hey!
There are so many changes happening in the ecosystem and NF itself that my intuition tells me that moves like creating a legal wrapper and so on were a kind of preparation for a world with stricter funding policies and legal demands. Meaning that it’s not necessarily NF pushing for change in the Vertical DAOs for operative reasons, but external pressure from States driving that need.
However, I would suggest that a ‘future-need’ should not destabilize operations to the point of rupture; if that happens it means that fear might be the driving force commanding our choices; since NF is the one providing tokens and the present council is only providing curatorship, there seems to be no reason to worry about legal implications.
This is not to say that this specific model and those who run it should not prepare for future changes, however it is to say that changes rely on a vision, and that vision is hard to produce with sub-par information about NFs plans.
The community needs super-clarity about changes, because most, and specially newcomers, might not understand what they mean.
-
At this moment, Creatives DAO works as a Vertical, meaning that it manages information, decides on which projects are OK to ask $ to NF, then NF provides those tokens. There is a council, composed of several established DAOs, and a moderators team, whose work is to manage information, guidelines and help the community engage with voting.
-
Nothing of this points towards any kind of financial independence; precisely the point of a Vertical is to be a way to manage tokens going from point A (NF) and point B (individual DAOs). Therefore, if this was to change in significant ways (for example if the Creatives DAO no longer had Vertical status - awarded by NF) then we should all ask: what would be the benefit of the Creatives DAO for the DAOs in the ecosystem?
-
Using one suggestion made by Fritz to exemplify my point: let’s imagine that the Creatives DAO becomes the creator of a Marketplace, whose sales would then revert to a treasury-pool, and then that that pool would be used to support projects. A fine idea, and imho worth pursuing. However, and assuming its hard work managing such a system (ask Mintbase, who is in the space for some time) would current DAOs be willing to stop work on their own projects and become focused on this? My definite answer is of course not (at least for most of them). At that moment, Creatives DAO would be so different than it is today, that no transition would be possible, and a start-over would be needed, with a new team, leadership, etc; Creatives DAO is on-boarding artists and creative people to web3 so that they can work on their projects in new ways, using NEAR, it’s not hiring those people to work on a contract-based-project.
-
Then, I have 2 proposals: one, that as long as this DAO retains Vertical status, moderators focus on representing the council in this context, and second, that if several people in the community think there is a way forward which brings greater value and can combine both the vertical-status and greater efficiency and superior models, they create a spin-off, which alows for folks to engage with such changes while operations continue. >> For example, why not create a future-Creatives-DAO team that asks funding for the sole purpose of preparing the future? (like the moderators-dao that @FritzWorm created, but not necessarily moderators working on it; >>> I even suggest we council create an open call for future-visions, and the proposal/team with the most votes gets funding to work on a complete dossier)
-
- To finish, let me just say that I agree that current operations need improving, specially in regards to voting, and that we have the tools to improve that without reinventing the wheel. This DAO is pushing the limits on what community governance means, and people should not forget that. Pushing the limits means that operations are unstable, and that is normal. Just look at all the changes astrodao had to implement just because of us. That is good, not bad. It would be easy for myself, @JulianaM @chloe and @tabear to still be seated on the council, making decisions based on our own ideas and goals (since NF never asked us to rotate, it was our own will), and everything would be fast and smooth, but that would not have been as interesting and open as what we have now.
Thank you all.