SubDAO Formation (discord thread)
humpty 🧠‣‣
Interesting. I hadn't thought as CS as an incubator. In my mind, we simply facilitate funding for people to produce their shows. We then provide the backend: engineering, distribution and marketing.
I have been giving more thought to the engagement of new shows. For example, the length of time we may want to run a particular series. I think some will have a longer run than others. But that should also be agreed upon in the application process.
Looking back at the W3ID series, for example, I would have stated its goals a little more clearly regarding how it would demystify web3 identity, and work with the production workstream more directly to develop the concept more concretely, specially as it relates to its distribution. I think that we could package it up as a mini series on the pod network. Look up Green Pilled on Bankless HQ, and DAO mini series on On The Other Side pod with Chase Chapman.
This is true for the other two new shows.
What are your thoughts about this? And does it need to be an incubator to achieve these goals? If so, how would the platform change (or at all) to become an incubator? Does being an incubator add more overhead/complexity to the project and agreements?
Flowscience‣‣
Agreed on all points from both of you. I think what you described is an incubator model, but with the web3 value of having a defined purpose/mission. If a new initiative has a defined goal, then then it potentially makes sense for it to dissolve upon achieving that. However, not all initiatives have clear end goals, but is that a problem? I think it can be addressed with milestones and evaluation points, whether a project decides it has achieved it's goal, or whether new goals have evolved that are worth evaluation to determine if they're in alignment with CS & original goals etc. A few posts from Chase Chapman on this recently:
https://twitter.com/chaserchapman/status/1541446853245517825?s=20&t=uDdX_l75JfUFgo7X76SUXQhttps://twitter.com/chaserchapman/status/1469748577752735745?s=20&t=uDdX_l75JfUFgo7X76SUXQ ‣
infinitehomie.eth 🏴‣‣
Incremental improvements, I think that is called.@humpty 🧠 fascinating that you have interpreted the idea of an incubator differently, I quite like different approaches.
It seemed to me that you had envisioned the podcast network to be the incubator, with podcast coming up with the idea, and it gets staffed and funded (upon approval). But I could see how one person would think this as an incubator and to also think of it in a different light, as I give it more thought.
When launching a podcast, I would expect the podcast to have an idea of the project, their topic discussions, interview guests (if need be) and the audience. This would be ahead of time, this would be subject to change, sure, but shooting at the hip isn’t going to make for a very well received podcast, I’d figure.
So if people want to put forth the effort to answer the above questions, then they should be able to move forward with a testing round. ‣
- ‣‣‣
Incremental improvements, I think that is called.@humpty 🧠 fascinating that you have interpreted the idea of an incubator differently, I quite like different approaches. ‣
infinitehomie.eth 🏴‣‣
ultimately, I think it would make sense for crypto sapiens to be an incubator. we are empowering people to talk about what's on their mind, with respect to the crypto, defi, nft, and now, reputation based realm.
- ‣‣‣
If we are providing funding to these podcasts, we should be able to provide advice and skills as well.
Flowscience‣‣
@Contributor
Are you ready for a Crypto Sapiens governance smorgasbord?
After the conversation started in marketing today I put my researcher hat on and went digging through proposals looking for guidance about how we should be evaluating our remuneration in terms of funding requests from BDAO. Also how we can, cannot, and should be establishing funding guidelines.
Firstly, we aren't currently defining ourselves as a project in terms of how we apply for funding from BDAO (e.g. seasonal vs ad-hoc). Secondly, how we operate requires careful distinctions between us and existing guilds (particularly the hatchery bc we both aim to upskill & empower contributors to create new shows)
WTF Is a Guild?
Guilds as Professional Associations
However, I think the second part of that question is addressed by the concept of this project becoming a SubDAO - which we identified concretely as our goal in the S4 proposal.
CS Season 4 Budget Proposal
Here are the key posts I found about ideas for creating SubDAOs. I'm frankly still digesting all of but hope creating this list of citations gets us moving in the right direction.
A Model for SubDAO Projects
BDAO Project Revenue and Ownership
SubDAO Classification and Templates
Bankless SubDAOs and SubTokens
infinitehomie.eth 🏴‣‣
The incubator standpoint will need to lead crypto Sapiens into forming a DAO, where the trickiness comes into play is that crypto Sapiens is getting pretty close to the same style of what podcast hatchery is doing.
A few thoughts come to mind (probably not far off from your thoughts) if we are looking to fund podcasts and projects, building them up to be viable podcasts, how does this differentiate us from podcast hatchery?
Do we look to implement the growth of new podcasts as a revenue generator? (All future podcasts will need to have an idea of generating revenue to remain on the network)
Governance: does cryptosapiens now need to implement a gov document for your typical governance things?
etc etc
- ‣‣‣
And would it be a possibility to discuss crypto Sapiens as the arm of podcast generation rather than podcast hatchery (with the team merging, podcasts, budget) and making it a big podcast arm of bankless DAO?
