Web3 is not even a decade old. To not support new ideas that potentially would bring value to the ecosystem seems like stifling growth.
Good point. Can be changed from artists to creatives.
We are expecting to fund communities that can scale and help NEAR with its onboarding goals. If a massive community is only handled by 3 people, it makes the whole idea of decentralisation, being one of the core tenets of NEAR, irrelevant.
Yes. Internal dapp interaction
helps build resilience between new DAOs/communities and existing projects.
helps people get educated hence enabling more growth and development in the ecosystem
Vs
Not having internal dapp interaction would lead to
communities working in silo
less understanding about the ecosystem projects and integration for growth
It’s important for communities to have a vision they are working towards. Don’t you think so?
Otherwise funds will be disbursed for short term and then the community won’t grow.
It’s quite an unreal expectation to demand a DAO onboard 1/8th of the world population and no one is expecting that.
It’s important to add our bit to help achieve 1 billion user goal that NEAR has.
Interesting thought. Don’t you think it’s important for communities to share their learnings and grievances to grow better?
And if a community is being incentivised to help each other grow, does that not add to the resilience and retention of people on NEAR?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I really appreciate you giving your inputs to make this process better.
Id love to have a look at your vision to score DAOs for funding in line with near strategic goals.
Maybe we’ll be able add or remove some criteria basis feedback from others.
This is true, and I agree. My intentions were not to dismiss prototypes. Including my app project submitted last month is a prototype. However, I meant that prototypes have less value than what is already a product/service. So I meant that a project that is not a prototype, but an already known action/product/service, has more chances ceteris paribus to obtain a certain number of people than the prototype.
Thank u. But the main point here is how to transform the possible number of affected creatives by the project into a number for the score?
I could not understand your point. If a massive community is only handled by 3 people, this does not frustrate any of NF Goals. In fact, if this is a massive community and it is working well, NF does not care if it is handled by 3 people, 10 people, or 200 people. The most important thing is to have growing community of active members. How these communities are managed is not relevant to NF, neither relevant to the other communities inside Creatives. How a DAO manages its internal organization is not important to the development of the projects. NF wants communities, and not just a certain kind of communities. Do you think NF prefers to lose a large community managed by few people, or to have a large community even managed by few people? As I said, NF wants to grow the community, and not forbids communities to get funding because they do not have a certain structure. The Decentralization NF wants is decentralization of the Creatives, and not the DAOs that compose it. That is my opinion.
I feel this could be interesting, but maybe just a classificatory point, and not an elimination point. And maybe it should be checked on the project, and not in the DAOs actions previews to the project. If DAOs are not receiving funds, it is really probable that they will be less active. So if u decide that there must be a lot interaction before in NEAR Dapps, what is going to happen is that new DAOs interested on NEAR will go away. I know the resources are reduced now, and most of the DAOs are not willing to help other DAOs in the process. This is because they can only ask for 3x resources in an year, and they do not want to share with projects from other DAOs. I tried to ask DAOs to help us, by splitting the cost of the project among many DAOs, but most of the DAOs rejected to help. Only Feminu DAO and Philosophers DAO decided to help. So asking for the use of Dapps and DAOs interactions will not help DAOs without funding.
And the situation is difficult. For example, if I am creating a Dapp, does this constitutes a Dapp interaction? Or should I have interactions with other Dapps before creating my Dapp? I feel these interactions should be considered inside the project.
I agree that communities must have a roadmap in order for us to know their objective. But long term trajectory is another thing, which I think must not be demanded from communities, because they demand too much time in the ecosystem.
That is true, but I do not see in many of the projects approved or roadmaps a path to onboard a significant number of users. It is sad that my DAO worried about this topic, and no feedback was given and no funding was released to it. So, although I see this topic as deeply important, as it is a growing community topic, I did not see much effort to take this into real consideration in evaluating the proposals. So I think the score was not created properly, given it is not giving attention to the most important topic of all criteria: growing the community.
Yes, I believe that. But sharing is something that could be not public, or that could be through other means, like whatsapp or email, which are already means my DAO uses to contact. I dont see a reason why the members of my or any DAO should change the way we/they communicate just to show we/they are communicating.
