[QUESTION] Council Payouts for Verticals - standardize or not?

hello all,

One question the community should address is the Council Payouts for the various DAO Verticals in the ecosystem.

Moving forward, should they be standardized, or should each Vertical DAO manage it’s own internal rewards?

From the moment DAO Verticals exist as a kind of Curator System for proposals, but the funds are given directly from NF, should invoices from Council Members be standardized?

Right now, there is a big discrepancy between Creatives DAO and Marketing DAO, for example.

Creatives DAO rewards it’s Council Members with 1000$, and will decrease that value to 600$ from February on, because the number of council members will increase.

Marketing DAO has been working with a rate of 400N and is decreasing that number to 250N, from January on.

That is a difference of several hundred %.

If differences are supposed to exist, for example because of the amount of $ that is managed, should there be tiers for the rewards, or any other system?

There is also the question of demanding the community to ask in $, but allowing DAO Vertical council members to ask in N, which might create some discomfort in the community.

Would love to hear the community on this, so we better organize, moving forward. As member of the Creatives DAO council, currently in the process of onboarding 5 more council members, imo this issue should be addressed so that it’s clear for all those involved and the community at large.



Yes, agree with you. During working with new Marketing DAO guide, I have found significant difference between Creatives DAO councils rewards $500-$1000 and Marketing DAO (~ $4000 since January)

I propose increase rewards for Creatives DAO councils to $4000 since January 2022.

@Grace @jlwaugh @David_NEAR


Hey hey, gm!

I think the notion behind the lack of standardisation falls to the fact that the DAOs and verticals are, for the most part, independent.

This prepares each of them for the future of NEAR, one where there is no NEAR Foundation or centralised entity offering any guidance in this regard.

However, would love to the community’s views on this!


Hey @David_NEAR

yup, agree that is the road forward.
I raise only a couple of points:

  • If NF is, at least for the next few months, the source of tokens for the Verticals (I am assuming neither Vertical has it’s own source of revenue), will there be rules for accessing these tokens?
  • If a Vertical is giving out to community projects, let’s say, 70-100k in $ every month, would it be reasonable to get paid 35-55k in $ (basically getting paid 1 $ for every 2$ given out) to do so?

Not demanding answers, just curious about what the community feels should be the guiding foundations of Verticals.

I’m OK with total independence (even if illusory, because funds are still coming from NF), just trying to get a feel for what others think, in order to inform the Creatives DAO council decisions about council payouts.


There are limits to funding, though they are not written publicly atm AFAIK. Maybe this should change.

I guess this really depends since the position of Councilors in verticals is not limited to distributing funds.


Ok! Thanks for your input :slight_smile: The Creatives DAO council will discuss how to move forward.


Hello friend,

There’s a few things I’d like to note:

  • Each DAO is and should be independent in the same way that each Guild in independent and each project (dApp) is independent that received a Grant, even if they all receive funding from the NEAR Foundation in one way or another.
  • To the extent that there are comparisons, they should be to inform each DAOs/groups ultimate decision making. We should be extremely careful in seeking standardisation, one DAO should not be ‘dragging’ the other one in either direction.
  • This bit may be controversial, but very relevant: each DAO also has unique characteristics. Namely, anyone can be a creative (subjective art form) and for most creatives, NFTs and blockchain represent many orders of magnitude more income than the alternative. The opposite thing is true for Marketing: a more specific (professional) skillset is required, most markets would be taking a [significant] pay cut to join a DAO and there is little stability or career progression. We are working hard at expanding our Council, while Creatives is flourishing.
  • The size of the Council definitely matters. Being able to spread the workload among more people is relevant to how much time and responsibility is required of each. ATM Marketing DAO has several NF staff (full time wages, minimal time commitment) and only two remunerated community members (third one joined recently, remuneration TBD). I would expect that as the size on Council expands, the overall budget for the DAO adapts in a reasonable way.

Overall, the balance that we have to strike is one of attracting and retaining the best, while deterring people from wanting to join a DAO just for the money. DAOs a a fundamental part of the ecosystem, they are increasingly imbued with more power and funds, and we gotta ensure they are able to scale in a sustainable way.


Thank you all for your input, a lot to think about!


Hello Hello ! @jlwaugh thanks for sharing this relevant discussion, I did not wanted to intervine before, but now that I am a moderator from @creativesdao-council I believe I can speak up and add my contribution to this thread.

Crystal Clear: Yes, should be standardize.

Rewards should be directly related to the contribution, the creation of value, and the effort expended.

  1. Number of referrals (Leaders of new approved projects brought into the community)
  2. Number of proposals approved (advised, commented, voted)
  3. Number of successful projects (measured by achievements on metrics and reports)
  4. Number of unsuccesful projects approved (this will be a negative item)
  5. Number of votes casted
  6. Amount of distributed funding
  7. Other items could be: AMAs, Onboarding, Certifications, Partnerships, etc.

So the proceedure could be as follows:

  1. Moderator/Council guide a Project Leader from the outside into our community (if applies)
  2. Project Leader create a proposal (could be step 1)
  3. Moderator/Council find the proposal an shares advice or comments.
  4. Moderator/Council promote/vote the proposal
  5. Moderator/Council shares a report with the achievements on the projects where acted as a guide/promoter
  6. 1 of the Council/Moderators team make a complete Report
  7. Third party team conclude the assessment → Report with payments for Councils

This will be a point system that will meassure the creation of value and the effort expended.

Additionally, it is good to keep some experience on the team and also to rotate and give opportunities to new members. That is why we should come up with an evaluation process where we can add the feedback from the community members related to that vertical/DAO.

Third party Team/Guild follows up the process and also is able to ask Councils/Moderators to step down and allow new members to take the role. It is very important that new moderators/councils are recognized members of the community not new advisors from outside or nearcomers.

I have received some complaints from members about councils that are not active and take too long to approve/reject DAO proposals, even before the post was approved on the forum discussion. So, the Third Party Guild/Team will be key, as any direct move (claim) from members against current councils could be negative for them as there is not a clear proceedure to remove councils.

Hey ! We are doing experiments, we are growing, so it is natural to go step by step.

And yep, incentives are always key to achieve efficiency, that is why communism hasn’t worked out.



Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Perhaps the most important question is how much, and of course, it depends. I’d support a very open system that encourages DAO contributors to request amounts that seem fair. This may include council efforts, e.g. onboarding, reviewing payouts and other proposals, giving feedback, voting, and reporting.

I’m excited to develop rewards for Community DAO Council members…

I wonder if there is a more recent version of the Brutus project? We could try it out! The open Community group is a pool of 100+ potential council members, and our stakeholders can see who is actively voting and how. Might even imagine a future DAObot automatically proposing council rearrangements on a quarterly basis?

We will help more DAO users take on responsibility and leadership roles :sparkles: