Guild types and onboarding thoughts

Some quick questions and thoughts about Guilds which hopefully guide discussions around how to support them and quantify their members.

What is a “guild” anyway? Core question. Is it a community backed by a DAO or just a community? Well… let’s pop up a level.

Goal: The high level goal of Guilds is to provide a way to support, organize and mobilize communities of people on NEAR. These people should be linked to NEAR via an on-chain account but otherwise things are pretty flexible.

Success: Guilds are successful if their members are successful. The goal of any project that supports guilds (eg Astro via providing ways to DAO-back a community) should be to make those communities as successful as possible. A successful community attracts new members, so the growth in the number of people affiliated with Guilds should be the core metric to track (at least to start).

Onboarding: To make guilds have as many people as possible participate, it should be as easy as possible to discover and join one (these steps are distinct). The goal is how few steps can a user take to be considered a member of a guild? As with all onboardings, the ideal is probably to give users multiple levels of interaction, each with its own incentives and rewards such that they are guided into a very simple initial onboarding and incentivized to uplevel engagement. In this case, maybe they can “join” the guild by lurking in their Discord but aren’t considered a true “member” until they have set up and linked a NEAR account with the Guild via an on-chain mapping.

DAOs: Some Guilds will be DAO-backed, for example those which want to pay each other or participate in incentive programs provided by the NF and other entities to motivate their behavior (eg referral programs for hackathon winners or grant-receiving projects). The introduction of money means Guilds need to follow a compliant playbook, for example using the right legal structures, registering, doing KYC etc as necessary to back up their activities.

Identifying Guilds + Members: How do you know if someone joined a Guild? How do you know it’s a Guild? Well, the easiest way is if it’s a DAO-backed Guild and we see how many people are in that DAO. But there could be a successful community with 1M members with NEAR accounts who regularly use NEAR apps but where only 1k of them vote or receive tokens. A Guild could, instead of using a DAO, simply be an NFT-gated Discord access. If you squint, the measure of “is this Guild full of lots of really active, happy NEAR-using members?” is just how many active NEAR accounts we can map to “joining” that guild. So really what we need is a way to:

  1. Identify that a “Guild” is actually a “Guild” on-chain. Somewhere there needs to be a standard and/or mapping where Guilds register and are recorded. This happens by default when they’re DAO-backed via Astro (presumably) but non-DAO-backed Guilds should also be able to identify/register themselves.
  2. Identify how many members are voluntarily linked to that Guild. Their NEAR account should have a linking to the core Guild contract. This is more than how many people vote in a DAO, though. It should be everyone who opts in to membership with that Guild. This gets more complex with NFT-identifying Guilds but there are contracts that can be intermediaries and keep track of how many accounts hold those NFTs if needed.

All of this should be backstopping the core onboarding flow, which of course should optimize for helping people find themselves lovingly embraced by these Guilds first and foremost and not force them to do too much too quickly.


Some thoughts…


At high-level. Concur.


Agreed that guilds are successful if they are meeting the needs of their members and helping them succeed at whatever the guild is for. And yes, any tool that can help a community achieve its vision is desirable - so measuring the value of the tools is linked to the guild’s success. And yes, successful communities will probably attract new members; however, strictly measuring the number of people affiliated with a guild is likely a mistake - even to start.

Not every account affiliated with a guild is a contributing/active member of the community and it would be super easy to inflate numbers if it was the core metric tracking success. At minimum , one needs to confirm a guild member is actually a unique person. Further, the distinction needs to be made between active members and simply someone who is on the list of members. It’s easy to attract members. One can simply buy a list of people if desired. Much harder to turn a prospective member into a member that is actually contributing to the guild’s success (reputation is important).

So, recommend being careful with using the number of people affiliated with a guild as the core metric to track. Also be careful of where it leads as the next inevitable desire is some kind of guild ranking - that question has also been raised before


Part of the value proposition guilds bring to NEAR is the diversity they bring. Guilds will share similarities, but no two communities will be identical. Onboarding processes are all about bringing in people and moving them through to contributing member status, but it’s not always about quantity.

