BanklessDAO
BanklessDAO
/
🏛️
Governance Department
/
🏛️
GD - weekly sync
GD - weekly sync
🏛️

GD - weekly sync

Facilitator
Date
Nov 27, 2023
Attendance
Note Taker
Attendace w/o tags
Files & media
Kanban Card
Previous Todo:
Iced will present: DAO Goals next steps be end of November
[ice] investigate Discourse hosting next steps
Octant Epoch 2 Plan to Get folks to lock some GLM
Jenga to submit tempcheck for octant
reply to gitcoin in telegram about the contract address [ice]
 
Agenda:
  • Forum Queue [coming this week]
    • HQ proposal
      •  
 
Other Items:
  • HQ convo
  • Arbitrum next steps?
     
    Notes:
    • Iced, Possible futures:
      • Stronger relationship with HQ
      • Bye bye HQ
      • Something in between
    • Hiro: until we see a forum post from HQ on their suggestions for next steps, we maybe simply speculating
    • Ornella: Identify what we do and what we are good at? Is that sufficient for us to continue irrespective of the outcome?
    • Round of reflection from folks in the call
      • Hiro: We are defining the limits of what DAO means. Always bullish on people. Name/brand is nothing without its people. If we are open to change, we can continue and possibly thrive in the future. Anger has calmed down a bit, but the disappointed in general at the way HQ has handled things.
      • Links: People in the DAO should stick together. The BANK token has gathered value aligned and like-minded people who are driven by a mission. We should keep this for sure. A bit disappointed with HQ, the prop was done by a real contributors by following the DAO governance procedures. We need to focus on our identity outside banklessHQ. Without our own identity we cannot improve on it. Certainty around using the brand is the least rn. Not optimistic about R&D letting the DAO using the brand. Some tweets from R seems like he believes that DAO is using/doing things which it has not earned. Skeptical about giving the DAO, legal rights to use the brand by HQ.
      • coffee: Newer to the DAO. We tested the limits of permissionlessness. Not having control is a bit scary. +1 on establishing our own unique identity
      • james: trying to get to a shared sentiment similar to others, but james is generally a bit disheartened and angry. HQ has chosen to not address the situation since the beginning or has taken the initiative to actively engage.
      • Senad: feels bad for what happened to the DAO and the community in general. There were promises of collab from HQ but it seems unlikely now. Would be worth our time to find a consensus opinion within the DAO. Commitment from HQ is necessary for any potential collab. Send a clear ask and maybe HQ will consider it.
      • ray: generally agrees with everyone, potentially not angry as others but a bit disappointed. CT had a strong say in the discourse of the current outcome. Name change could be potentially negative. why burn? why not fund something with it.
      • Ornella: 1.Why burn? 2.there are wallets in the top 10 with non-genesis members. do the contributors really have any voting power? why bother making a proposal if its controlled. Would be nice to see consensus on what we are good at and what we can do
      • Iced: proud of how we handled this! MD rocks! (+1,+2,…). No one did anything wrong. Been DMing R&D, disappointed with how HQ handled the situation. They should have included the DAO in their decision making. Internal group of leaders who will meet HQ on Thursday, (in private), and represent as many voices as possible and find a consensus opinion on next steps.most of the hate is because they jumped teh gun and we feel hurt and rejected. Sees opportunities ahead and clarity will enable more opportunities
      • Links - Lack of appreciation for the DAO. doesn’t like thinking of it as ‘HQs’ brand since they gave it to the DAO. It is possible to have consensus on brand collective and can be shown onchain.
      • gruad: +1 with ray that it’s been a privilege to use the brand and has opened many doors for us. Many people have contributed to the success of the brand and it would be a travesty. supports the idea that the DAO which is the relationships here can survive in some way even if the brand has to be separate.
      • Hiro: We found the limits of a DAO +1,+2. Why would anyone want to continue even if there is a possibility. We have reached the limits of Web3, now we are back to web2 territory. The brand is also a movement, which is why hiro he does not agree with the comments from HQ and they way things have been handled.
      • Rowan: Ambiguity about using the brand. If hq was concerned, they should have been more involved. Dissonance between action and words from HQ. Does not agree with the way HQ has handled things.
      • Iced: we have given a lot to the brand but they haven’t apprecaited it.
        •  
         
        Governance:
      • Multi-sig has a lot of responsibility to implement (or not) snapshot consensus
      • What does the MS think about the potential next steps from HQ
      • What if the proposal comes forward which follows gov process but it violates the mission and vision?
        •  
         
        Why Burn:
      • Harvest tax loss
      • If sent to the DAO -> potential legal or PR implications
      • High-quality contributors left because of power imbalance
      • Proposals need to pass forum quorum before they go to snapshot
     
    General:
    • Can we be a branded community?
      • Links, does not believe it aligns with what we do in the dAO
      • Ornella agrees. DAO is two things: a. Hang out with frens, community. b. BUIDL projects. b brings challenges with branding. How does the community survive if b does not?
    Next steps:
    Consolidate feedback for HQ
    Review proposal on the forum
    Reply with a calm mind and be strategic in the response
    BanklessDAO
    BanklessDAO
    /
    🏛️
    Governance Department
    /
    🏛️
    GD - weekly sync
    GD - weekly sync
    🏛️

