I vote no, because Creative DAO councils don’t support young artist from Africa.
voting no because If we look at the past Creative DAO structure, it was corrupted by mods and some DAO leaders such as muti Dao. Now the council’s team wants to come back to the practice and close voting for Creative DAO for all of the community.
I am voting no because it is only approved by Creative DAO applicants and they write positive feedback here. Looks like a bribe.
@iamabayy you Joined the community just 8 hours ago and you already understand the whole ecosystem and CDAO processes, past works and system to vote “NO”
Apparently a fake account IMO
Then How do we intend to justify this voting process
Most of the persons voting “NO” here
this is their very first post on the forum
Joined the forum just to vote against CDAO
IMO, critical decisions like this shouldn’t be made off voting on a forum where an individual can open multiple accounts from the same IP address to vote
Hahaha. Stop kidding us supporters
Two DAOs related to two councils Paul and Willian? How much you got
for the comment?
Haha. Have a look on list of rejected proposals
to understand our logic, dude. The CDAO of DAO is place for friends’ DAOsc funding.
The disaster is in the newly created accounts, weirdly.
Government of the people, by FAKE people, to the REAL people.
The Fund to work is available, but unfortunately nobody wants us to work… too much restrictions. but people in power never pass the power from different vertical would rather sit there forever to hate on new beneficiaries. To the people in power, its like a sin to be onboarded here tbh.
I understand where you’re coming from and what it might look like in some type of way… but we are not that fortunate.
any which way, If you have a good proposal that falls in line with NFs criteria in CD Vertical of course you will be happily approved… the issue now is that only few people can work, fund is insufficient
Funny how you think I was paid to point out an obvious fact in a thread
FYI I was onboarded to the ecosystem via those platforms and ever since I’ve been part of several successful projects
Meanwhile you’re hiding under the shadow of a fake user with no identity and proof of work, contributing to how the structure of the CDAO will be formed
Regarding this matter, I am agreed with you to all the points made.
I am standing on the believe of : I or We do not against the CreativeDAO. We against the current charter or framework of how CreativeDAO operates and the people running it. As a term of trust, the people running the Creatives should have not gotten into any kind of bad reputation or cause conflicts within its Community.
My suggestion: Revamp the whole CreativeDAO structure including: the people running and the operating models, intact a voting mechanism so the power won’t focus on just some individuals
Again, I or we do not against the idea of CreativeDAO. I still believe the DAO can bring significant value to the Creatives Community but at the current states, it is going backwards against the NEAR Community culture.
A heated thread for sure. As a member representing NF will try my best not to influence the discussion but a friendly reminder for everyone to follow the community guidelines and avoid being disrespectful to others.
Thankful for this extensive breakdown + healthy debates.
Have some useful recommendations RE: Voting structure and will be sure to take the time to write a post to that effect. Happy to see healthy discourse and a desire from all to work the kinks out for stronger infrastructure!
Glad to read this success story. You’re lucky, whereas we can’t get any funds…
We are reviewing your comments and suggestions for the charter shared.
In order to give the community enough time to review and as per GWG guidelines, we are extending the charter review till 14th April.
Additionally, here’s a small glimpse of the core parameters and how they bring value to NEAR are stated below.
These parameters were laid down, defined and finalised by community participation after months of discussion, group meetings, AMAs and consultation with various members of the ecosystem.
This approach channels individual community/DAO efforts to sync with NEAR strategic goals.
Let’s understand how they bring value to the larger NEAR ecosystem.
- Decentralisation - the more councils and the more decentralised the governance of a DAO requesting funding, the more score you get. This helps DAOs not to be a centralised entity and experiment with various internal governance approaches.
- Activities that focus on artists growth - this metric ensures that funds are provided to artists to build, instead of councils or community members taking majority of the funds for themselves.
- Internal interaction with DApps - A community can not exist in a silo and a robust network can only be created when communities build on internal dapps and not just use funds for their own project with no relation to other community resources.
- Community Growth - if the community has no long term trajectory and a path to onboard more members then we won’t be able to add to one of the aim goals of NEAR “to onboard a billion users”
- Internal community engagement - Communities can only thrive when they understand their environment and Knowles about projects in the ecosystem, be a part of updates which will help brew more collaboration and increase cohesion.
Yes, @Dacha. I said the scoring system as it actually is forbids projects to be evaluated in the criteria NF wants, if they do not follow certain other criteria that are not important to NF. NF decided that Creatives should have a system where the NF goals were respected, and in the case of the DAO from which I submitted, our project was to build a near dapp and distribute it in 2 universities (from my university and from my partner of the DAO), with a potency to spread it to all philosophy courses in Brazil (given I coordinate a large Brazilian project with more than 40 PhD Philosophy professors around Brazil), with a known team of devs and professors ready to work, and the scoring system did not allow the project to be even evaluated. And notice the scalability of the project; it seems much greater than some of the actually approved projects. We received no feedback in our proposal at all. And the same kind of proposals, with no scalability, that were approved before kept being approved after all this change. The fact that we did not receive constructive feedback was something that, together with the score system, is making us lose interest in keep building on near. I should also remember, Dacha, that the lack of constructive feedback in our proposal to marketing dao also removed our stimulus to keep building. For me, it seemed marketing dao, through the moderator, just wanted to reject it, and not talk about how it could be built in the most successful way. I dont know if I want to deal with a community and moderators that evaluate things without proper justification, or taking into consideration metrics that would consume too much of my time, or that do not provide constructive feedback.
