First off, thank you to everyone who was able to attend the Guild Leaders AMA today and to @erik.near for facilitating the ongoing conversation around what’s next for the Guilds Program.
If you missed the AMA, you can catch the recording here:
the clearer need for a full NEAR Community overarching purpose was established
many potential definitions for a community were shared and the multiplicity of possible definitions
the nuances around when someone becomes an active community member vs. a passive community member were explored - conclusively it seems most appropriate to create opportunities for community members to self-identify their involvement / affiliation with a specific community and it would be best left up to the community in question to create those opportunities
- however, support from NF may be needed to craft options or tools for the community leadership to use as a part of this, i.e. the under-development Guilds Platform
the move of referring to everyone - Guilds, DAOs, groups, etc. - as simply communities of NEAR was well-received
a desire for a clearer framework for ‘laddering up’ support (predominantly funding) for communities was also established
- some differing views as to the structure of this framework - is it a tiering system? a funnel into NF Grants? something else?
what metrics should exist to assess community ‘success’ were understood to be a mix of off-chain (# of Telegram group members, # of Discord server members, etc) and on-chain (# of wallets, # of DAO council and group members) but more clarity is needed within the framework on this
- a need for the broader Community to establish for themselves what is most important to measure came through
The main call-to-action that emerged out of this conversation was:
For those willing and interested, you can submit a proposal here on the Forum in the Community Fund subcategory (tagging @community-team & @erik.near) outlining YOUR thoughts and plan around how community funding could be redesigned i.e. the framework we established is necessary to more clearly define.
Please post by Wed. April 13 so the entire Community can have the opportunity to read through the proposals and respectfully engage with them before our next community-wide discussion (estimated to occur by end of April). The next conversation can be modelled as more of a working group session to dig deeper into these proposals, but this will all depend on what thoughts get shared before then!
Some suggested questions to consider while preparing your proposal are:
- how inclusive / accessible is this structure or framework you’re proposing so anyone no matter their knowledge and understanding of crypto and the NEAR ecosystem can engage?
- how are we looking to reward contributions (what kind of contributions, how are these contributions being defined) to the NEAR ecosystem?
- what parameters or criteria need to be established as part of this framework? ex. how individuals qualify or self-identify as members of the broader NEAR Community / any specific communities?
- at what point does NEAR Foundation need to be included in the framework and at what point is it best for no NF intervention?
- how are we looking to fairly distribute the Community Fund resources within a balanced approach of a structure that isn’t too rigid or strict, but provides more guidelines than currently exist to help channel community member energies & reward quality contributions?
Anyone who would prefer to share their thoughts more privately, can feel free to do so here in this Typeform (shout-out to Guild Ops for setting this up). Your impressions and thoughts will be passed on via Guild Ops to the NF Community Team and this can happen anonymously if you prefer.
Thank you in advance for your participation and feel free to drop questions or comments below.