Some onboarding is intentionally selective to act as a filter of sorts. For example, we let anyone join our guild as long as they share the same set of values around community. Each stage of the onboarding is there to move them towards being a contributing member of the community and it’s not necessarily easy. Everyone has the same opportunity, but ultimately we are looking for people who are committed and who want to work on the projects we envision. In our case, what we’ve defined as quality is far more important than quantity (because we believe that quality will eventually lead to quantity based on deployment and more widespread use of the projects we’re building - if that makes any sense :slight_smile: )

Contrast that with another type of guild that relies on quantity of people for effect like a marketing type of guild to get the good word out quickly. They may have a very short, very simple onboarding process.

In other words, what it takes to be considered a member of a guild and the number of steps to get there is guild specific. Incentivization and multiple levels of interaction are all excellent funnels to bring someone in and motivate them to commit and move through the process, but again, that process is different in each guild and having as many people as possible participate may not be the guild’s desired end-state or contribute to what makes it unique from other guilds.


And more in general - Web 3 tools - this is where I think differentiation between a web 2.0 community and a guild (maybe guilds are actually web 3 community) can be made. We’re all contributing to the NEAR ecosystem, so it makes little sense to me that we’d be using tools that aren’t NEAR based, or at least blockchain based with some kind of linkage to NEAR to do that. Was one of the things I found super odd at the beginning of the guilds program. Signed up expecting a web 3 platform on NEAR but we were using Tribes. It’s getting better with things like Astro, Sputnik, Catalyst. Would suggest a minimum level of participation is some kind of on chain activity whether its NEAR or otherwise.

Identifying Guilds/Members

Will refer to Catalyst for this because we took a position to put measures in place to allow communities to know who they are interacting with - or at least the persona they are interacting with. And, we made community membership a proposal to join - so depending on the community goals, they can implement some kind of vetting or verification process as needed. To that end, every Catalyst community (DAO) is also an account and has a decentralized identifier (DID) making it unique. Every person joining a community gets their near account linked to a DID as well making it possible to create and store account specific data (all of this is done through Ceramic Network integration). Thus, for our communities, we know when someone joins or is affiliated because a proposal is passed that signals that.

With respect to a guild registry - I thought there was a process in place for a guild to form?
Once approved, why not simply issue an NFT as a badge of verification they can display and record formation in an on chain registry. i would imagine every guild has at least one account associated with it. We could build out a guild directory with lots of additional information using the DIDs/Ceramic integration I described above. Super simple.

Summing Up

If I can sum up with one thing - would be to be careful about thinking there is one way to support and quantify members in a guild or to try and box them into a limited definition. They are all unique and I think that conversation needs to happen with each one independently to define their measure of what a member is and what they consider success to be while doing their part to grow the NEAR ecosystem.


Thanks, @erik.near for your bringing this subject to the forum and gathering Community input.
I concur that one of the goals is to facilitate the web3 adoption and as a result, NEAR’s Community will be the first (in its entirety) community on-chain. This is why it is so important for NEAR to consistently strive to be the most user-friendly infra.


I can’t agree more with your feedback @ALuhning there are several stages of onboarding and it is true that an individual would be likely to move towards being a contributor with the right guidelines and support during that onboarding. NEAR onboarding project is under implementation together with the Community onboarding project aiming to improve the onboarding experience and connect individuals to the place where they can create the most value. The only comment I have here is that our Guilds need to uplevel their own onboarding so that our ecosystem reaps the benefits of active contributing members.

Our rewards system is looking to recognize those who are committed and who want to participate in the success of ecosystem projects.

As for Identifying Guilds/Members, it has been by far the most challenging process of all. I like the idea of issuing an NFT as a badge. I would like to open a discussion on this front and gather as much feedback from our Community as possible.

Thank you!


Is there anyone in the Community team or Guilds that would like to drive this discussion?


Would be interesting to think about how we’d make an NFT void if a Guild member left or was removed from a particular Guild.

It might make more sense to leverage the roles in AstroDAO? Would be particularly awesome if we could integrate Astro roles in the same way that NFTs can be integrated with CollabLand for gating.

This way, should a Guild member leave / be removed then it’s straightforward to remove their role in Astro.


Kitchen Guild fully supports any initiatives in the direction of transparency and security.


@ALuhning Love the thoughts! Some ping-backs for you –

Success – you make good points about quantity vs quality/activity/uniqueness. I think good metrics do need to be a bit blunt to be useful but you always sacrifice something in the attempt.
I actually see Guild metrics as a progression where, at each step, we learn more about both the guilds and how to measure them.

