Hi @sammiee.near is my Twitter handle
@mvtradingN mate thanks for the invitation
Wow, Fritz! I am reading here and it seems an interesting proposal.
Concerning customer segments, I think we can achieve other ones too, like:
- Nightclubs in real life (using NEAR for onboarding people in parties and paying for services in nightclubs)
- Hotels near NFT/blockchain events
- Museums and Galleries (metaverse, NFTs etc)
I have a question: will all DAOs and their communities be obliged to mint in our marketplace? I think I heard this marketplace will be an aggregator. This could be a good thing, if we could maintain our profiles in the marketplaces we already use, and use this marketplace as we use opensea on eth, for example.
Concerning Metaverse DAO in this structure, I would say that it is more like a foundation than a business project, because it has a historical mission on recording and keeping NEAR metaverse presence, and its publicizing mission about NEAR. So I think that Metaverse DAO is more like a Service for the DAOs on NEAR than a Business Model, a historical service, but it is just my opinion. In the case of Metaverse DAO, we could put for sale our historical NFTs, but this could give us problems with the musicians. We stopped selling NFTs on Metaverse DAO because we had a problem with a member of the community that was not happy that we put it for sale, even when we splitted with him. So for us, there is something hard on selling. That is the reason I see Metaverse DAO more like an institution or a future foundation than a business model; although the services from Metaverse DAO (interview, recordings, editing, magazine, parties) could be developed into payed services for external clients.
Oh, I saw you talked about the possibility of a partnership with already existing NFT Marketplaces on NEAR. I think this could be good, because we would not need to invest so much as to launch and maintain a marketplace on mainnet (constantly looking for bugs, ux improvements etc). To have a marketplace of our own implies constant costs that we will have to deal with. I really think that we could invest in something that already exists and make it an aggregator, or something like this, having a part of the incomes. My main worry here is maybe that we are not thinking about the constant costs that having a marketplace will have over us. It would be cool to see some expectation of profit and expenses and time, to see if it is really worthy to commit to a new marketplace. I see for example how much time and money mintbase spent in its development to create the product they created. This is the same worry for the development of a metaverse from the start. It seems pretty cool, and the project is awesome, but it is not just to develop a metaverse. The improvement process and the bug-removal is continuous. And we already have one metaverse in development. I dont know for sure what is best to do here. But what do you think about my worries?
About NEAR Certified Creatives, I think it is an awesome idea, to have a course to onboard people. Although I think that maybe there is already some good material produced by the DAOs that we should gather in order to have in one place what we have already built, in order for us not to need to build something that already exists. For example, there are good tutorials from, I think, Cudo, Incubadora, MarmaJ, Muti, and many other DAOs. Maybe we could make a course with these tutorials and start to produce other videos.
I want also to suggest something. As I am a university professor, I can access a course platform from my university and build a course there where we can put youtube videos and questions which the students can watch and answer, automatically evaluated, and receive a certificate in the end. We can build our own system, or we can build through my university as a free course. Just making a path available for us.
About Creativerse, we want to know how we can participate. It would be cool to have the possibility of recording the developments of Creativerse, for historical purposes, to interview the people involved (we already interviewed Nancho), and to build parties there, as soon as it is possible. We could also sponsor professors to give tutorial classes about the new metaverse and its possibilities.
About the metrics, I super think that this is a good path into a good evaluation of reports, for all DAOs. Of course the metrics are different for each kind of DAO, but it is cool to see even the Creatives DAO using the metrics.
About the new guidelines, it would be super cool if it is voted on astrodao. I want to let it clear that I like metric focused guidelines, but I really think that our decisions should be given on chain with the proper channels, with acceptance of the Creatives Council. I also have to say that I still did not read the guidelines, which I will read after answering here, and give my opinion there, if you dont mind.
Now I get to an important point I tried to talk in one of our last calls. I think it is awesome that we add all individual people to a group in the Creatives DAO. This seems to be a good path towards decentralization. But to have a moderators group that is smaller than the Creatives Council (or a commissioner group that is smaller than the council group), to be the council of the council, this I think it is a step towards centralization. We know that it is hard to decide things in community, and that the communities that are council from the Creatives are not deciding properly concerning which projects bring value to NEAR. As I said, I believe this is happening in this way because the DAOs do not have objective criteria of evaluation for the proposals and reports. Maybe the most important thing is to be able to evaluate a report, in order to understand the value that a DAO is generating for the ecosystem. I really believe that the communities could do this, but maybe with some help of the moderators to think about the criteria that we should accept to evaluate ourselves. I also think that DAOs are having not much time, because of the submission process. We should have a moment of the month to make all of our projects, and a week to evaluate all the projects without projects in development. I think we need better organization in the submission process and a suggestion of organization on the month for all daos.
I also understand that CFCs could be difficult for the DAOs, but they are something that we have to deal, mainly if we are this meta-dao that we are.
Still concerning the Commissioners, I think this position is very dangerous. 6 people could control the entire Creatives. I think we should not make this group, because it is not structurally adequate to forbid bad use of power. The people from today can be good people, as the old moderators were, but the next ones could be bad people, and to give such a power to a small amount of people, structurally speaking, is too much.
I saw that Council group is taken as trusted members, and not the DAOs anymore. This is again, for me, to centralize decisions in people instead of in communities. I got that these people would be the leaders of the communities, but even though it is people and not communities. I prefer that the other members of the DAO decide with me that I decide for all the members of the DAO. In the last case, I can decide respecting the members of the DAO, or I can decide disrespecting them. I think there could be some good things of this path, but also lots of dangers. What do you think?
