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…
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
Vs
Not having internal dapp interaction would lead to
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 would bring so much complications, too much that Creatives DAO is doing already.
Why can’t some proposals go to Marketing DAO. They say they support creativities too, or do you think your proposals won’t be approved there?
It’s a lot CDAO is supporting already it would have been too many pressure on CDAO trying to split Focus in my opinion
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?
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:
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.
What do you think, dear friend @Cryptonaut?
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. 
Hello ,when is the 5th Creative DAO Council’s election?@blaze @creativesdao-council @marketingdao-council @hairen
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
proof
Nice project initiative for community and creators!
