The first meeting
Last Edited Time
Jan 3, 2023
Created time
Oct 29, 2021
Participants
Created By
Type
Created
Oct 29, 2021
Zoom Recording
Property
Property 1
Participants
- Aragon (Ivan Fartunov, Samuel Furter)
- Gnosis (Auryn MacMillan)
- Moloch (Spencer Graham, Isaac)
- Compound (Nick Martitsch, Adam Bavosa)
- Colony (Daniel Kronovet, Jack du Rose)
- DAOstack (Matan Field)
- Abridged (James Young)
- Tally (Dennison Bertram, Nitin Bansal)
- Snapshot (Fabien M.)
- Syndicate DAO (Will Papper, Jimmy Xue)
- MetaCartel Ventures (Rolf Hoefer)
- Metagov (Nathan Schneider, Primavera De Filippi, Michael Zargham, Joshua Tan [Chair])
Agenda
- Welcome + explaining the process (5 minutes)
- Learnings from interviews (5 minutes)
- Introductions (10 minutes)
- Topic 1: Scope & requirements for a technical standard. What are we trying to accomplish? (20 minutes)
- Topic 2: Assemble the strike team (10 minutes)
- Topic 3: Let’s make a DAO (5 minutes)
Topic 1: Scope & requirements for a technical standard. What are we trying to accomplish?
- Intended outcome: priority list of deliverables in the standard.
- Outcome: resolved to use Notion follow-up to decide (1) what should lie in the "minimal" feature set of a DAO and (2) what kind of concrete use-cases + problems, e.g. DAO2DAO negotiation, the standard should try to support. Resolve over the next week.
- Discussion: should ragequit be part of a DAO standard?
- Spencer + Dennison: no. Zargham: well, it's complicated.
- Prima: on top of a base standard for all DAOs, we can also standardize at a more granular level, within the modules of a DAO, e.g. on identity or reputation or ragequit. That includes features that not every DAO will incorporate.
- Will: Dennison makes a really good point, DAO needs vary widely. There's a huge diversity of DAOs. The Ethereum white paper defined ERC-20-based DAOs. But there are many things that are being called DAOs that don't fit the Ethereum white paper definition. So the question is how strong or weak our definition should be. The narrower the definition, the easier it is to implement the standard, while the broader the definition, the more cases we are able to match.
- Discussion: decide on the priority list
- Minimal DAO
- Zargham: we should focus less on standardizing DAOs themselves and more on standardizing DAO interfaces.
- Sam + Matan + Zargham: we should narrow things down / be minimalistic / try to define an official "minimal DAO". This will help us isolate WHAT to standardize. Otherwise nothing will get done. Maybe afterwards, we can see where to expand.
- Need to articulate concrete use-cases and problems that interop will address
- Isaac: we should also emphasize the why: why do we need to interoperate. We have this vision of this thing that it should be interoperable. But the questions we want to raise... for example, maybe one use-case would be trying to use the outcome of a vote in DAO 1 to impact the outcome of a vote in DAO 2. Let's focus on solving problems.
- Sam: we should find a concrete need or use-case for interop. For example, agreements + disputes between DAOs? How could this be solved? This would be an interesting question.
- Rolf: let's start with the most painful problem today. What would be most useful to fix today.
- Prima: I think as we are thinking about the standard, it would be useful how the standard we are proposing some legal analysis on top of that. So we can try to think about the specification of the standard with the legal requirements. And relate that to what we're doing. Make what we're doing more viable that can co-exist and interact with bigger entities. Very happy to share the DAO model law.
- Josh proposed a motion to set up an async process on Notion to capture (1) minimal feature set and (2) DAO use-cases. No abstains, no objections. Passed.
- Discussion: upgrading DAOs + migration paths between DAO frameworks
- Isaac: my mental exercise, how do I start a DAO vs. how do I evolve it. My goal is to have DAOs that can grow as I hit 10, 100, 1000 members. I want MIGRATION PATHS.
- Josh: previously, we discussed the idea of non-technical migration guides for all DAO frameworks. We will need to do this anyways as part of research for the standard.
- Sam: not sure if you can do that in a way that doesn't blow everything up. Somehow you would need to have a bridge standard that is capable of doing migrations. I'm scared of such standards right now, would prefer smaller ones.
