[Closed] Remove Marketing DAO Council Member



Marketing DAO is one of the longest running DAOs of the NEAR ecosystem.

This has enabled the DAO to accumulate a wealth of experience and distill many insights from the ecosystem, best practices, among others. This also means that quite often, we are the first ones to experience some of the governance or scaling challenges. This is why I believe it is so important to lead by example.

It takes a lot of intellectual honesty and humility to sit back and reflect on what is working and what is not working. The harsh reality is that the longer we choose to ignore an issue, the worse it gets.

State of the DAO

The Marketing DAO has been relentless in its position - we have been constantly reviewing and updating our guidelines, upholding high standards, and fighting off attacks for taking a stance against extractive behaviour. I am actually quite proud to have captured these principles in future-proof way on the Marketing DAO Charter:

The problem is not what we are doing, the issue is what we are not doing…

The reality is that the workload for the Marketing DAO has been increasing steadily for months, along with the expectations from community and key stakeholders.

The nature of the work and time commitment has shifted significantly from when the original Councils were appointed, which has resulted in very uneven workloads among Council members, as well as varying range of skills and interests.

Acknowledging the need to refresh leadership and expand the capabilities of the DAO, we started the process to recruit Advisors:

Proposal for Removal

Following many conversations with various members from community and other key stakeholders I worry that Marketing DAO is becoming stagnant, and that if change is not implemented soon, the DAO will no longer accurately represent the community it seeks to serve.

Most importantly, I believe it is important to stand by the principles and standards we are putting forward in the Charter. Go from ideas on paper to real world execution.

I reject the notion that just because there is a lack of wrongdoing then someone is allowed or expected to stay in a role indefinitely. This is particularly the case when there is remuneration from community treasury and when there are other candidates who are able and willing to step up and who may be able to deliver results.

I am grateful for all the work that Carl has done until now, but I no longer believe he has the time commitment, or skills necessary to lead the DAO into the next phase of growth (see the objectives of Marketing DAO and Eligibility Criteria for Council Members).

I acknowledge that it is the duty of Council members to be honest about their own and their fellows performance. We owe this to the community.

I may lose a friend for taking this stance, but it is no longer sustainable for the DAO to continue accumulating Council Remuneration debt and workload debt.

The topic has been raised several times over the last few weeks with no clear resolution, which is why I am putting up a formal proposal and open up the discussion for community input to settle the matter and move on.

Next Steps

  • Council members to vote on this proposal, taking into account Charter and community feedback
  • Community invited to provide feedback adhering to Community Guidelines
  • New Council member is expected to be appointed from the next batch of Advisors
  • Council member in question is still eligible for Trustee role

Your proposal lacks specific reasons and fails to provide a comprehensive context for your desire to remove @cryptocredit as a member of the Marketing DAO.

Based on my understanding of your text, it appears that you are expressing only your opinion that you doubt @cryptocredit and his ability to fulfill tasks. However, this argument lacks a strong rationale to support its validity. By the way, the majority of the text in your proposal focuses on the overall state of the Marketing DAO, which seems not really connected to the main subject.

It is important to note that removing someone should not be based solely on personal opinions but rather should be supported by strong arguments… arguments that haven’t been presented here so far.


Hello ,Carl is one of the most active consuls, which cannot be said about Taylor and AVB. The community should decide who will be the consuls, not the AVB!. Thanks for attention

1 Like

We need all hands on deck atm. “either shit or get off the pot”… We need all members of the marketing DAO to be in the front lines pushing for NEAR content.


Want to echo @agt ‘s sentiment here


I’m posting my point of view here publicly for transparency’s sake: I do not support this proposal.

The MarketingDAO has been working to finalize its Charter and Trust instrument for weeks – and these documents, once finalized, will codify the governance and processes for removal, replacement and election of council members. Also once finalized, in my view, there will need to be significant changes to the council as multiple council members are currently slated to also be trustees – and I do not think holding both roles at the same time is a benefit to the DAO or the community.

I don’t see why it makes sense to preempt the official process we are working to enact legally right before it goes into effect. It seems counter productive to me, as well as a distraction at a time when we have much to move forward and accomplish. Instead of focusing on this – which has taken far more council focus and energy than it should have – we should be focused on pushing initiatives forward that benefit the community. In my mind, those two things are finalizing the charter and legal trust instrument.


Thanks for posting you position on the forum.

In the interest of transparency;

  • The NEAR Foundation has raised questions and refused to pay for Marketing DAO remuneration for the last three months ($12k per council member, $60k total).
  • A major reason for moving forward this proposal NOW is so that we stop accumulating debt for Council Remuneration when the work is not being done.
  • The proposal is in line with the Charter - if you were to use your power of judgment and measure the current proposal against the objectives of Marketing DAO and the Eligibility Criteria for Council Members, the outcome is predictable.
  • The Charter also stipulates that any community member is able to make a proposal to remove a Council Member. Would your response be any different if it were a community member and not a current Council member putting this proposal forward?

I wholeheartedly agree that there is a lot of work that needs to be done, which is why I have been expressing my frustration with existing leadership team for months, why we’ve started process to recruit advisors (DAO has become so dysfunctional even that has been neglected), and why I have presented this proposal to bring in the talent we need to be able to execute ASAP.

Those who cannot see the community frustration and the consistent and accelerating decline of the DAO reputation and standing in the community are clearly not spending any time in it.