And you are also right, @satojandro. NF dubious funding system for Creatives made many people that are beginning to trust this crypto world and people who are known leaders, like me (who brought so many people to near), to give a step back. The Creatives Scoring System made it worse for me, because it seems it wants to keep a certain model for all the DAOs, and it seems not to take in consideration that the many DAOs work differently and are in different steps of development. For example, a DAO of painters that only work with NFT painting can work in a more active way on telegram, because it is their job; but a DAO of philosophers, who are almost all of them professors, will not be active on telegram, because they have another work, and this time would be a certain time they give to a project, and this time will increase according to trust and interest. If telegram activity is something important to a DAO, we could never fulfill our plans to go beyond telegram, by using a decentralized blockchain contact through our app. Sorry for taking the conversation about my case, instead of generalize it, but I would like some things to be clear. Decentralization in the way Creatives intends to promote is not something realistic in projects with academics, as I was trying to make. We have coordinators of the projects, and professors usually run not to be coordinators of the courses. So philosophy professors in brazil like to study and let the coordinator dealing with bureaucratic things. That is the reason I can make projects with many professors in philosophy. I am always available to do the bureaucratic stuff. To ask from them to be part of 1 more bureaucratic thing would make them to give up, even more without the appropriate reward. Beyond that, we do not have time to go to every community call, given we have our IRL work to do, and we do not work for NF neither for Creatives; we have a project inside it with our DAO, which is completely another thing. I agree we must talk to the community about our project, and going in a monthly call in order to give accountability of what we are doing for the community, but then to be in a weekly call to get points to be considered? I dont feel this is a nice idea. Mainly because anyone can do it (as it was said by some people now), and this would mean nothing to NEAR Goals.
I agree with you, Dacha. Creatives should not impose duties like this. Creatives should always remember the DAOs do not work for Creatives and do not work for NF. The DAOs have their own objective, and as this objective is in confluence with NF goals, the DAOs can work together with NF, by receiving its funding through some of the funding channels, as the verticals, and delivering what they promised in their projects. Impose restrictions like this in the DAOs will only make DAOs with interesting projects to go away, because interesting projects can receive funding from anywhere, with much less restrictions. My last FIAT funding was from a large foundation that does not oblige me to do anything like this scoring system. If it demanded it, I would think twice before submitting to funding. Of course, the foundation demands lots of documents that will assure them juridical people will be responsible for the funding and the project, but this is another process.
About requirements on the use of some specific app, I remember, Dacha, you demanding my project to use Near Social. Nevertheless, I also agree with you that demanding the use of a certain app for any DAO, independently of the nature of the DAO or of the project, can be problematic.
But in general terms, I disagree that the actual scoring system is a good system, and it can be a real problem to keep the DAOs in the community. I am talking to many people, and everybody is losing interest in keeping the DAOs going. The time we would have to consume to make the DAO running in the Creatives is not compatible with the amount of funds allocated. I think, for example, I and the other professors would not book 1h or 2h of our weekly time for community call, plus 1h a day to telegram interaction, plus weekly astrodao votings, and bureaucracy decentralization, for a chance to receive 500 usd or so in a year for a person (asking resources 3x/year with 5k limitation). Professors here receive 6, 8, 10 times this amount in a month for their jobs. Devs could receive 10 to 20 times this value in a month. So if we are getting people to work for pennies, we should at least, I think, do not consume their time too much.
So what I think is that Creatives DAO should change the score system, taking into consideration the amount of time required from the DAOs and the NF Goals.
I also think Creatives and Marketing DAO should change how they approach the proposals, giving always constructive feedback. Creatives should, in my view, give at least any feedback in the proposals.
However, I also agree with @chloe that score and metrics development problems should not stop Creatives from improving its system. And I agree with @satojandro that the document should not be approved with this score/metrics.
Do you have specific areas of the charter that you have issues with?
Seems to me like the majority of the community with issues with the charter are sharing points that do not have much to do with the charter.
I would love to know specific points of the charter you have issues with. Also, while the charter shouldn’t be changed every 2 weeks, it should be altered from time to time to keep up with the pace of change in the ecosystem.
If people need funding to keep interest, they should lose interest and leave the ecosystem.
If people feel like it is “work” to attend Creatives DAO meetings and simply sit there in TG and say nothing, they should also not expect to get funding…
If a community is unable to gather enough interested members where they can have a TG group with a dozen or so people, then maybe they also do not need a few k in funding?
The funding here is NOT meant to replace any time of real job or work, it is simply meant to support…
I think the largest issue here is that people somehow expect Creatives DAO funding to be something that covers their costs fully for the timeline of the work.
I promise you, there is no way that 5k USD can cover any of our proposed building tasks, but the point is to use the 5k to support those building tasks that would happen anyways, and to make them more efficient to help engage the creative community.
I agree with altering scoring to be more in line with NDC goals (Don’t know so much about NF, NF doesn’t seem to have any long term goals that have truly helped the ecosystem)
I 100% agree with the feedback from all NDC related grassroots DAOs. Everyone who has a proposal that fits the rubric should get a grade/feedback so they can more efficiently resubmit next time.
Sorry you are unable to get any funds. I would love to see your DAOs proposal and see what you were trying to build.
Also I would love to know if your DAO is involved in other ways of getting funding in the NEAR eco like hackathons?
Imo if a DAO is rejected, yett isnt looking for funding in other areas, but is still complaining about lack of funding… it is hard to take them seriously. Funding is not a right, it is a privledge. A privledge to be able to have access to NEAR Community funds to build within the NEAR ecosystem. Not all builders get funded, and if you speak to MANY of the devs in the ecosystem who are building pretty cool projects, they also are having isseus getting funding.
So what is your DAO trying to build (creative, community, Dapp) that the NEAR Community Treasury should be spent on it?
Majority of the issues I have seen with the Charter are “Our group didnt get funding this month so it sucks” without any feedback how to make it more efficient.