Dear friend Sahil, what gives retention and resilience of creatives inside Near is funding and collectors (when there are). People will keep building on NEAR and bringing their projects here, if they receive funding to do so or if it is possible to build something and earn money with it in a sustainable way (like an interesting dapp). I bet if NEAR decides that will not fund Creatives or NDC, most of people will simply go away. To make people to use telegram just for moderators to see how the internal interaction happens is a work for the people that do no use telegram. And they will not do something that gives them work without any incentive. So what I am trying to say is that these demands could make people go away, even more if they are not receiving funds. Notice that, although Philosophers DAO exists for 1 year more or less, it came from a research group that exists since 2010, composed of PhD professors and their students. Do you think professors that earn 5k usd per month will change their means of communication for some project that would give them 500 usd or so? Or worse: just the possibility of receiving resources? Of course, if u deal only with people that really need this resource, they could accept these criteria, and change how they work in order to fulfill what is demanded from them. But groups that do not need this resource will not accept changing how they communicate, or changing how they manage the administrative life of the dao. Our group does not need the resource, although we could use it to do some pretty great things to near community if we have it. But we are not changing our structure just to receive the resources. If the Creatives wants our project and thinks it is valuable for the community, it will accept it, and not demanding our community to be in a certain structure.
I think many people are seeing things a little bit inverted. The communities in fact do not need NF or the Creatives. The Creatives and NF need the communities. I think we must accept communities as the communities present themselves, and focus our criteria on the project and capabilities of the people and dao involved. How the DAO is structured, or how it communicates within itself, this is something that does not concern us. What concern us is the project, how it helps Near Community, and how it is feasible by the people requesting the resources.
I think you should really think about my answer, because I think some demands can get more people away than grow the community. For example, my DAO did not submit a project this month, after the rejection without feedback from last month. People simply lost interest, given the lack of stability on funding and the lack of proper evaluation. After checking the score, our DAO saw there are too many demands, which generates for us a large work beyond our project, what none of the professors are willing to do. We want to make a project of mutual benefit to near and to us, and this will spend a certain amount of our time. If Creatives want that the dao beyond offering a good project, also have a certain previews relation to other daos, a presence in all community calls, a internal and external presence on telegram, a certain kind of decentralization on council members, in order to accept evaluating a project, you will really reduce the DAOs allowed to submit projects. So now, I think all of us face a deep challenge: what to do with the score?
To answer that, we must first answer: what do we want the score captures?
Something about the DAO organization, or something about the project?
Is the DAO organization important to evaluate the projects?
What are the main values we want to achieve? Is it growing the community? Or establishing a structure to all DAOs?
We want to reduce the amount of people that can submit, or we want to increase the amount of people that can submit? (I dont think reducing is good for “growing the community” value.)
I do not have a clear positive vision yet. It seems the present score is not good, and the reason seems to be the fact that it focuses in the DAOs structure, and not in the project itself. I think the path for us here would be to score according to the project. I made some of the questions I think it would be important at one of my previews answers, but I think these are very important questions:
Does the project grow near community of creatives? (how many accounts, how many potencial accounts?)
Does the project create or maintain active members? (what is more important? create active members or maintain them? I dont know. Something to discuss)
Does the project have scalability?
Does the project have the possibility of self-sustainability?
Does the project have objective metrics that could be evaluated in order to check the success or failure of the project?
Is the project integrated with some other DAO or some Dapp on NEAR?
Is the project some Dapp on NEAR?
Does the DAO have already some project and report on NEAR? (how the report shows the capacity of the DAO?)
Is the DAO capable of delivering what it is promising?
I think maybe these are the main questions that should guide the score. Of course, to make these yes/no questions to become a score, we need to do something else, which is establish relative value.
We have 1 great value: to grow near community. So this is the supreme good of our theory. I think we must think: what is more important of that list (relative to the other points) to fulfill our great value? According to our answer to the relative valuation question, we could start to build a score.
Thank u very much, @hairen. I hope I can contribute for the good development of this community. It is a community I care about, which I saw the 2021/2022 growth, I helped with it, and I dont want to see it fading away. I thank u for your kind words, because it was the fact that I was called by Dacha here and the fact that my interactions with Sahil are being valued by you that make me keep thinking together, independently of funding.
Thank u, Aniike, for your answer and questions. I think the fact that something adds some more depths to our calculus is not bad at all. I think if we are making a score, this score must be able to build a large and growing community, and stimulates this. If we approve a score with some problems in allowing many kind of daos to access funding, we will reduce community and diverge from our main objective of growing near community.
