The community can self-organize how they will request funding from the Grassroots DAO’s (GDAOS).
As many are aware, there is no ability in V0 governance to make formal voting decisions, as all current mechanisms are gameable. The voting mechanism is under active development.
Because there can be no vote, there can be no additional Grassroots DAOs that receive funding directly from the Community Treasury.
However, the need for regional communities and previous guilds to receive funding remains. I would recommend renaming them to “Collectives” as a general name and then establishing what criteria a collective needs to meet to receive funding. Collectives can be slipt across language, locality, or even verticals.
So if this DAO is a reasonable step to establish whether an RDAO is needed as one of the GDAOs it seems it could be a good experiment.
@Cryptonaut i hope you took a look at this and read about the role of the possible DAO council members.
What is used by the CreativesDAO to measure success?
In the beginning, it was a great idea but just now it’s a rush? I am struggling to understand.
As it is known, this is something I have championed to present before the community for feedback. It’s not what the GWG is forcing on the community or any of the grassrootsDAOs. The MDAO has agreed to provide funding for RC-DAO if the community welcomes the idea. This means they have welcomed the idea.
I understand that CreativesDAO is doing a whole lot to fix all the past mistakes and creating different measures. Then I wonder how this can’t be one.
To round it up, I am just here to make the community understand what is been proposed and get feedback to make it better for the community.
In regard to the KYC process for our Regional DAO, I believe that having one person from the team who has successfully passed KYC should suffice. There is no need for every member or core member to undergo the KYC process individually.
It is my opinion that it is logical for one individual to take on the responsibility of funding and grants. This individual should be the one to undergo the KYC process, write proposals, and ultimately take responsibility for the management of the funds.
Furthermore, we have already implemented a requirement for guilds to be at least one year in the community. This significantly reduces the risk of rug-pulling as we have a better understanding of who we are dealing with.
In the past, noname individuals with Twitter/Telegram accounts full of bots have been able to raise grants for 2-3k and then disappear with the funds. However, I challenge anyone to show me a case where a member of the community who has contributed significantly to our community has taken funds and failed to fulfill their obligations.
Currently, we are experiencing issues with the payment process and the KYC requirements for our community. Specifically, the payment process is taking a considerable amount of time to complete, and the KYC process is becoming increasingly demanding with each iteration, requiring more and more documents each time, which is concerning.
I would like to provide feedback on the KYC process for our community. I do not believe that it is necessary for each core member to undergo the KYC process. Implementing such a requirement would not necessarily protect us from fraudulent individuals or double grants. Instead, it would make the grant process more complicated and time-consuming.