For example, in the earliest days the metrics that interest me are indeed blunt:

  1. How many guilds are there?
  2. How many on-chain accounts are linked with each guild?

I don’t think this is a mistake because you have to start somewhere and bluntness is ok to begin with as long as you don’t get overconfident in the numbers. Crawl → walk → run.

Then, presumably (as you indicate), people will take advantage of this (if incentives are provided) and/or we’ll notice abnormalities in the data which help us better classify different guilds and/or we’ll notice that it’s too broad to accurately reflect behavior of “good” communities. Then the second round of metrics will probably need to classify guilds differently, perhaps subdividing into categories like {mass community (size matters), service guilds (quality matters)}.

Those categorizations also have to come back to first principles of “what actually makes this guild successful?” since they should really be grouped based on that – eg. a service guild may ultimately be like a consultancy and thus use something roughly like “billable hours” whereas a marketing guild might be “bounties earned” (from a third party, presumably, to avoid self-dealing). A developer guild could manage towards number of active developers (which we already measure but don’t correlate with guild memberships) or they could manage towards $NEAR earned via hackathon prize referral incentives. A BD guild could manage towards maximizing their referral fees for refer-and-earn for grants.

And we can also look more at what engagement actually means. I’d argue that, at the early/high-level stage, the halo provided by an “active, engaged account” should extend to any guild that account has chosen to associate itself with. For example, a developer actively creating an app and winning hackathon prizes should give “success juice” to the Dev Guild that they’re associated with via how that guild’s metrics are tracked, and that an account like that is worth much more than an account that is idle or just auto-retweeting things. Over time, we’ll be able to quantify that better.

Regardless of the way we sub-divide categories or classify engagement, my major point is that we should start by collecting the blunt metrics first and then interrogate the data to make better decisions about the specific metrics over time. It may mean that it over-glorifies Guilds that have low membership requirements to start with. As long as we know that, we can keep evolving the approach to be more specific. But, as experience tells me, trying to over-engineer such things up front leads to constipation and lack of shipping and lack of learning.

Global Onboarding vs Guild Onboarding

I’ll differentiate global onboarding from guild-specific onboarding because they’re two pretty different sides of the same problem. Global onboarding means everyone who touches the NEAR ecosystem (eg visiting, using a NEAR-based app, watching a video on YT, retweeting a thing… whatever) ideally finds their way as quickly and easily as possible to joining a Guild since Guilds are a fantastic retention and engagement mechanism to keep people engaged with the project and its facets.

The goals of global onboarding are thus supply-driven – take the firehose of traffic touching NEAR and sort them as quickly/easily as possible into the best Guild for them. In reality, this likely means optimizing for them to choose between the ~3 most popular Guilds by default but giving them the option to find more specialized guilds later in the process too. Think of this as the “If you get 7 followers on Twitter then they consider you properly onboarded” loop… if you just join a guild and post a thing, we’ll assume you’re in good shape and, even if you later would join 1-2 other more specialized Guilds, at least you’re not going to go wandering off into the woods and go check out some other ecosystem instead.

Then the other end of that funnel is the demand side, or Guild Onboarding, where the Guilds need to be ready to receive new members and help guide them home (at least those Guilds which actually want to receive unvetted new members). This process will be different for each Guild, but it does need to pass through some checkpoints either way so we can all acknowledge when someone has actually “joined” that Guild (ie an on-chain linkage).

It’s sort of like Club Rush or Fraternity Rush from school days – lots of people trying to rapidly sort themselves into the communities that are right for them.

The success of onboarding to me shows up in the success of members being more engaged (yay for on-chain activity!) and referring members, which ultimately means more people in the Guild. So, while we should always track metrics around onboarding in both directions, Global and Guild-specific, I still think its success materially feeds into the previously-mentioned metrics.

DAOs / on-chain tools

Yep, the goal here is to dogfood everything community. You can see in other ecosystems (esp Ethereum) that communities are iterating their tooling extremely quickly because they’re actually trying to build communities and those communities need tools. So the more we try to use this stuff, the more of a favor we’re providing to every builder who will need them later by helping to create better tools along the way.

Other stuff

every Catalyst community (DAO) is also an account and has a decentralized identifier (DID) making it unique. Every person joining a community gets their near account linked to a DID as well making it possible to create and store account specific data (all of this is done through Ceramic Network integration). Thus, for our communities, we know when someone joins or is affiliated because a proposal is passed that signals that.

yassssss… and doing something similar in spirit to this (though ideally even simpler in practice) is what I hope to see from the Guilds program, so every human who’s touched NEAR is a member of at least one Guild, which is verifiable on-chain.