- Zargham: this speaks to the variability and variance in the org. There is some of that functionality in how swarms work in 1Hive. How scaling works: we need to make it possible for larger orgs to be formed from our smaller working groups. There's different frameworks in use for different working groups, relationships that emerge between different working groups. While a lot of that is experimental, it makes it apparent that you really don't have even the same framework within the same organization. We need to find ways of dealing with scaling in different parts, and approaching it "fractally", while retaining the DAOness of the overall organization.
- Inviting additional participants
- Dennison: Let's include technology providers, e.g. Ceramic. People providing the technology on which this will be built. Some of this stuff can be built easily on SQL, but it'll look different on Ceramic. Something that Tally thinks a lot about is what proposals look like and where they are stored.
Topic 2: Assemble the strike team
- Intended outcome: volunteer list
- Outcome: Volunteers: Dennison, Isaac, Auryn, Matan, Zargham ❤️
- Outcome: Josh will contact and organize
Topic 3: Let's make a DAO
- Intended outcome: start discussion
- Outcome: continue conversation async, no DAO for now, focus on using the Telegram + Notion, pick the right framework
- Process for selecting the DAO framework
- Option 1: throw a die, decide the framework randomly
- Option 2: focus on the minimal DAO
- Option 3: find the framework that fits our needs (what are we voting on? managing capital? what size? who gets to vote?)
- Spencer: As soon as a multisig expands beyond 10 members, to me it ceases to be a DAO. For a group of this size, we're a little too big for a multisig. Too much coordination to move beyond a safe threshold.
- Josh + Spencer: we will likely need to manage on-chain funds, if only for the gas fees. Also, we will very likely be creating a bunch of DAOs (in all frameworks) as part of the standards research, so these will exist no matter what.
- Sam: we need a voting solution. Can go with Snapshot or Aragon Voice or Tally as the first step. Then evolve.
- Auryn: at this stage it's more about the discussion than about formal tools. If we are about to vote, probably just Snapshot. But we first have to make a bunch of preliminary decisions on what stuff to vote on and who gets to vote. Just Telegram or a forum is good enough for now.
- Tally: don't know if anyone is interested in dogfooding an open-source product we're working on, but it's giving leaderless orgs a way of getting to more narrow ideas. While we are big fans of Compound, but it would be great to not pay $10-15 per decision. Lightweight would be great!
- Zargham: DAOness is not dependent on the smart contract. At this stage, we need a DAO that is a coordinating group. For me this begs questions about definitions. If we found that we perpetually only needed decisions through tools / zoom, to what extent does that DAO term reside on that organization.
Misc. comments
- Spencer: lately, I’ve been concerned about folks calling themselves DAOs that are not really DAOs. I don’t want the message to get diluted. Collectively, let’s re-concentrate the message.
- Dennison: we at Tally were really inspired by James Young’s comment at MCON, that all PFPs are DAOs. This has opened up a whole new path for us. We've been building DAO tooling traditionally in the DeFi space. Now we're looking at these NFT applications. Which, incidentally, I think could be how we really tackle Web2.
- Fabien: if we can talk in the same language, that would be quite interesting! A kind of DAO launchpad
- Will + Jimmy: Syndicate is looking for a "standard" stack for DAOs, one that is stable and will be around for the long-term
Zoom chat
11:01:06 From Joshua Tan to Everyone:
Gm gm
11:05:07 From sam to Everyone:
Matan is asking for a zoom password
11:13:19 From sam to Everyone:
+1
11:18:44 From Michael Zargham to Joshua Tan(Direct Message):
You should intro the Metagov folks too — people don’t necessarily know us
11:21:48 From Isaac P to Everyone:
Sorry was late, was giving a presentation on zodiac lol
11:22:21 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
best reason one could have for this being late to this call :p
11:22:23 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
wagmi
11:29:36 From Nathan Schneider to Everyone:
I would think of exit/ragequit as being apps on the standard, not part of the standard itself.