- ‣‣‣
(The merging may be a terrible idea, and I accept that
Flowscience‣‣
My vision of crypto sapiens is more that it's a community governed podcast network. It's the primordial soup of content creation. It is a place where anyone can show up and participate in discussions for any of our series, they can send in questions, they can engage here on discord in the community they can show up and join the live stage. We then provide support for those series as well as the post-production and distribution of a high quality podcast episode version of those live shows. This creates a wealth of content that can be refactored as snippets (text/audio) and spins out additional topics that can be explored in other forms of content like newsletters and blogs.
I believe we can support the growth of a permissionless community in that anyone can become a contributor through demonstrating value and then move into situation where they are earning bounties or even a sustained role.
You're right that ROI is s limiting factor in that support, so, trustless checkpoints to ensure real value is created need to be established. It also opens up the community to receiving investment in the form of purchasing membership, products and services as well as traditional investment if that was the route that the community chose to go. These things to me seem to require an independent governance system.
We differ from hatchery because we have a different goal than guilds. Guilds have the primary objective of upskilling talent and recieve guaranteed funding to support that. I beleive we are a project incubator, which does involve supporting contributor professional development, but that isn't the goal. Just my opinion
I've been spending some time recently learning about product design sprints (GV/Jake Knapp) and I think it could be a really powerful way to empower small teams to rapidly market test monetized content creation ideas. Probably going to dogfood this concept in marketing WG next season pending a proposal & me actually feeling like I know this stuff. Trying to find others I can shadow on freelance projects in the meantime. ‣
infinitehomie.eth 🏴‣‣
1. I’m officially scrapping the merge idea for podcast hatchery. @humpty 🧠 , take note haha
A couple of questions:
Do you for-see these podcasts more of a contributor lead collaboration (as in multiple people are maybe asking questions) versus a panel, or an interviewer interviewee approach? As in the live show approach of course
1. What would the traditional investment look like?
2. Would the revenue gen ideas be brought to a vote?
3. If you’re looking at a network, it may be less so an incubator (which perhaps incubator is not the word im actually going for). It could be a generator more so.
You aren’t helping the shows grow, (well you might be) your more just providing the infrastructure for people to build the spaces they want to listen to.
4. Do you think you’d be less apt to decide on new shows, instead making the decision to continue the infrastructure for the current shows?
I ask these questions because I’m feeling very positive about this idea here.
Flowscience‣‣
Great questions. I think we should first & foremost consider these regarding how they would apply to existing shows and make sure we/existing shows are willing to meet any proposed criteria for funding.
I'd prefer to have some universal system to enable relatively easy access to small amounts of initial funds but much harder to get renewals. Renewals IMO would also encompass access to larger amounts of funding and should have strict requirements for fulfilling deliverables if not actual financial ROI.
So, basically: a thorough and methodical process for first time applicants that if they follow it & do everything required in the application then they have a high likelihood of succeeding. Then, based on self-evaluation & submission of milestones the 2nd time applicants & beyond get more closely reviewed by the equivalent of a grants committee that distributes a fixed budget to meet requests as best it can (according to how much profit/ROI was sent to the Treasury in the previous round etc).
I say equivalent bc I actually like the model Ocean DAO uses based on community voting & quadratic funding more than a grants committee which is more subjective, expensive and slower. https://github.com/oceanprotocol/oceandao/wiki ‣
EriDAO‣‣
My first and foremost thought is that this is absolutely brilliant. This vision you share delivers well on the Crypto Sapiens as a web3-native flagship podcast media org.
I'd like to commit more time to write a thorough response than I have now, but please definitely keep me in the loop for any dog-food eating contests on it. My two quick points for you are this then:
We differ from hatchery because we have a different goal than guilds. Guilds have the primary objective of upskilling talent and recieve guaranteed funding to support that. I beleive we are a project incubator, which does involve supporting contributor professional development, but that isn't the goal. Just my opinion
I'm not sure Link's definition is universally understood by each guild to be their sole or primary purpose (especially given that each guild from his flow would inherit it's teams rights and responsibilities). I'm not sure that that it isn't either.
I do know the Podcast Hatchery is not a guild. We're a project under the AV guild. That said we're recently looking at taking on the responsibility of contributor development for audio-engineering and podcasting pre-production. (I am building an initial "t"rm in our notion now actually.)
I sense a want for our two sub-orgs to clearly define themselves apart from each other. I believe we could achieve a lot of synergy if we partnered up on defining the distinctions between our two teams' missions and visions. I have more thoughts on this for later.
The other point I wanted to address Homie hit the nail on the head while I was typing this out. The quo (per quid) for a listener to become a contributor? For a contributor to launch a hub?