I also hope that every hackathon that a developer wins or grant recipient a BD person refers or investment deal an investment Guild member refers will provide some referral incentive back to their guild automatically so all guilds are aligned with their members to drive actions which drive us all forward. The mechanics of this are still in need of production but the vision has been there from the beginning – Guilds are a program where anyone touching the NEAR ecosystem should find a community and those communities should be directly incentivized to support their members doing things that help our ecosystem.

1 Like

Roles work for sure, but don’t think they need to be used depending on how one perceives ownership of the membership. One can look at membership ownership as either belonging to the member or the community. If we take the perspective membership, represented by the NFT, is owned by the community, then the community can mint an NFT which contains the account name of the member. We can then query the community NFT holdings to find out if someone is a member. If membership is revoked, the community burns that NFT.

Lots of goodness in here - appreciate the elaboration. Completely believe in the vision and ultimate end state in driving NEAR adoption. Community didn’t bring me to NEAR (was random luck), but the community is one of the things that has kept me here. Hoping I’m contributing to that for other people as well.

Fair enough - just question utility of data you know has flaws in it other than an intermediary step to something useful. So, if it’s internal and the basis of a subsequent round of analysis - sure. Don’t think it’s overengineering to address what you intuitively know needs to be considered up front.

Using them for external communications would still be concerning in my opinion. Not saying that’s what it would be for, but, for example, marketing a number like on-chain accounts linked to each guild published as some campaign without explaining what that means to the average person might be considered by some to be potentially misleading depending on how it is used.

This is excellent - reputation by association (both ways). Probably going to steal that :slight_smile:

1 Like

I agree. Quality is definitely a big metric over just on chain member quantity. It can act as a baseline to start with. Ideally, we should get to a stage where we reward impact. Even if it’s a small guild of 5 people, doing incredible work, bringing on projects to NEAR, supporting projects building on NEAR etc.

I remember us discussing this. Definitely agree that we should start dog fooding our own tools. It’s always a balance between is this dog fooding our platforms and tools to get more people to use them vs is this easy enough for a web 2 person to come, join and interact with. If we’re waiting for the perfect owned platform with analytics, moderation and all the features we need, that would take time. But that’s where open source tools come into play, where we can start building on top of what’s already there. The team is already experimenting with functions there, including a NEAR login to Discourse:

I’d love to discuss more about this with you!

If anyone is interested in helping us out with the community platform, you can read more about it here and comment if you’d like to help: On chain Guilds platform- Come help us out!


All of this discussion around on-chain Guild members is awesome, and there are some great ideas, but I don’t think it’s clear the reason ‘why’.

By that, I mean the reason why we are fixated with having these Guild members on-chain. And even if they’re on-chain, what benefit do we gain by going through the significant amount of legwork required to add another level of ‘membership verification’ through NFTs etc?

I’d argue that the value the Community and NF gain from this is negligible.

Yes! :100: %!

How does that relate to supporting, organising, and mobilising communities of people on NEAR?

I don’t think being on-chain lends itself to enabling the above to any major extent.

I was speaking to a member of the NEAR Community recently in a feedback call for the survey. They’re involved in a project in the Creatives corner of the NEARverse and their focus is not on crypto, blockchain, or the like.

Rather, their focus is on adding value to artists and art projects off-chain, IRL.

They still add value to the Community and are still part of a Guild, but to what extent does
strongly encouraging Community members to be on-chain work to fulfill the original goals of the Guilds system?

If you’re part of an active Telegram group which supports artists building on NEAR, and you’re officially a ‘Guild member’, why do they then have to have an NFT or another hoop to jump through to verify that on-chain?

I think it’s important to understand why we want all of this on-chain verification mechanisms. If the value it adds is of little significance to the OG goals, are we just chasing a vanity metric?


Dear @erik.near first-of-all, we need to fight with favoritism in NF. Some guilds like Swine Guild who has great relationships with NF people have easily access to money , even if do their work bad.

I wrote my thoughts in their [September’s],(Swine Guild September Report🐷) October’s and November’s report, but unfortunately our councils didn’t put attention on it.

NF paid to this guild ~ $50 000 for last 3 months. The same money NF paid to Near Pad for instance.

Last payment:

Probably, NF think it’s a great idea pay $1200 for 5-7 memes and Facebook page management where 24 people?

