a couple extra thoughts to add to the discussion.
I think our discussions would be more profitable if we addressed a few topics that might not be exactly shared concepts, looking at previous discussions; something like:
- operational roles
- decision making/voting
Vision is something necessarily unified, or centralized. If a community is large enough, then a vision becomes many visions, and multiple visions compete with each other, since ‘a’ vision is, by it’s own definition, a guiding principle.
I have no strong opinion on who should provide a vision for this ecosystem, but it’s logic that NF fills that role.
As I stated above, the platform provider must provide a platform; therefore, I strongly believe that most Guilds/DAOs in the ecosystem look to NF for this, and not to themselves or their peers.
Decentralized communities dissipate energy. That’s why they provide use cases for the NEAR token and blockchain. They operate mainly outwards. For this reason, they are not the best entities to hold and develop a vision for the entire ecosystem.
Vision exists a priori to the community it creates.
There are, in the NEAR ecosystem, competing visions about decentralization. There are 2 broad concepts:
Decentralization means decision making is not done at the NF level, but at the community level. This concept looks for independence, anonymity and selflessness as guiding profiles.
Decentralization means a system that organizes itself in smaller units of decision, independent of a central power. This concept looks for interdependency, group-belonging and collaboration as guiding profiles.
Maybe the way I describe it is less than perfect, but I do think (1) is not decentralization, only an attempt at it. The way I see it, efforts that try to simply change the decision making from one group to another do not seek true decentralization.
For example, the way the Community DAO is organized, at it’s basic level, is not more decentralized than the current NF led systems. One DAO that seeks to include all other groups is mimicking the current system, in which different groups gravitate around NF. I believe it has a strong case to become one of the most important DAOs in the NEAR ecosystem, but not as a replacement of NF.
I do believe the current iteration of the CREATIVES DAO, in which DAOs with proven track record + a team of moderators manage fund delivery, is a superior version of previous governance structures. It follows concept (2), in which groups self-manage inside a larger structure. Plus, it adds to the previous model (Vertical DAOs), makes it more complex, i.e. less centralized. More importantly, it respects the need for responsibilty, inderdependency and collaboration. Groups are encouraged to work outwards, as well as inwards.
About operational roles
Although there are many groups/individuals willing to engage with fundamental governance issues, the vast majority is more interested in bridging NEAR and their own projects. I think it’s paramount that we do not forget this.
Groups working in this ecosystem are more interested in having a clear, stable vision be provided, so that they can operate locally, in the projects that are important to them and to their communities.
They are less worried about the details of how operations are run, and more about fitting in one system and growing in it.
They want to know things like:
- Can my projects be funded?
- What are the ground and the ceiling for Guilds/DAOs, in NF’s vision?
- If my DAO is growing, can I grow even more, or there is cap for that growth in this ecosystem?
- What is expected of a partner (as opposed to a dependent entity; i.e. If I grow a lot, can I become a real player in the ecosystem)?
As a Guild Leader, I feel that the Vertical DAO system answered some questions, the Tier System answered others (sad to see that be eliminated without even being tried), so any system, new or old, must take these into account.
If the relationship between Guilds and NF falls in line with the vision NF has for it’s platform, then we have the ground set for a long and fruitful engagement.
About decision making/voting
It is ofc interesting discussing structures, or competing structures. HoG, Vertical DAOs, etc, are iterations of the same idea.
For most Guilds/DAOs/individuals in our ecosystem, asking supports to a Vertical or to the HoG is operationally the same. Being funded on a proposal-base or on a guild-identity-base is also operationally the same thing. Decentralized groups are inherently flexible, adaptable.
They would not care about ‘endowment’ or ‘overhead’.
All they care about is who votes, and who is being supported.
And about that, @erik.near I again repeat the example of the Creatives DAO or even the experiments @jlwaugh is running with multi-DAOs or DAOs-of-DAOs.
Allowing for complex groups to engage with each other in decision-making is more interesting and less centralized than having chosen Council Members, following a certain protocol.
Currently, under the Vertical DAO system, Creatives DAO vote on certain projects, Marketing DAO votes on certain projects, but some are complex enough that they are voted by both (currently on separate forum topics and $ flows). It would be interesting to have both the Creatives DAO and the Marketing DAO (which in turn have members) be member of a larger DAO.
House of Guilds is an elegant way of describing this scenario, which is already possible on AstroDAO.
The challenge is making this all technically smooth, but that’s kinda the proposition we are making, right? Using web3 technologies to experiment with ‘more complex’ systems, not just taking old models and running them on new platforms.