[Closed] Near Book Club Guild’s Funding Request For The Month of September, 2022

Creatives Creatives DAO
, ,
1

Near Book Club Guild’s Funding Request For The Month of September, 2022.

Introduction

Team:
fabdab.near
Johnwike.near
david grace.near
cryptomuse01.near
mohens.near

“Reading is the gateway skill that makes all other learning possible”

True to above quote by Barack Hussein Obama, the Near Book Club Guild is going to be poised strategically as an educational hub where, through reading and research, users, builders and enthusiasts will be onboarded onto Near.
Using incentivised reading and researching initiatives, coupled with engaging discussions in virtual spaces, Near Book Club Guild will quickly bridge the knowledge gap between potential adopters and users of Near.
We will be focused on onboarding new users and also creating a space where people can learn and explore Web 3.

Objectives For The month

* Get In character Bounty Collaboration With Writers Guild
$960

* Flaunt Your skills Bounty
$450

Funds requested: $1410
Guild’s Management: $400

TOTAL REQUESTED FUNDS : $1810

Target: nearbookclubguild.near

Summary and Metrics to Measure Guild’s Success

Fostering healthy collaboration with Writer’s Guild
Organising a metaverse meetup with atleast 15 attendees
Minting of atleast 6 NFTS
Increased community engagements
More followers on all our social media platforms.

Let’s stay creative
Cheers :clinking_glasses:

1 Like
2

@creativesdao-council
Please review our proposal

3

@creativesdao-council I know you guys are quite busy, but please, we are still awaiting your review on our proposal.
Thank you.

4

Could you please share near wallets of your team members? Thanks in advance!

5

Thank you.
fabdab.near
Johnwike.near
david grace.near
cryptomuse01.near
mohens.near

6

Thanks for the proposal. The projects included in this proposal don’t show enough information on how this create impact. Also, bounties like this has vague conversion & inefficient use of fund. I can not support this proposal.

Note: Attempt to create multiple DAOs with weak/poorly developed proposals & unclear conversion is not encouraged.

Sorry, I don’t support this proposal.

1 Like
7

Your comment is unacceptable. It is insensitive and condescending. What does this mean:

If you need specific information, ask for it!

By the way, this is a summary of the impact the project intends to deliver, amongst other things:

You’re moderators, not adjudicators, not judges, pounding the gavel of doom down on people’s efforts. You’re supposed to discuss and guide proposals not sit like overlords on thrones, imposing your subjective biases on people.

I can’t understand, for the life of me, where you get the nerve to refer to someone’s proposal as weak or poorly developed.

“Weak”? “Poorly developed”?

What does “attempt to create multiple DAOs” mean?

Is there a restriction or a limit to how many DAOs one may create? One of the DAOs you so maliciously named has never asked for funding. Another one asked only once, four months ago - before you ascended your throne.

Do you just say whatever you like?

@williamx
@Paul
@Cryptonaut
@adrianseneca
@creativesdao-council

2 Likes
8

Hey NEAR Book Club,
Community mods agreed to close this proposal.

Also, mods have noticed that you and your team are involved in 3 extra DAOs (attachment below and above shared by @williamx), which are trying to possess funding, please be informed that one person can be a council in two DAOs maximum (and receiving a reward for a council management). Thanks to that, we’re aiming to be more decentralized as a community.

Moreover, I’d advise to focus on one DAO and strengthen its activities, and establishment, rather than creating additional ones with similar activities.

I do believe, that activities around book club can be handled without funds.

Attachments:

1 Like
9

Did you bother to read my response above @Paul?

Please, read the response above.

10

Dear @AugustKinge, thank you for the response.

Here’s some points I want to make:

I clearly shared the reason I don’t support the proposal (as I want to be transparent why not from my side instead of just putting a vote). Please don’t personal criticize.

I only ask for clarification if there is a (or some) part(s) of a proposal that is not clear, or proposals that need further information for me to make decision as a moderator. In this case, from what written down I don’t think I need to ask more question (as I already understood what is being presented). Don’t you think it’s your responsibility to deliver specific information rather than telling me asking for it?

Words/phrases like:

are against community culture. Point 1, 2, 3, 6 in the “You should not:” section. Sorry, I don’t want to further answer you in this vibe of conversation. Hope you refer to the current Creatives guideline to understand more. We are learning by doing, with that said, the guidelines will be constantly worked on and improved to avoid this kind of conversation in future!

1 Like
11

I will begin my response with an apology because I hope to deescalate what tensions have built, so I can have a conversation with you and understand some things more clearly.

Can we have a conversation regarding some of your opinions?

Thank you.

1 Like
12

Dear @williamx

Please, compare your approach to this proposal and disposition to
to ours.

Changa Records makes a mistake in their proposal, ever so politely (as should be the case) you point it out - suggestively asking if it was a mistake. Result? [They corrected it.]
([APPROVED] Changa Records DAO September Funds - #6 by ChangaRecords)

The information they gave wasn’t clear to you, what did you do? You ask them to clarify, thus:

In response, they clarified and without much ado, 3 days after, their proposal was approved.

You didn’t say:

Instead you guided them to providing more suitable responses.

When I told you to treat our proposal the same way by asking for clarification whenever needed, what did you say?

You summarily, disrespectfully insisted that unlike Changa Records, we have to present perfect, specific information as part of our responsibility.

Although, according to you, our proposal didn’t have “enough information”, you somehow decided

[quote=“williamx, post:10, topic:28488”]
already understood what is being presented
[/quote].

This is the precise opposite of your response to Changa Records’ prosposal.

It bears repeating that the Forum is first and foremost for discussion, not for passing verdicts.

Without any hesitation, you insinuate that our proposals are

How do you justify this insulting comment?

@creativesdao-council
@williamx

Disclaimer:

Changa Records is doing fantastic work and I have no issues with them whatsoever.