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…
Hi Everyone,
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.
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?
Pikespeak: https://twitter.com/pikespeak_ai/status/1641392613646270465?t=_5WNHOeFwsTuMGN18PYKMA&s=19
Keypom: Flex-A-Tech Hackathon Details & Updates
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.
I so much agree with Frado. The Creatives Dao has evolved beyond her original intention to be a Dao of Daos into becoming a vertical of verticals. Our creative activities have done a lot of grass-root / physical education about Near including strategic marketing within local communities which has undisputedly attracted so many people into web3 and the Near ecosystem. Every digital marketer knows that the best marketing is “Viral marketing” (letting the people do the marketing) and with our creative scope, we have infiltrated communities youtube videos and blog posts couldn’t have accessed. I can testify to this from several events I have been privileged to speak about NFT and Near, majority in attendance could relate as they had interacted with Near in one way of the other through our creative outreaches. I’ll say this, Africa is one continent that has really been impacted by the outreach of the Creatives Dao.
And I vote Yes to the Charter.
Posting pictures of community members on a Charter thread discussion is completely unnecessary. Once again reminding everyone to remain respectful of everyone else, even if you don’t share their point of view and believe they have a bias against the ongoing proposal(s).
And for those having strong criticisms, please try and support them with more details and offer solutions.
We all have a common goal of having a thriving Near ecosystem. Let our actions reflect that 
I totally agree with you! @chloe
cos it seems like a lot of people are concerned about the funding rather than the value they bring to the ecosystem. In all ramifications the CDAO mods are making brilliant efforts. I know majority of African Artists that has really been impacted by the creative DAOs outreach. Personally, web3 music has become the key factor in my career, selling of Audio NFTS & web3 Song composition. And all of this was made possible with the Creatives DAO.
I Vote Yes to the charter.
I believe, Chloe, this does not account for why people came to the ecosystem in the first place. And why people stayed around. People did not came to NEAR because they’ve chosen near in comparison to other blockchains, but they’ve chosen NEAR because NEAR had an interesting funding mechanism for DAOs, that allowed them to build projects of mutual interest between the people and near. If there were no funding mechanism, it is not clear why people would choose near instead of ethereum or polygon, for example, or even tezos. In fact, many of the Brazilian artists that came to NEAR came because tezos blockchain was passing through some problems with the hacker issue, and NEAR was offering funding to start building, minting, and publicizing it. Now why would artists stick around if there are no collectors or funding on NEAR (specifically on the Creatives)?
For me, Chloe, it is work to attend to any meeting. In fact, in my IRL job, all the meetings are included in my time of work. Everything that spends our time in order to make something is a work. Any second of anyone’s time spent in building a community is work. But will this work be valued or not? For example, my community of philosophers uses email and whatsapp. Should I make the effort to make everyone download telegram and check telegram everyday? Even without funding, with a mere promise to have points to submit a proposal? I am talking of highly known professors that would never give them this kind of work, if there is no incentives, as a scholarship for their students, or something like this. To bring people to the ecosystem is not an easy task, and people do not come ready to fit in these requirements the Creatives are building. I have a community of philosophers, that were interested in connecting their work with NEAR while there was funding. They are not going to rush their projects to fit in a DAO’s timeline without incentives, and they are not spending their time building courses to a near app if near is not funding. We could make it even more easily if the app I am envisioning was created on web2, or in a larger blockchain. And although I think it is interesting to exist an app like this on near, I dont know if it is worth my time, given I would have to coordinate devs, designer, professors to build something for a larger objective. And why would these people work for this objective if there is no funding?
If you check the project, you will see there is no payment for me to coordinate the app the project, and there is only payment for council administrative issues (a payment only happening in 1 month for a project of 12 months, which I only put it in order to pay myself something to be building something for the community). Of course 5K cannot cover any development with decent prices, even more not happening more than 3x a year with projects that go around 1 year of execution. And we were not even talking about this funding properly; we were talking about how NF goals, publicized by the moderators, are not respected by the actual scoring system. Do u think a good project to get funding would require from the people to spend so much time WORKING inside the community, with telegram, astrodao, forum, weekly calls, etc? It is easier that this incentive make only the DAOs already receiving funds to keep receiving it. It does not account for new projects trying to present their ideas for the community. I have never seen a foundation that to release this amount of funds demanded 1 month of active participation in their inside projects, just to consider a proposal; neither on traditional foundations. Anyway, I think the main problem for me was not have my proposal considered because of lack of points, and the proposal was really good, and beyond not having the proposal considered, we also received no feedback on the proposal, as a proof that it was not even considered in its content. So if a scoring system allows and makes moderators not consider a good project from a DAO already building in the ecosystem, so it seems clear that the scoring system is not good. And if your defense of the system is to say that DAOs with people with less time to spend in these scoring requirements are dispensable and should leave the ecosystem, I would say that this a strong thing to say. And you were not the first important person I see saying something like that. This is sad, because it shows that important people from the ecosystem do not care about the growing community or the newcomers, or even with people that already build for the community. With your words, I can understand that or the DAO and its members spend a lot of time of their lives in these medias you find interesting, or there will be no funding for their projects, no matter how interesting it could be for the community. If u want to see our project, Chloe, please check the Philosophers DAO funding proposal for march 2023.
