Maybe NEAR wiki can be best for it but a dedicated website can unlock to have more features like verified tasks, time counter, chat, cv upload button etc. But thanks for your suggestion we can set up a call to discuss more on it.
1 Like
Just my two cents here. After reading through these replies I cannot agree enough with @FritzWorm and @nacho.near. There are aspects of the conversation that require further exploration and also unmentioned areas that could be further explored if the conversation were to invite more points of view.
Some that come to my mind are for example:
Do all guilds have to become self-sufficient? Or rather, see a certain goal fulfilled?
Hundreds (if not thousands?) of years of human collaboration have given birth to distinct entities to embody these forms of collaboration. Briefly, from what I’ve seen it can be boiled down to for-profit and non-profit organizations. Would guilds or DAOs, as being entities for collaboration, differ that much from these evolved concepts?
How would a self-sustaining decentralized model look like? How would the agency problem be addressed?
There are some good ideas here on this thread, and out there on other threads too. But we’re talking about an ecosystem of target 1 billion users. Would these schematics be enough to devise a working collaborative system of that scale? I myself would need some time to think about this one further. So hence, lots of benefit in adding viewpoints to the conversation here.
I’m sure I’m missing some other angles to this topic at the moment.
8 Likes
I’ll add my one cent to the two cents, as I think @idea404 brings up important distinctions that I think should be central to this debate about guild funding structures: profit vs non-profit.
Again ofc, hundreds (if not thousands?) of years of human collaboration has also discussed the concept of value, but in this context it’s relevant through two frames of reference: quantitative value (as money) and qualitative value (as community). In an organisational context, their relationship is circular: on the one hand, quantitative value can be outputted insofar as there is an environment with adequate qualitative value, otherwise humans (at least the ones we hope to attract) don’t engage in the process; but on the other hand, society simultaneously requires organisations to output quantitative value to self-sustain.
If this is reasonable, then two potential problems with NF’s proposals in my view are:
(a) not explicitly distinguishing organisation kinds (some off-shoot of for-profit vs non-profit) that aim to output only one primary type of value (qualitative vs quantitative), and
(b) whether NF distinguishes these types or not, attributing the responsibility of the circular relationship between value types to every guild, rather than attributing that responsibility to the whole ecosystem, or subsections of.
Point (b) I think is most important, and I hope that the primary output of each guild is not reduced to one of quantitative value, because a lot of qualitative value will be lost in doing so.
2 Likes
That’s a valid point, if not many guild will fade way due to inability to get their activities run on their own.
1 Like