@blaze, yes, we most certainly need community understanding and clarity on this (and a place to dispute should it be necessary).
I’d like to continue to try to help “translate” how the arts/entertainment and Tech have/don’t have similarities to help us understand each other) In Arts and Entertainment…
Creative teams work together for years and years. We move from project to project with each other because trust each other and can deliver. Arts/Entertainment and Tech BOTH work this way.
Partnerships in Arts/Entertainment and Tech are also similar in that we FORMALIZE partnerships, agree upon IP and revenue splits, and generally make announcements about those partnerships. Arts/Entertainment and Tech BOTH work this way.
Teams and people in Arts/Entertainment and Tech AS A WHOLE pay each other to do work. If you work with a DEV team for years, you might pay individuals and groups what they are worth, and move with them to wherever they go…so, you have an ongoing, trust-based payment process. Arts/Entertainment and Tech BOTH work this way.
Let’s not EVEN dive into how the ENTIRE tech industry is based on equity ownership, shares, and accepting stock in lieu of actual money. Is this corruption? To your point, it’s all about intent. Yet, if we have decentralized DAOS, where everyone has ownership and we are transparent, it seems we are on a better path. Yet, agree, a place for formal, well-intended disputes is a fine idea.
Though, to be clear about some other comments made here, there is so much energy in the creative space here on NEAR that people are working with those they’ve JUST MET. That’s an expansion of your network, and in business, as in life, this is good.
Though, if you DON’T see the arts or entertainment as a business, or creatives/artists as relevant, you might see this as siphoning off a corporation or community(a la NEAR). And, this is an age-old complaint, “Why should I pay taxes to support culture?? Why should you artists and creatives get paid at all?” – in other words, “You guys are ripping us off and hoodwinking us!” But, that is not what is happening. Here’s why:
** NEAR protocol has us all walk through a very unified and specific process:**
- Submit a proposal to a DAO (in this case, Marketing or Creatives)
- Have that DAO evaluate for approval, they can and DO reject proposals
- Upon approval, you need ANOTHER vote from the collective DAOs to approve your funds
- You then must SUBMIT and agreement to the Foundation your Poll (Again, NOT paying other DAOs for approval)
- The Foundation does another vote and THEN the funds are disbursed to the DAOs
- Provide a report with metrics when the project is done
- Start the process all over again!
That’s a LOT of procedures engrained in the process. HARDLY one for quick money. Also, it’s all above board and we are working within what NEAR itself has built.
So, again, we need to really understand how creatives and the (soon, they will be here!!) entertainment people work in teams, pay those they trust, and run their businesses in the arts and entertainment with very real returns (cultural and economic).
Another thing, just WAIT until people figure out how to create FAN DAOS – they will be another source of connection and financial support for the arts and entertainment. That too is not graft, it’s a built-in part of building an audience, and it will benefit the NEAR ecosystem with wallets, DAOS, and more people (again, towards that 1 Billion person goal).
I hope this is supportive. My primary point is to keep the dialog positive and informed and also share ways to help us all understand each other.
@creativesdao-council – Have I missed a step in explaining our funding process?