But now the question: how to improve the scoring system?
I would say that we should have eliminatory and classificatory features, with different weight, and presence on telegram should not be eliminatory not even highly classificatory. I think all projects should be evaluated and the main criteria should be the own project. To be present and to explain the project to the community can be an eliminatory score, but to be present in weekly calls may have some influence in the classification. But I really think that the project is more important than community participation or number of councils.
Decentralization of the DAO does not account for how DAOs are born and managed. At least not in the beginning. In the beginning DAOs are developed by effort of few individuals that care about the administrative life of the DAO. So to require this in the beginning will make new DAOs to not be able to access funding. And if a DAO is more or less decentralized, this is not important at all to NF Goals. The most important thing, I think, is to spread the community, to grow the community. And we must do that and forbids fraude at the same time. So to establish some video meet to know each other could be good to avoid fraud. To build mechanisms for people to not create multiple DAOs is also a good thing. But to build this into the score, through demanding a certain kind of decentralization, for example, does not seem appropriate, because it does not take into consideration how DAOs develop.
I think some other questions should guide our scoring system, like:
I even dont know if a scoring system is the best way, or just a yes/no system to certain questions. But if there is a score, I believe that should be classified not just for the period submitted, but for the future ones in case it is not approved for the period it wanted. I think that because this would stimulate people to stick around even if they do not have funding now, given they would know that in the month X they would receive funding for their project. And it would reduce the work of moderators to evaluate projects less times per year, given there will be projects approved for future months - thus new evaluations would only have to happen before months where there are still room for projects. If projects are good, so scoring would be just a matter of who receives first, and not a matter of who is rejected. Rejection would occur before, in the criteria to submit a proposal.
Sorry for not presenting a systematic view. I think all my thoughts and ideas expressed here could be improved.
If we focus on this section I believe we can make it work. Should not be controversial at all.
Already a metric - DAO/community growth
Don’t see how this would add value. There are various NFT marketplaces aimed at attracting a different audience. Just because one exists doesn’t mean another should not.
Good point. Should be considered as a part of the metric. Team background and capability to achieve the proposed roadmap.
Thanks for highlighting.
Disparity being the criteria not being mentioned clearly to sync with objectives, however it is mentioned clearly in the appendix in the charter.
Will update that to make it tighter.
You can see the metrics mentioned below to understand how it adds direct value to NEAR.
First of all, thank @Cryptonaut, for your answer.
Let me talk to you, answer you, and raise a few points.
I think u misundertood me concerning this topic. I was not saying that reproduction has less value than prototypes, but I felt it was important because prototypes are not yet tested, so it is an attempt, and reproductions are founded on already working prototypes. So reproductions of something that works seem more valuable than prototypes.
But I think the main thing is to make the scoring system evaluate projects instead of DAOs organization.
This metric seems non-objective, given there is no way of scoring that down. I think there will not be created a chart where the numbers of CREATIVES (not artists, but CREATIVES) benefited will generate a number to the score.
I do not know how this will help to achieve NF Goals, as provided by the moderators. Why a DAO with 10 council will be better to achieve projects for the community than a DAO with 3 councils? Do u think a dao with 10 councils can make better projects, onboard more people, or develop better apps than a DAO of 3 people in the council? I think this need of decentralization that you are scoring is irrelevant to the quality of the work and the development of the DAO. Please, if I am wrong, show me.
This is important to NF, but I dont know how to deal with new daos. Should they never receive funding to make their projects? Or do their projects have to connect with other Dapps? What this topic means: that the project must be connected with other dapps, or that the DAO must be using other Dapps to be considered?
Again, if the community has no long term trajectory, no funds. This is weird, because again new communities will receive no funding unless they have a long term trajectory, and it seems clear that new daos have no long term trajectory. So the DAO would have to participate on the community for a long term trajectory before asking for resources. But which new DAO would be inside the community for a long time without funds? And beyond that, you demand that the DAO have a roadmap to onboard billion of users. I bet most of the DAOs which were approved for funding do not have a roadmap to onboard BILLIONS of users. And this is the most important NF Goal: onboard users and make them active.
I also disagree. Telegram engagement, or public engagement of any sort, is not needed at all to make a good work inside the DAO, or to respect NF Goals. As I said, in the DAO I am a member, for example, people there talk by email, whatsapp, and other mechanisms, and I dont know why public engagement would make us develop even more NF Goals. And beyond that, how can you know about internal community engagement? How many sentences does someone need to say on telegram to have a high score in this topic? Talking on telegram will increase the number of users?
Kudos to you Sir.
I applaud you for being one of the few members of the creatives community willing to engage in the conversation, think critically, and contribute to solutions. Your interactions with Sahil give me hope…