    GD - weekly sync

    Facilitator
    Date
    Nov 27, 2023
    Attendance
    Note Taker
    Attendace w/o tags
    Files & media
    Kanban Card
    Previous Todo:
    Iced will present: DAO Goals next steps be end of November
    [ice] investigate Discourse hosting next steps
    Octant Epoch 2 Plan to Get folks to lock some GLM
    Jenga to submit tempcheck for octant
    reply to gitcoin in telegram about the contract address [ice]
     
    Agenda:
    • Forum Queue [coming this week]
      • HQ proposal
        •  
     
    Other Items:
    • HQ convo
    • Arbitrum next steps?
       
      Notes:
      • Iced, Possible futures:
        • Stronger relationship with HQ
        • Bye bye HQ
        • Something in between
      • Hiro: until we see a forum post from HQ on their suggestions for next steps, we maybe simply speculating
      • Ornella: Identify what we do and what we are good at? Is that sufficient for us to continue irrespective of the outcome?
      • Round of reflection from folks in the call
        • Hiro: We are defining the limits of what DAO means. Always bullish on people. Name/brand is nothing without its people. If we are open to change, we can continue and possibly thrive in the future. Anger has calmed down a bit, but the disappointed in general at the way HQ has handled things.
        • Links: People in the DAO should stick together. The BANK token has gathered value aligned and like-minded people who are driven by a mission. We should keep this for sure. A bit disappointed with HQ, the prop was done by a real contributors by following the DAO governance procedures. We need to focus on our identity outside banklessHQ. Without our own identity we cannot improve on it. Certainty around using the brand is the least rn. Not optimistic about R&D letting the DAO using the brand. Some tweets from R seems like he believes that DAO is using/doing things which it has not earned. Skeptical about giving the DAO, legal rights to use the brand by HQ.
        • coffee: Newer to the DAO. We tested the limits of permissionlessness. Not having control is a bit scary. +1 on establishing our own unique identity
        • james: trying to get to a shared sentiment similar to others, but james is generally a bit disheartened and angry. HQ has chosen to not address the situation since the beginning or has taken the initiative to actively engage.
        • Senad: feels bad for what happened to the DAO and the community in general. There were promises of collab from HQ but it seems unlikely now. Would be worth our time to find a consensus opinion within the DAO. Commitment from HQ is necessary for any potential collab. Send a clear ask and maybe HQ will consider it.
        • ray: generally agrees with everyone, potentially not angry as others but a bit disappointed. CT had a strong say in the discourse of the current outcome. Name change could be potentially negative. why burn? why not fund something with it.
        • Ornella: 1.Why burn? 2.there are wallets in the top 10 with non-genesis members. do the contributors really have any voting power? why bother making a proposal if its controlled. Would be nice to see consensus on what we are good at and what we can do
        • Iced: proud of how we handled this! MD rocks! (+1,+2,…). No one did anything wrong. Been DMing R&D, disappointed with how HQ handled the situation. They should have included the DAO in their decision making. Internal group of leaders who will meet HQ on Thursday, (in private), and represent as many voices as possible and find a consensus opinion on next steps.most of the hate is because they jumped teh gun and we feel hurt and rejected. Sees opportunities ahead and clarity will enable more opportunities
        • Links - Lack of appreciation for the DAO. doesn’t like thinking of it as ‘HQs’ brand since they gave it to the DAO. It is possible to have consensus on brand collective and can be shown onchain.
        • gruad: +1 with ray that it’s been a privilege to use the brand and has opened many doors for us. Many people have contributed to the success of the brand and it would be a travesty. supports the idea that the DAO which is the relationships here can survive in some way even if the brand has to be separate.
        • Hiro: We found the limits of a DAO +1,+2. Why would anyone want to continue even if there is a possibility. We have reached the limits of Web3, now we are back to web2 territory. The brand is also a movement, which is why hiro he does not agree with the comments from HQ and they way things have been handled.
        • Rowan: Ambiguity about using the brand. If hq was concerned, they should have been more involved. Dissonance between action and words from HQ. Does not agree with the way HQ has handled things.
        • Iced: we have given a lot to the brand but they haven’t apprecaited it.
          •  
           
          Governance:
        • Multi-sig has a lot of responsibility to implement (or not) snapshot consensus
        • What does the MS think about the potential next steps from HQ
        • What if the proposal comes forward which follows gov process but it violates the mission and vision?
          •  
           
          Why Burn:
        • Harvest tax loss
        • If sent to the DAO -> potential legal or PR implications
        • High-quality contributors left because of power imbalance
        • Proposals need to pass forum quorum before they go to snapshot
       
      General:
      • Can we be a branded community?
        • Links, does not believe it aligns with what we do in the dAO
        • Ornella agrees. DAO is two things: a. Hang out with frens, community. b. BUIDL projects. b brings challenges with branding. How does the community survive if b does not?
      Next steps:
      Consolidate feedback for HQ
      Review proposal on the forum
      Reply with a calm mind and be strategic in the response