11:29:59 From James Young to Everyone:
have to jump, looking forward to further discussion and continued involvement
11:30:22 From Matan Field to Everyone:
I agree with Nathan
11:30:28 From Spencer Graham to Everyone:
+1 . You may not find a bigger proponent of ragequit than me, but I don’t think ragequit should be in a dao standard
11:30:39 From sam to Everyone:
Yes
11:30:50 From Matan Field to Everyone:
It’s also not that important for the sake of interoperability
11:30:51 From sam to Everyone:
But there also could a standard that defines the minimal DAO feature set
11:30:54 From Matan Field to Everyone:
But proposal data may be so
11:31:01 From sam to Everyone:
So you are a „official minimal DAO"
11:31:32 From Jimmy Xue to Everyone:
We can always have extensions to the standard we come up with (e.g. ERC20Permit to ERC20), I think our goal should be to define what belongs to each
11:33:08 From Michael Zargham to Everyone:
Sorry to pontificate there, I just want to use that as a concrete example of how to explore the relationship between concepts or phenomena (eg exit) in the context of standards — why is this here, how is it being used, what function does it fulfill, do other organizations have analogous functions met via other mechanisms, etc
11:33:27 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
I think there are strong benefits to ragequit being standardized, not sure if it should be standard in a minimal DAO feature set per se though
11:33:54 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
+1
11:34:43 From Michael Zargham to Joshua Tan(Direct Message):
I think we should push the idea of forming a minimal DAO for this group as an examining what people consider required for a minimal DAO
11:39:11 From sam to Everyone:
There could be a working group that produces all the content for example..
11:39:19 From sam to Everyone:
Content for a migration*
11:39:31 From Nathan Schneider to Everyone:
Started an editable poll to get a sense of what y'all think would be worth doing: https://cloud.medlab.host/apps/polls/s/95SWHsuLDgpUJ3sT
11:40:00 From sam to Everyone:
Nice thanks
11:41:32 From Isaac P to Everyone:
+1 to listing our pain points
11:44:06 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
Head of Zoom is fired!
11:44:15 From Spencer Graham to Everyone:
lol
11:44:59 From Ivan Fartunov to Everyone:
Have to pop out - thanks for the invite! Will catch up async
11:45:44 From Nathan Schneider to Everyone:
Added more options to the poll based on Josh's list: https://cloud.medlab.host/apps/polls/s/puz7cYsvqI4pbhHP
11:49:18 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
Adding Joel from Ceramic would be dope+1
11:52:35 From Michael Zargham to Everyone:
This is the discussion I wanted to have happen starting 20 min ago lol
11:52:51 From Isaac P to Everyone:
Let’s just create 20 daos
11:52:55 From Auryn Macmillan to Everyone:
😅
11:53:01 From dennisonbertram to Everyone:
1 MILLION DAOS!
11:53:04 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
wagmi
11:53:10 From Fabien to Everyone:
lol
11:53:18 From Spencer Graham to Everyone:
Actually that would be really fun to collectively compare a bunch
11:53:26 From dennisonbertram to Everyone:
agree
11:53:29 From Michael Zargham to Everyone:
5 DAOs as 3/5 gnosis safe :jokingnotjoking:
11:53:34 From Isaac P to Everyone:
+1
11:53:39 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
can only compare if standardized
11:53:41 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
😄
11:55:17 From Jack du Rose to Everyone:
First we need to discuss what to discuss in order to decide whether to vote on what what we should be voting on.
11:55:27 From Auryn Macmillan to Everyone:
Agreed
11:55:56 From Auryn Macmillan to Everyone:
Sounds like a Telegram or a Forum is probably the most useful at this stage.
11:56:09 From Joshua Tan to Everyone:
We already have a Telegram :D
11:56:18 From Isaac P to Everyone:
I think forum I sufficient, maybe something notion-like
11:56:38 From sam to Everyone:
This project pitch round is funny lol
11:56:44 From Nathan Schneider to Everyone:
I'd love to see it! And if anyone is interested in showcasing tools-in-progress, let me know if you'd like to present at the metagov.org/seminar
11:57:02 From Spencer Graham to Everyone:
If we don’t have any actions to execute on-chain, then I don’t think we need a DAO. That said, even if we expect to have some on-chain assets to manage or actions to take, then it could be useful to start with something on-chain
11:57:28 From Nathan Schneider to Everyone:
+1 on no-DAO for now :)
11:57:32 From Jack du Rose to Everyone:
+1
11:57:35 From sam to Everyone:
Basically we do a group user interview with our self
11:57:37 From Matan Field to Everyone:
+1 on Forum for comms, is Notion for :)
11:57:44 From Matan Field to Everyone:
+1 for Notion for docs and PM
11:59:37 From Jack du Rose to Everyone:
Or just not incur main net gas fees unless assets need to be moved on mainnet.
12:00:47 From Nathan Schneider to Everyone:
Results from the poll: By far the strongest interest is in a "proposal standard" https://cloud.medlab.host/apps/polls/s/puz7cYsvqI4pbhHP
12:03:34 From Rolf Hoefer to Everyone:
DAOStar team, may the force be with us