Answering these "Whats in it for me's" well will give you the kind of bulletproof
Flowscience‣‣
Thank you. I clearly don't have a proper understanding/background on the hatchery so definitely calling in support for exactly this type of feedback. I agree that finding a productive synergy relies on defining the distinctions/relationships between the projects.
Does hatchery apply for funding separately from the AV guild? @EurekaJohn I feel you would likely have some super insightful feedback here too.
EurekaJohn‣‣
Hi Flowscience. The Hatchery does apply for finding separately from AV Guild. We have had to do lots of redefining of our means to the end of helping people launch podcasts through the hatchery with the goal of adding content that aligns with the mission of the Bankless DAO. For season 4 we were not accepting new show applications, but we will open that back up on S5 coming up. Crypto Sapiens seems more focused on people than the Hatchery. The Hatchery is also very focused on providing technical support to the creators.
Flowscience‣‣
Ok, thank you for that clarification. If both projects are applying for funding independently of any guilds: what's your take on the two projects regarding treasury sustainability? Further, any thoughts on sustainability relative to that distinction of CS being more focused on people in general than incubating content aligning w the Bankless mission? Like, should we be more of a financial ROI incubator or should we also posit that we measure value delivered to BDAO in terms of mission alignment and KPI growth? Even potentially as more valuable and/or in lieu of financial ROI.
Question for everyone: should we add a question about mission/values alignment on the new series application form? https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1RZ3Nqw27BMsn6rPqA3nV7MfCouHXXucF7YQ4tC7a4N4/
EurekaJohn‣‣
Those are good questions that I do not have an answer to. I would be interested to see other perspectives on it. I do know that we have emphasized how we are also aligned with the bDAO mission in the past. Are we still in 100% alignment?
EriDAO‣‣
The Hatchery is geared up working through our season 5 proposal while simultaneously invoking a long-term-vision conversation in much a similar pace as I see here.
We're doing a lot of our vision defining this week and would love to have CS representation at our strategy meeting Wednesday 9:30pm UTC over on the main bDAO server.
EriDAO‣‣
regarding treasury sustainability
I think Crypto Sapiens is leading the way by diversifying its treasury and seeking grants from multiple orgs, not just bDAO. I would love to see the Podcast Hatchery do the same.
I'm not sure the distinction between the orgs being about projects or individuals landed for me. From my perspective the current (but yet iteratable) difference between the Hatchery and Crypto Sapiens is about ownership equity. The Hatchery wants to partner with individuals and their projects to launch / boost their nascent or existing podcast for discrete financial ROIs. I see creating with Crypto Sapiens has the potential to be more of a shared-equity relationship with a powerful network effect.
EriDAO‣‣
add a question about mission/values alignment on the new series application form?
Seems like good information to have, although introduces the eventuality of alignment-gating. It can be hard to balance inclusion with both value and alignment gates put up.
Woon Tan‣‣
Hey @Flowscience I would say that the biggest advantage CS has is an existing audience and community, hence the podcast network concept makes sense.
Woon Tan‣‣
When I think of podcast network, it usually means that there is an existing audience, so every new podcast show you bring in benefit from a lower cost of acquiring new listeners. The other point of creating podcast network is that, there is usually a large overlap of audience for each of the shows of the same network, the benefits of cross promoting each shows is the biggest reason why shows want to be part of a network or why you would want to create new shows as part of the network. Podcast networks also lower cost of production because of the shared process, systems and talent, which is what CS have done really well. Naturally most networks have similar aligned vision, mission, values with some shared message. So, I would have that as part of your selection criteria.
The one thing different this time is with web3, ownership by audience brings engagement to the next level. Podcast collectives is becoming important, not new but it's growing as podcast content is becoming more diverse. However, with what we have with web3 and DAO structures and NFTs, we are creating new ways of engaging audience.
I think it's important to think about what CS wants to do at the product and customer level, i.e. at the cashflow level, not just the capital/asset/ownership level. So things like branded merch, IRL or virtual events where community pays to become a customer. Basically capitalize on the assets you are building, not just securitize NFTs without underlying cashflow. Whatever you guys were thinking as benefits of the NFTs needs to be products without necessarily becoming an co-owner. Investors/owners look for different things vs paying customers.
At hatchery, we are still looking at some models that might work for the long term, but hope to have some of these clarified too.
infinitehomie.eth 🏴‣‣
so lets look at the idea of the methodical approach to funding. we would need to have the podcast application be able to clarify the goal of the podcast, as well as the vision (the mission vision and values of the podcast) when first season of the podcast is complete, thats when they'll have to designate their continued vision as well as self sustainability, if i understand correctly, but the community will be crucial in helping the product succeed. i assume you can use the token allocation for crypto sapiens to put backing towards a projects, or NFTs, etc. Am i understanding the idea correctly?