hello, thank you for this! 
A few general comments:
about the name: I don’t think it matters much, at this stage, but would try to keep it simple. ArtTech DAO sounds cleaner, or just keeping Creatives DAO would also work. Something to ponder: would it be beneficial to add NEAR to the name, e.g. NEARCreatives DAO or NEARART DAO (etc), from the point of easing marketing?
about the general mindset of this proposal: I agree that, being in the web3 space, this is inevitable and and we should do well in preparing the way for what’s coming.
about general goals of this proposal: I agree with them all. Thank you for helping this community think about it in terms of economics. I believe having a project-based structure and a larger time span for each ‘project’ is beneficial, quality-wise. It will also improve the health of the community (not only but by also improving the mental health of the individuals).
A few comments regarding each section:
-
The table proposed seems realistic and aligned with our goals as a community.
-
After seeing that both social media AND professional expertise are being valued, i.e. an artistic can be considered based on their social media presence (which values specific artforms and usually is lowbrow) but also on their professional career (which allows us to value highbrow artforms and artists). Happy with this and happy with the possibility of supporting individuals, as @zeitwarp suggested.
-
Much needed and in need of a dedicated team with skills not present in the community (in general).
about the dapp needed to run this system: I have been vocal in the past saying that we should above all else consider creating systems non-dependent on TG, the forum. An app would be really welcomed to help manage an ever growing ecosystem.
about moderators/council: In the proposed system I think we are talking about council and not moderators, and I agree with finding the best people for the job, i.e. hiring speciallists who are not council of DAOs.
Plus:
Long time ago (in May 2021 but it seems farther away) I wrote this:
brutus.pdf (58.1 KB)
I am not proposing ‘this particular system’ but though it would be a nice throwback.
Imho all turnout should follow this kind of system:
epoch 1: AAAAA
epoch 2: AAABB
epoch 3: ABBCC
epoch 4: BBCCD
epoch 5: CCDEE
…
This prevents sudden loss of expertise an too much adaptation time.
about funding: I think that since most of the DAOs are also frequently requesting $ from the Mkt DAO. Is the total value presented (1.something million$) pre-changes, i.e. currently takes both Creatives DAO and Mkt DAO into account or only the Creatives DAO accepted proposals? If the former is the case, would it not make sense to increase the funding for this proposal and remove the Mkt DAO from the equation? @Cryptonaut
I think all the numbers presented make sense, but I have some doubts about the 250k for DAOs and 125K for artists split.
Let me know if your logic is something like this:
- DAOs have more people but include many generic users
- Individual artists have higher expertise and/or large social media following
-and therefore:
- the $ value per person is lower at the DAOs tier
- the $ value per person is higher at the individual artists tier
-if this is correct, then is it not true that:
- financially-wise, it would be better to fund only high-expertise individuals?
-this creates a problem:
- without the DAOs ecosystem there would not be quorum and the larger pool base of individuals would disappear.
- individual artists will dissipate a higher % of the funds they get, because their activities are rarely community-based, that is, they will help you brand NEAR but rarely expand the user-base; maybe the only exception are really really famous artists (snoop dog or beyonce) who might create x token holders by just using the chain > 125k would not be enough for those so I assume they are out of the picture.
-my intuition tells me that:
- DAOs should receive a larger % of funds, for example 300k
- and individual artists 75k, using your caps as guide.
Final Comment: I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. My only concern is the time needed to implement it. Would it make sense to establish a roadmap consisting of 1) six month of @Paul 's proposal and a transition to 2) @Cryptonaut’s proposal? If this proposal would be implemented right away, when would operations resume, realistically?
Thank you all for this. Serious discussions. 