I also coundnt understand the difference between commissioners and councils. I think the only part of this proposed change that I think it is a good thing for decentralization is the fact that the individuals from the DAOs will be part of a group, what would decentralize decisions according to the individual people too. But commissioners could only centralize decisions in the hands of few people. If commissioners are a interesting group, it should be a group that can only make proposals, but without any voting power, but I really prefer there is no small group of people with VETO power over the others.
I would suggest the following organization for the Creatives:
- Group 1: All DAOs that want to be in the creatives
- Group 2: All Individuals members from the DAOs
But we have a problem here in my proposal: DAOs that are made of the same individuals in the council. I only know 1 solutions for that: make a rule that a person can be in only 1 DAO which is a council from the creatives.
I imagine that the group council that u described was made to avoid this problem. If it is, I dont get why we need a Commissioners group, and I dont understand why former moderators should be on the council group. Generally former moderators are already leaders from some DAO, so I dont think we need to add them. And imagine that a former moderator is not council from any dao anymore. Should s/he be in the council of the creatives? It seems to me that not. What do you think?
We have another problem in my proposal, that is the time communities could take to vote instead of people. This is true, but I think that if we organize things well, we can have the communities voting properly, evaluating properly too the projects.
Please, what is a trusted DAO? Is it a DAO that is part of the Creatives Council? Is it any DAO with 90% consensus? (90% consensus in which group?)
Kind regards and thank you again Fritz and all the moderators for the difficult work that I know that all of you are doing. For me to answer this post, I took maybe 2 hours. So I know how much time you took to produce it. So I appreciate your work and thank you again.
This is great, @FritzWorm!
My Twitter is: https://twitter.com/King_____Kunta
We would both love to attend the Space scheduled for today!
This looks more viable to me compared to reinventing the wheels (aka, creating another NFT marketplace). Utilize existing marketplaces and build on them.
I’m interested to know more about this model works, maybe it could be something we can try out with the guilds programs if it does work out fine.
I would appreciate @frnvpr @chloe @tabear @JulianaM @vandal @GeminiRising’s opinion concerning the matter. As a philosopher, I can always be wrong, and it would be nice to have more opinions on the way.
I have no strong opinion on the projects here presented, as long as they are not presented ‘as if by the Creatives DAO council’ or ‘as if by the moderators of the Creatives DAO’; the reasons for that are quite simple:
- it was not voted by the council of the Creatives DAO
- moderators are paid by the council of the Creatives DAO to help moderate proposals; any other activities are outside the scope of the moderators team, so I think the community should read them as made by independent individuals, even if there is overlap in their functions. Ofc this proposal was made before the recent talks, but in retrospect, I believe this shouldn’t be presented as
Everyone here knows how much efforts the current moderators have put into these talks and ideas, however they were based, as we now know, on insufficient information and should now be put into perspective.
Totally agree, that’s why this proposal is a community draft.
Is a proposal waiting for more feedback to evolve and improve, or at least generate discussion.
We have already funded software development for creators from the Creatives DAO for example:
So what I am proposing is not to fund project development any more without receiving something back, each negotiation could be different but at the end we will built self sustainability
Just to suggest, creatives Dao can also consider involving moderators of DAOs in some processes like approving a new DAO, a moderator representative from each DAO could be set up as a group that will go through a proposal and give approval or denial then it could be taken to Astro for all community members on the creative to vote
I think ElKhush idea is pretty good. Instead of small group of commissioners, we could have a group with 1 individual from each dao, and this group could be the commissioners or the moderators. This would be fair with all the communities involved, without concentration of power.
We already have an experience trying that with the @CommunityDAO but those several groups start making everything very unorganized.
Instead, the “ladder design” with 3 groups do allows organization and shows the sentiment of the whole community
so we figure out why it didn’t work the first time and make it work this time @chloe suggested token weighted voting, that could help too, i also suggest a summit for restructuring where all communities can add their opinions and suggestions, clearly the Creatives meeting doesn’t allow us all enough time to discuss, we have to consider a very long discussion that would be thoroughly looked at.
all the problems should be discussed, lets all give opinions, voting structure, moderators structure, communities structure and finally, sustainability, we as communities needs to understand what is needed of us and then the creatives also need to explain how they will improve the growth of us all.
just my opinion though. thanks
Initially, Creatives DAO was set up to fund creative individuals and collectives for projects within the NEAR ecosystem. As communities and guilds converged into DAOs a shift in the way funding was requested and issued moved Creatives DAO out of its role as ‘funder’ and into the role of moderator, where council members review and approve monthly funding requests on the Gov Forum and a group of DAOs vote on Polls. Here we are.
Is it this change of roles, from funder to moderator, that has me wondering if the Creatives DAO is going through an existential crisis?
What is the role of Creatives DAO now?
Will Creatives DAO still be relevant?
What I’m reading sounds like a whole new project altogether. In what way will Creatives DAO continue to nurture and facilitate a growing community of creatives if in order to participate they need to be a legally registered DAO? Doesn’t look very creative to me, which is totally fine if that’s the direction the Creative DAO council wants to take it, but in my unpopular opinion I’d close Creatives DAO or figure out how to really support creatives with a vision. Preferably something that is simple & easy.
Just my two cents
Allow me to write Gov.Near.Org Community. Let me talk about the topics I think I have the right to talk about. I think I will be patient if there are mistakes and nonsensical words.
In my opinion, Creative DAO is the same as Creative Commons Corporation. If so, that Creative DAO organization is indeed an organization full of good methods and people who are very good-hearted and walking in the right direction. Therefore, I respect that organization very much.
I really like what that organization is doing. I think that all the projects that the Creative DAO team will continue to develop will come to fruition. My correct choice was on April 26, 2022 at 14:15. After that, I was alone in the wrong situation. I don’t know what to do next, what to do, and how to ask questions with a sad attitude.