The Metamorphosis of Creatives DAO

Thanks for everyone’s effort :white_heart:

I think a name is not the problem, anyways I think I like the idea of ArtTech DAO, nice to me.

Can we have our own mintbase-like DAPP?

Or maybe ArtTech/Creatives DAO store on mint-base… If building our own NFT marketplace DAPP would be a problem.

At least, 1 more of this new moderators can recommend this back,

With my experience in the Traditional Industry, Collaboration with more popular artists is a good thing which brings more Rep. and adds value to your brand, Which i believe same can be applied to web3 projects with 'em also.

But for sure the popular artists will charge for their work, but only one of this present moderators found Value in that, proposals was closed for its sake.


Hey @Cryptonaut

This sounds like a well thought out plan for the evolution of creatives dao that addresses a lot of the previous issues & challenges…but with an eye on likely future realities. Appreciate there will almost definitely be plenty of fine-tuning and revisions to come…but a promising start.

Particularly pleased to see an outline strategy that includes non-DAO (non-Community) individual creatives included within the initial framework. Would be good to know more detail on how this might work…but appreciate that it is at the embryonic stage :+1:



Just to add…I saw the detail in the spreadsheet on Tier 1 & 2 onboarding & milestones. :+1:


hello, thank you for this! :slight_smile:

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.


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. :+1:


Deep point,
This is why we are more Valuable,

I think we should stick to the DAO vertical way of funding. It makes us more accountable IMO.

1 Like

I totally support the model. In my opinion, we need to give more power to councils, decision-makers, and business developers instead of DAOs in the current structure.


Thank you for your opinion. Have a great day!


hello @Cryptonaut, doesn’t it go against Near Foundation “beyond the hype” ideal?

I think it is too much to call the mutual support that is happening “cartel formation” I’ve been council in 3 DAOs, and I’ve never seen anyone negotiating votes, but artists encouraging each other.
but the vote system is a little “empty”, yes or no, I think those votes should have an explanation, “we support this proposal for X and Y reasons, and think that Z can be interesting too”


This is absolutely brilliant.

Totally appreciate all the awesome ideas and thoughts towards growing and this is a step in the right direction, a dashboard to properly handle projects and proposals is awesome, ArtTechNation DAO is also a good name but we don’t necessarily have to change from Creatives Dao, however this is good and can be implemented, the tiers is a bit tricky and have to be carefully implemented but overall it makes good sense.
Big hugs :people_hugging:


To be honest I got confused on this part too, this is definitely not true from @Cryptonaut’s saying. No one is forming any Cartel, we are we ourselves,

Everyone DAO is entitled to be there, those that are currently voting are the ones that submitted their DAO’s for vote,

it sounds TRICKY TO HEAR some are forming Cartel… Nah, Don’t forget its not just 1 person voting from a DAO, it’s always consisting of 3 to 4 more people, so we have to wait till all complete.

The issue we should emphasize & fix is how we wanna make noise for NF. a.k.a Marketing


This is a quarterly cap that I’ve suggested which will be paid on completion of milestones shared by the DAO or the projects and evaluated based on the metric system for DAOs and community and for artists and projects in the proposal above.
This funding is only for Creatives DAO, marketing DAO funding not included.

Marketing DAO being a part of this could be an issue as they are focused on funding marketing actives for the whole ecosystem and funding projects in various verticals while we are focusing on funding the infrastructure projects that will be only focused on providing solutions to creatives of the world. (for example NFT marketplaces or Metaverse Design companies or Crypto based freelance marketplace)

Yes, I totally agree that without DAO ecosystem there is no point of doing anything. Hence preservation of the current ecosystem and funding more purpose based creative DAOs is the goal and highest funding allocated is for that purpose.