I don’t trust present councils because they support only Portuguese artists. They were elected by Muti DAO in exchange for positive voting in the future
Hi @Vladislas A reminder for you to not make claims without solid proofs or it will be considered as " Use defamatory remarks or make false statements against others" and that’s against the community guidelines.
We will take appropriate actions if you don’t cooperate. Thank you!
As per our last internal call I have noted down the points you mentioned.
All data points are being gathered shared by CDAO members and other ecosystem members. We will share a consolidated list of points to be added to the charter soon.
Also, please join the community calls if you’re keen on discussing and helping the Creatives community.
Ok…so well…here are my thoughts… as a long established/suffering full-time creative operating exclusively within the NEARverse…(does anyone still use that term ?..so 2021 ! )
As a non-DAO individual creative I’m not supported by creatives dao…although it’s nice to see room in the charter for “individual artists self-organising as a dao” [paraphrase]…but I actually think that there is a larger issue at stake here…which is whether there is a genuine desire within the ecosystem to support creative initiatives…and/or creatives…and what shape that should take…as clearly from a lot of the comments above - and numerous other creatives dao related posts/replies and telegram chats…not everyone is convinced.
IMO… Creatives Dao V2 (or are we on V3 now?..) should be a way to support creative initiatives/creatives who are aligning a project with whatever the established ecosystem goals are. (Noted @chloe above…re the movable feast & goalposts…)
The scoring system - and the execution of it so far by the mods - does seem a solid attempt to address this from what I’ve seen…and I really think that the @creativesdao-council have tried to rebuild the program along these lines…however this latest iteration feels like it is hamstrung by being a segway to link the V1 version of creatives - and the daos/communities that were funded by it - with the brave new world of the NDC…
Whereas I think that we should probably draw a line under the previous iterations of creatives dao and instead reimagine it as a dynamic entity that is in harmony with the rest of the ecosystem under NDC oversight…
For me…this would be a grassroots dao that supported projects based on how they aligned with a specific set of aims and values…and how they deliver on them…rather than other hoop-jumping metrics…and/or requirements to organise in a certain way.
I do believe that the current mods have their eye on the prize…and their hearts in the right place…and the move to NDC voting/funding will obviously be a gamechanger…but now might be the time to remake creatives dao as an entity that draws admiration rather than opprobrium from the rest of the community…
So…yeah…while I am generally supportive of the charter and its aims…I also think this could be an opportunity to aim a bit higher
Based on the feedback shared by the community, we’ve made some changes to the metric system and the language of the charter where the Objectives are more aligned with the Purpose.
The charter is going to be reviewed every 6 months to ensure alignment within creatives and Near strategic goals as both can change overtime.
This is a basic bare bone structure which allows us to move forward and a step in the direction of being more independent and decentralised.
Request you to have a look and share your final thoughts so we can move forward to launch the trust instrument and fund the Creatives Community from NDC treasury begin April.
We’re trying our best to assist individual artists but our focus as of now is a smooth transition in funding from NF to NDC.
This is a partnership and imo an interim semi solution for individual artists of our community.
A more sustainable solution would be start a working group and create a charter which defines purpose, objectives and processes for better transparency and much stronger chance of individual artists getting funded.
@vandal is starting a working group and I remember us discussing this topics a few months back. Adding this as one of the goals working group and your support and lead on this will be of great help!
Thnx for your reply…but the “individual artist” comment wasn’t the main point of my post…(it was just a reference point for my perspective as a current non-beneficiary)
Main point was about an aspiration for C Dao to move forward into NDC in a harmonious fashion…by embracing the future rather than the previous status quo.
I actually think the very existence of C Dao under NDC will depend on this.
I look forward to reading through the adjustments to the charter
Thnx also for the link to the Free Artists post. Had seen it already…but assumed it didn’t apply as it appeared to be for approved/funded C Dao projects. So…yep…thnx
I am talking with @vandal re a series of initiatives… including some iteration of a working group
Hey @The_darrk , sorry for the slow reply but I was away for a few days… The current councils were voted in by the 6 previous moderators which were all from different DAOs (all the info on those councils is in the very top of that post you linked in). I’m the only one of those 6 that is a council for muti, and none of the new moderators are part of muti. Hope that clears things up. Thanks
Is there a ‘tracked changes’ version of the revised charter? I’m struggling to see where the changes have been made…italics or a colour might work also…if it’s not possible to show the amendments etc.
)
