t much focus onboarding a billion is a great north start, but how are we able to get things done, provide pathways for those that have specific skills to work on it and create checks and balances after things are funded based on org health in regards to KPI. Also, the origins based on the constitution kind of reads using the analogy of a party - A few people decided to throw a party and made everyone the host and no clear guidelines on what kind of party it is or how to host it . I think the Joke DAO model is interesting maybe it can be used for things to determine DAO focus ( like what if we could use it to decide on the season goals for all guilds to try to achieve or have an open pitch for projects being funded like ENS DAO does (for whales -who would then commit to an amount of the top 10 to distribute that amount in weighted voting).

If we focus on the utility of BANK maybe let’s try doing it with those that have 100K BANK - like what are they willing to invest their BANK on, if there was an outside campaign, how much are they willing to lock to access it etc. - at least it will provide insights for people developing projects and maybe things that have a product market fit which will allow GC to assess projects sustainability better. If DAOs are the future of work, we have to start thinking like organizations to prepare people for success and projects for sustainability - unless we are just a hobby club.