We do need Artists that already have visibility in the outside world for NEAR to be known and its dapps like mintbase, Tamago, 3xr etc to be used by non-near community for us to be seen as a blockchain that supports creative endeavours. Hence focus on bringing tier 1 and tier 2 artists from outside and give them web3 solutions as a lot of artists do want to have their NFT stores or

Totally open to fund restructuring suggestions. This is just a draft :slight_smile:

Funding for DAO ecosystem can begin by November.
We will open call for marketing and African community mod and will have candidates picked in Nov.
We should open call for business development in NEAR and outside once we have our marketing person who will help the post reach out to get best candidates.

The whole team can start working together in December and should aim to have the new model come functioning by Jan or Feb.

Hope I answered your questions?


You did, thank you :slight_smile:

In regards to Mkt DAO I was only wondering if we should somehow take into consideration that most of the DAOs also request funds there and so the money spent by NF on these DAOs is actually higher than what we see if we only look at the Creatives DAO.

Let’s say for the purpose of this discussion that this proposal somehow established that the Mkt DAO is not the place for DAOs to request $ from (and they would focus on entirely different projects).

If we do look into that than the proposed reduction is even higher than 25%, which can be looked at in 2 different ways:

  • higher reduction than presented, should be updated
  • margin for a higher request

(not defending one over the other, just making sure we are able to ‘sell’ this to NF as well as we can)


NF actually just wants what community wants. We have to as a community decide what we want from this new model.

I’m proposing changes but we need to as a community vote what we need and don’t need. That in my opinion is a more decentralised way and opinions of members shape how the future will look like


Hey @pinkalsky , @sheadyyy

There have been in the past where same members are a part of 3 or more DAOs approving funding for each other as Councils of Creatives DAO.

This was noticed by creatives mods and also marketing DAO council and became a big issue as Creatives’ DAO reputation was being targeted.
This hasn’t been happening a lot but has the potential to get out of hand if there are same people in different DAOs as Councils of Creatives.

I saw the video but didn’t understand the correlation. Can you please elaborate a bit?

Hey @Dacha

Thanks for your support.

To be clear, the model suggested is of a more clear evaluation system and to bring artists with more visibility outside of NEAR into NEAR and projects with ROI and value creation for creatives all around the world (for example NFT marketplaces or Metaverse Design companies or Crypto based freelance marketplace)

The voting can still be done by DAOs to approve or reject the funding as the fund is a community fund, with a clear explanation of why they are saying yes or a no.

A thorough and clear due diligence will help DAOs make better and informed decision.

That is the goal of this model.


Thank you for kind words.

Giving names to projects is not my forte :stuck_out_tongue:

Like I said, this is a draft that can, and should be voted by community to be refined.

Name is an important aspect and the community can decide whether we want a new name or keep the old one.

Thanks @zeitwarp

Just like any and everything, nothing is complete. And this is a recommendation till where my mind can create something of meaning considering the issues we face currently and can face in the future due to the coming recession and market conditions.

Thanks for your words of support. Your inputs and ideas very important at this moment.

1 Like

We most certainly can.

A bounty should be put out from the Creatives side to get a website dashboard approved. Idea courtesy @Hawwal


The value proposition pitched to the artists is that we will give them funding to help them build their web3 infrastructure, give them knowledge to run their communities and will also give them funding to do so.

Artists will be able to apply for these grants if they fall under the tier system mentioned in the proposal.

They will get

  • a marketplace setup via mintbase, which when shared on their social media as their NFT links, can get a lot of traffic to mintbase and exposure to NEAR.
    @reginamintbase, your view would be very valuable here.
  • We can help them create a wallets for their fans and share exclusive NFTs to their fan base. (A rough idea for bringing more users via artists. Marketing mod that will be brought in the team can ideation more here)
  • Help build a metaverse space for them where they can have private web3 events for their communities and shill nfts.

Lot of ideas can be a part of value exchange instead of paying them just to come as artists on our ecosystem.


Thanks for your support @Monish016

Please do share if you are any ideas to make this better for the community. Your input as an ex creative’s mod is highly valuable!

Also, tagging @chloe @mecsbecs @tabear @hevertonharieno @adrianseneca @ted.iv @vandal @FritzWorm for your inputs and insights.