Note that: CDAO is the first DAO (and the only for now) in the ecosystem that its councils step down voluntarily from related DAO members and do not receive any other financial benefit other than our moderation work.
This month we welcome 2 new DAOs to the CDAO community: Indiaverse DAO and 1 MIL NFTs. You can easily find out why those DAOs were approved by looking at our comments on transparent sheet. We believe that those DAOs have outstanding proof of work (94.3 Radio One - Pune) (https://1mlnnfts.com/), together with good value proposition that their proposals bring to the ecosystem.
Why don’t you think he did a great job by onboarding a radio pro to the ecosystem? we haven’t seen the report yet, right
“Note that: CDAO is the first DAO (and the only for now) in the ecosystem that its councils step down voluntarily from related DAO members and do not receive any other financial benefit other than our moderation work”
Really? You need to review each DAO more carefully
Hey, I think you are mistaken being a “member” of a DAO as “council” of a DAO. If you are not yet aware, these 2 are different things. As “members,” we do not have the same impact on DAO governance as the “council” members do.
After our decision to step down from the “council” position, we were demoted to “members” in which we have chosen to remain in the DAO as the latter. In case you have not yet had the opportunity to review the details of our decision to step down, I have compiled a consolidated list for your reference to better understand the situation:
Sahil does not have a DAO to step down from, as the DAO has already been disbanded
Based on the level of effort and attention you are dedicating to this matter, it appears that you have the ability to research and verify the DAOs mentioned in the respective announcements - so feel free to revisit the AstroDAO of DAO’s in question
While it may be tempting to overlook the situation, it is important to address any false accusations with accurate information now that transparency is valued.
There has been a lot of discussion on the CreativesDAO charter, and they have worked extensively to update it to align with the vision of the NDC and the Community Treasury. Please review and provide any further comments:
The Governance Working Group (GWG) has also requested the Marketing and Creatives to have Council reelection criteria and shorter terms for the council in their charters. The CreativesDAO has updated theirs to a term of 1YR.
Regarding Conflict of Interest, each council member should recuse themselves from voting for any allocation that would have a direct conflict.
Please be more clear about your concerns. I did notice most of the funding went to the previous DAOs and that could be seen as bias. However, several people have vetted the matrix, and it is of good substance and quantity for evaluation.
There is also a max number of times that a DAO can request funding once per quarter, does this allow for enough variation in funding? That would be my only question.
In the case that a DAO does not receive approval it would be advisable to work with a DAO that does.
What are your specific concerns? Have you been able to read the Charter?
The Community(NDC) Goal is to get V1 NDC Gov online, which will have elected representatives from the Community. This will usher in the House of Merit (HoM), which will review the grandfathered DAOs operations and decide whether funding will continue.
NDC V0 Gov is to only last 1 QTR, which means after that time funding will be reviewed by the HoM.
I am Human is coming THIS MONTH we need the Community to register and be ready to vote!
In addition, the Creatives DAO has added some language around Decentralization to their charter. Creatives IS NOT a SINGLE DAO. It is a Constellation with many Nodes, Workgroups, Projects, Products and Collectives with sustainability and competition. The goal is for both the Creatives and Marketing DAOs to decentralize and become Constellations. This will be accomplished via Workgroups, Subworkgroups, and Spinouts.
All CDAO councils have stepped down from their pre-existing council positions to the DAOs they were associated with.
Note - Being a member of an associated DAO gives no right to the CDAO councils of making any fund allocation or governance decisions.
It’s purely a gesture of support for the project they love.
However, I can see the issue and how it can be viewed as conflict of interest.
Thank you for bringing it up. Let us discuss and get back with a response.
A humble request - From Mods to approved DAOs and DAOs that didn’t get funding, all are trying to build on NEAR. We’re a community that is experimenting and trying to build something unique and new.
Support and a suggestion on how to move forward would go a long way than just a comment showing others in bad light.
Amazing work was (and is still being) done by the Creatives DAO community. The team have really provided multiple projects with space and opprotunities to develop more rapid. Moreover, they are very engaged and look deep into the projects, helping to improve the organization or conceptions. They help with collaborations as well.
Glad to be a part of such a community. Hope together we’ll activate the whole NEAR community in the future!
Congratulations to all projects and DAOs that got approved
Unfortunately Apex Trybe wasn’t but we are pleased to know that you found merit in the proposal and believe that with some refinement it could have a better chance in the future. We are definitely willing to work on and refine the proposal as needed
I would like to let the creative mods know that the approach towards grading community metrics in eligibility for funding is not really straightforward and open to rational scrutiny for evaluation.
I have 3 questions for the creative moderators
How was it that the Ubuntu Photgraphy Fellowship scored so low despite having at least one community member present during the creatives weekly calls and claiming NFTs, built a community of 20 people as a new community, have 34 followers organic traction on its Instagram, collaborated with NeAR Dapp genadrop.io of minority programmers
How did the creative mods score a new dAO/community like the Ubuntu photography fellowship low on decentralization when it has three members as councils on its DAO and other members on its DAO as contributors and these members have Creative community calls Nfts claimed and have been present collectively during community calls: a significant precursor to genuineness and dedication on te part of the community towards BUILDING ON NEAR
How did the Ubuntu Photography fellowship not get funded and yet fund a DAO like the India verse DAO which is without a known community on chain/off chain, has no activity before coming to NEAR and no activity on NEAR yet.
It is really ironic that the Indiaverse DAo submitted a proposal alongside their introduction which in all respects show that they have no ad a familiarization with the creatives community so far
It is quite dis orienting to follow guidelines and adhere to rules, put in genuine energy, onboard and educate folks, build a community with legit socials to show for and this happens. It looks like there is a greater play to this…
Most painful fact is that, how did the indiaverse DAO introduce itself on the same day it was requesting funding and then get approved while communities that have shown proof of genuineness and lasted up to two months with evidence of activities on chain get ignored and score higher on the creatives score sheet without any knowledge of the indiaverse DAO community members or activities or even a known community telegram