Or for “cool” memes there children eats toilet paper?

Or May be it’s funny when Near memes make fun of other blockchains? @David_NEAR you approved these memes

Quickly friendly reminder:

And compare with memes which you approved today:

Some guilds like INC4 don’t do any reports. They just create proposal and include information about invoice #

Where is their report , dear @grace ? @Primaveralina good day. Could you please show us November’s report? Thanks

At the same time I see how other guilds and people waiting for funding long months.

@illia told here (48:39) what Web3 idea is when people who use platforms, blockchains are able to control it.

Илья @illia очевидно , что консулам NF не нужно коммьюнити, чтобы кто-то там что-то спрашивал, узнавал, добивался соблюдения этикета, прозрачности. Все равно консулы делают так как им нужно и только то что они сами хотят. Для них коммьюнити это абуза и неудобные люди, которые лезут не в свое дело. Они говорят, что что-то будет меняться. Но ничего не происходит . Я здесь с июня

и наблюдаю как одни и те же люди получают деньги, голоса коммьюнити «выслушиваются» только для «галочки». Я отправил с десяток писем консулам NF, просил хотя бы немного прислушиваться к коммьюнити , но воз и по ныне там. Я не вижу от них никаких усилий направленных на то, чтобы наделить коммьюнити хоть каким-либо правами. Как они скажут так и будет, не прислушиваясь ни к чьему мнению. Грэйс даже не рассказывает никому почему она принимает те или иные решения, никаких стримов или ежемесячных отчётов от неё. При этом я хочу сказать, что здесь среди ребят очень много тех, которые действительно бъются за идею Web3, на 100% перекладывают твои слова о необходимой прозрачности и равноправного доступа в свои проекты и гильдии, создают ДАО.

Now, only councils from NF control all Marketing activities and Guild’s funding and don’t listen Near Community members.



@Dacha (not commenting for you, but for the newcomers who might believe occasional whining)

  1. It’s October payout request, not November
  2. Click on the purple link in the circle that you drawn on the screenshot with your own hand, it leads to the October report respectively ([Welcome] INC4 Guild Introduction - #28 by Primaveralina)
  3. November report and payout request have not yet been submitted - once done, you will be able to access the report link as well as on any other payout request I’ve been posting since I’m in the NEAR Guilds.

And stop tagging me in your posts. This is getting ridiculous :woman_facepalming:
Do smth useful instead.


1 Like

Did it once.

Ok, thanks. I’m ok for hate speech and bullying.

I Do lot of

Could you please include information in description. Thanks

1 Like

(Ignoring the back and forth because that part of this thread isn’t in scope)

Some good arguments above could be used to ask “why on-chain anything?” (not the worst question either). Let me hit that in the end, but I think the core question is actually higher level, which is that there are multiple types of things that are all being grouped under “Guilds” right now and it’s probably worth pulling them apart going forward because that tension seems like the root of our challenges.

IMO, there are two ends of the spectrum:

  1. Service Entities which basically act like consultancies, doing work or performing valuable activities in exchange for tokens. Some get those tokens via the community fund, others (like Silicon Craftsmen or possibly Legal Guild) get theirs directly from projects and are basically like consultants. These are analogous to many of the popular communities on Ethereum like RaidGuild. They should be judged based on their performance just like any consultancy is.
  2. style communities which are far broader and intended to be communities first and foremost. They should be able to expand as broadly as possible and optimize for member engagement and happiness so there are awesome places in the NEAR ecosystem to drop in, but TBH the members don’t have to directly care about NEAR itself. Ideally, someone who already runs a meetup should be able to turn that into a NEAR-based community with a few clicks using a tool like Astro.

The challenge is that they’re quite different but we treat both as “guilds”. Even more challenging, there are totally ways for one to become the other, so it’s a spectrum more than an absolute.

Which should be DAO-backed? Probably both, but in different ways.

Well, the consultancy-style service communities should be incorporated regardless of whether they use a DAO structure to organize their activities. A DAO just provides more flexibility to use a collaborative structure around it if the people want to open up their membership more broadly. But tbh isn’t actually necessary in order to run a successful service guild.

