I have no idea how to start a regional DAO or what the requirements are. Unfortunately, none of our people, including the developers, have any knowledge of the Near ecosystem, despite the fact that our region has more than 3 million active cryptocurrency users and a history of outstanding campaign and growth performance. If a DAO could exist in northern Nigeria, it would be a huge milestone for the near ecosystem.
Good morning! Firstly, community leaders must commit themselves to the initiative, and the Community should say a firm yes to the new Grassroot DAO (now - 50/50)
Regarding structure, it can be something similar to Marketing DAO: 5 councils, similar proposals, and reviewing procedures. It means technically Regional Communities DAO is almost ready to launch under the NDC umbrella.
Another question is to define active communities:
This is the list:
Some leaders like Near Korea and Sankore got funding directly from NF (and maybe continue doing it), and some worked with Marketing DAO. I think NDC is the best place to unite all of them, including Near Hubs.
The merits of regional guilds providing sometimes higher coverage and an influx of participants into the ecosystem are not even nearly noted anywhere by the NEAR Foundation.
For a long time, the NEAR Foundation has invested resources in the growth of many guilds, and it would be inappropriate to forget about it and stop working.
We don’t see further dialogue in the form of an open chat NF with Regional Guilds either.
This means a Telegram chat with specific proposals and how this work is planned.
This does not mean that the guilds have stopped working (but perhaps some may have stopped, but the rest continue to support the community and tell about new projects).
This group should bring together guild leaders and help those guilds that have been trying to do something over time without proper funding.
I also know that many active guilds continue to publish their reports and work for the good of the ecosystem.
My recent proposal was closed as a result of being out of content in the new marketingDAO funding, I am still looking for a better approach to organize or find something strong and sustainable for the ecosystem for a long that is why I want to start the DAO
Definitely background is missing in this voting and consequence analysis or narrative about possible alternative proposals. We need to have educated polls, with research share. Rather than asking for few random opinions based on feelings.
I agree that NEAR is highly concentrated, and this makes a foundation for pushing back stake weighted voting.
With stake weighted voting, validators won’t be able to use delegated NEAR for voting. They will only be able to use NEAR they own to vote.
Any user who is staking will be able to vote with stake weighted voting.
In the proposed NDC v1, HoM will have most of the governance power.
For v1 Constitution Ratification and Elections system, the minimum criteria are
is not passed through central planning
legitimate enough. I would claim that any temporal / social solution are not legitimate enough because they won’t represent enough of the ecosystem (for example NEARSocial is great but it’s adoption is far from NEAR staking. Furthemore it’s hard to say how this will be represented, and not gamed).
will rather have it sooner than later (we don’t want Ethereum PoS story again with pushing back the v1 by years.
I’m supporting stake weighted voting because it meets the criteria above.
Pros of stake weighted voting:
it’s easy to understand, and clear how to deliver it.
it’s not gameable
susceptible for collusion (big whales can push their candidacy)
IMHO, I won’t see that in v1 collusion will be a case: to try to take over the Gov in the day 1, especially if there is only a limited and small treasury at the beginning — it won’t be worth and take that risk and turn against the community.
Moreover there is a social consensus. If Whales will do that , we will get even stronger, and we will push for the new system to eliminate that sooner.
The candidates must run for elections (according to our process) — so there is lot of transparency anyway. Only candidates who will meet all stage of the run procedure will be able to apply for the final election. So again - the risk is close to zero.
moreover we are discussing to limit the term significantly rather then having HoS running for 2 years… 2 years is the entirety of the NEAR mainnet.
Finally, if stake weighted voting won’t work, it will only show that we have bigger problem, and NF did a wrong job with putting so much NEAR in entities who are not aligned with decentralization and fair economy.
We have a lot of projects in our Ecosystem with different tokens; furthermore, some people are stacking tokens on DEXes or exchanges. I believe staking and bringing value to the Community are two different things.
For example, wallet mob. Near has only 220 tokens in staking. Does it mean that EK’s opinion is not matter for Near Community?
Yes, but I’m more about decentralization and multiple grassroots DAOs. I definitely won’t nominate myself to the regional community DAO councils; I want to save regional guilds; we have already spent thousands of dollars on regional community and hubs development in the past.
Since the existence of Regional Communities is not mentioned at all in the NDC governance model, it is necessary for us to discuss it together here. Thanks to anyone who has brought the issue to this forum
For me personally, regardless of the vision, mission or different regional activities, the existence of regional communities / guilds still needs to be continued
If there is sentiment or dislike towards the performance of several reps in the region, it will be evaluated in a transparent and open manner and let those who are less committed will be eliminated by themselves.
That’s why we need Regional Communities DAO to be responsible for directing and evaluating KPIs.