100% i agree with you, no one will make decisions for us, and we need our African regional hub
You meant documented, time-stamped versions with feedback and suggestions from the community-- and NOT IN A GOOGLE DOC ??
As you can see Community and many leaders doesn’t support the solution.
Yes, there is no much support for stake weighted voting… which puts us in a difficult situation. Designing a new solution with requirements I listed above will push back the whole plan.
Like I said, stake weighted voting is not that bad for this initial, limited phase. So I don’t see much problems. I would prefer that we move forward and iterate. Rather than spending months/years of finding and discussing ideal solution.
For the feedback phase, we can use whatever make sense and whatever is efficient.
The final version, which everyone will be voting for, should be timestamped on NEAR blockchain.
I think the idea of having regional communities is great. It would also be good to check who has done a good job so far, not only in numbers but also built on Near, worked closely with the developers and opened new wallets on Near or brought investors. We need to work more closely together and exchange ideas with the other regional leaders (eg. Weekly or bi-weekly meetings) There are already over 900 projects on Near, most of which are supported by local communities to represent their project. It may be natural for some to do it, but little or no appreciation is given. Also you have to prove every time you did a good job and fight your way through here to get the budget instead of working closely together and concentrating on the plans. There are some communities that have been here in good times and bad and continue to support 7/24 without funding. I advise you to carefully review the list of active communities, get in touch with them and learn what they have achieved so far, what are the next plans and how you can support them.
If Marketing DAO is being fair enough and not discriminating,
The ecosystem should be about the PROJECTS, not the RACE!
Does NF support discrimination?
Should it be permitted in DAOs criterias ?
Is this what the ecosystem is becoming now?
Thank you for this
I guess this is it!
The evolutions of such founding documents, through their versions, if visible to all, would render a zeal of legitimacy to it. That is what I was trying to say dear R
I say Yes!
This is extremely important and needs to be done ASAP.
We need to be more organized and goal oriented then focusing on numbers. Every country has different potentials, but digital marketing tactics stay the same which require some strong skills and exp. We need to educate and guide guild leaders more!
As far as I observe most guilds focus on quantity rather than quality which is extremely dangerous and often missed by the observers!
We should encourage them to work more effectively by brainstorming together and proposing great ideas, viral campaigns(series of events that will have a snowball effect), localized content/ easy-to-use engagement ideas and support them with adequate funding than negotiating on the proposal price. Also, every guild should be audited by local agents to be organized by a strong coordinator. Why? For instance, If you don’t speak Turkish, have no idea about the local market, not be familiar with local communities tendencies you wouldn’t precisely be sure about what Turkish guilds r actually doing and whether they really care about Near or not at all!
It not reasonable to throw similar proposals each month with just fair outcomes but expect miracles. You cannot be walking in a race where everyone else is running.
Thank you for pointing out what is on my mind. I guess it is that the ecosystem puts more pressure on numbers than quality; there’s kind of a way to see how it benefits the ecosystem, how many wallets are you going to create or users? So whenever issues like this start coming out they are indirectly referring to the numbers. That is why user retention is one of the most difficult things in the web3 ecosystem because the majority of the ecosystem is more concerned with numbers than long-term sustainability.
With this approach, the ecosystem is going to have strong armies and aliens lol
yes! we like to see it
Musings on Polls —
P1) If a member to HoM is remunerated according to the poll-
a) If I do have the technical expertise to assess a funding proposal, why th would I agree to do such complex work for less than the average salary of a clown(Circus Clown Salary | PayScale) Would it really not disincentivize truly capable people to care??
b) From a game theoretical, rational individual mental model-- I am an ecosystem representative to HoM and If do my job perfectly, my incentive ceiling is 25K-
b) but if I act maliciously (take a cut, pay to play, quid pro quo collusion) my incentive ceiling is effectively a % of my specific ecosystem budget ?
Why would I act in the direction of a good outcome for the community at the risk (more a certainty IMO) of assured opportunity cost for me ?? Definition of Perverse incentive - Wikipedia.
Would we a laughing stock for inserting such a common sense, systemic vulnerability (remember HoM has the EXCLUSIVE right to propose in V1) into perhaps a great opportunity??
P2) Does the poll, signal a longer term reputation in the ecosystem as a prerequisite to be on a governance council ? If so, are there any members like that currently in V0 who doesn’t fulfill this criteria and would they be allowed to continue in power?
P5) V1 framework does not have a “grassroots DAO” LAYER written into it – YET !!
Did we slip up when this question was put out to poll or is this meant for V0 governance ? If so, why do we see a divergence from the popular signal to the actual action ??
Are we selectively blind and optionally deaf??
There is a reason why the projects had to prove themselves over and over again, @cizi31, and that is to protect the treasury, so that Guilds don’t, for example, misbehave or ask for more money than what is spent. Because if there is anything above the community, it is the Treasury and the Protocol. It remains to be seen how the NEAR Foundation or NDC will handle the regional guilds, or whether regional guilds will continue to be funded by the marketing DAO, but one thing is clear if a project or guild has behaved negatively, then this must not be funded further under any circumstances, otherwise, it would contradict the values of the NEAR Foundation.
I totally support this initiative, regional communities are the most important marketing entities in the ecosystem.
We need separate DAO and making decision place.
I believe regional DAOs should exist, but they should seek funding from the relevant entity(ies).
When a new regional hub is bootstrapped, it should be much easier to get their budget (which will start small) from one of the themed DAOs (Creative/Marketing/Developers) and from there they will grow and potentially raise budgets from local partnerships, and later could even become independent accelerators.
For example, organizing an event for OpenWeb adoption will fall into the Marketing DAO realm, while organizers of a workshop could get funding from Creative or Developers DAO (Creative DAO is about building end-user apps, Developers DAO is about improving the tooling, documentation, etc).
More specifically, I could see such requests to fall into Developers DAO if the focus and KPIs are switched from awareness (marketing) to community contributions (pull requests to the common good libraries), or Creative DAO if the focus would be on getting successful projects to be launched.
Totally agree with you.
Hey Vlad. I see you’re not familiar with grassroots DAOs. Creative dao doesn’t build end-user apps. The dao spent over 2M during the last two years and didn’t give any valuable results.
Developers’ dao is not transparent structure, no any reports since the dao was created.
Have you read the new marketingDAO guidlines? It will be hard for guilds to get funding for their full acrivities.