The broader communities are more complex but there should probably be multiple tiers of members:

  1. Lurkers – just hang out. Don’t have to be on-chain.
  2. Members – they choose the community by signing up with their wallet to get access to additional features, chats and possibly economic activity. This should ideally be permissionless (they select the Guild). This is the stage where the community benefits from being tokenized (and thus DAO-backed) since those tokens can be issued to provide these additional features and access.
  3. Owners – these are people who are given decision-making power in the DAO and must be selected by the community (the Community selects them, they must earn it). There should probably be a multi-level way to badge up, so it doesn’t have to be binary. The DAO is necessary here since it coordinates governance.

These should be fully autonomous – they shouldn’t rely on any support, whether financial or operational, from the community team or anything else. But they can still benefit by using incentives that we put out there (again, example being hackathon prizes).

I think if we can’t build the right model for “guilds”, the rest of it is actually premature.

Then we have to set pretty clear expectations on the difference between them. Even the word “Guild” is hard because it can be justified in both cases. Maybe then its’ more like “Service Guilds” vs “Guild Communities”.


Their work and results hidden from Near Community. Only NF and projects can judge their work. It’s not a problem, but due some confidential issues, they don’t need to follow transparency policy. Will be great to have list of these person and guilds to prevent misunderstandings. They are able to ignore questions from Near community and briefly describe open part of their work.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, I don’t know any DAOs on Astro DAO where council were elected by community choose. Even Community DAO has “pre-elected” councils from NF. May be only great team from Creativities DAO. All other have one -two-three councils (friends) who make all decisions. Community members cannot change anything. Only flat democratic DAO structure can involves community members in voting.

And yes, third category is “trusted”. These guys don’t need to write reports and have any DAO’s . Great example is Reddit team. Only one council . How Reddit community members can vote their leaders? How can vote for any initiatives? Members cannot even create any proposals.


I agree with @erik.near on the conceptual split of organizations that provide services and communities that are designed to activate and engage people.

I would vote to have different names to distinguish between these two types.

Given we are going to have more companies and partners contributing to building ecosystem - it make sense to call this kind “Partners”. Even if they are using DAO tooling for their business - they are not operating as a group of professionals or people with common goal (which is definition of a guilds).

Then the sub-communities of NEAR should keep the “Guild” naming.

If we all agree on this nomenclature, next step would be to classify the current Guilds into these two types.

For “Partners” it would mean clearly define their mode of operation and switch to contract based payment - where project would pay them for specific delivery.

For “Guilds” I see it more as defining what are major sections of NEAR community: languages and regions, themes (DeFi, NFTs, DAOs, etc), professions (devs, designers, product managers, etc). These sub-communities are evaluated by engagement of members and also how these people get activated by contributing to other projects and partners.

There will be Partners that provide services to NEAR Foundation directly (as a proxy to NEAR Ecosystem).

For example:

  • “NEAR Week”, which is an information and a marketing agency. In turn NF will be paying the marketing contract. Over time this contract would transition to Treasury DAO and it’s sub-DAOs that are responsible for that vertical in the ecosystem support.
  • A current guild that suppose to be providing services to projects, but actually not delivering due to lack of personnel or time - re-qualifying as partner would mean they need to deliver on the contracts they make with projects. E.g. they would need to either commit to working with projects or dissolve it.
  • For “DeFi Guild”, I would expect us to have Telegram or Discord channel where people are routed. Have an active discussions on the latest of DeFi both for users and developers. Learning and job opportunities, brainstorms and Twitter Space sessions. Community organizers and managers of such guild would then be the on the DAO council, managing the budget they have to facilitate engagement in their community, rewarding retroactively members who engage and bring value as well as receiving some compensation for their time.

PS. should be used a funding tool, to allow for streaming payments from one DAO to another. This would enable a control over the budget that Guild can spend, while not needing a constant confirmation and oversight.

Process of monthly reviews will be providing the visibility in the funds spent as well as understanding if this Guild is alive or should be cut from funding. Community members like @Dacha who are constantly on the watch may provide inter-monthly information if there is something weird happening in the guild’s community.


Attn : @Sofia_Alum

Thank You very much @illia . 24/7 here.


In a governance paper in 2018, we distinguished between 4 dimensions of communities you can deal within digital business models. We suggested, Dimension (1) Authority (stakeholder community), (2) Competency (peer community), (3) Enabling (supplier community) and (4) Capacity (market community). For each of these dimension you can use names. The problem with Guilds is obvious - it covers over peers, suppliers (partners, providers, enablers) and is part of the market. Due to the fact that you reach these dimensions with different approachs and languages I would value the approach and language higher than the naming itself.