While not a fully fledged plan (obviously) this is an effort to not only view things as holistically as possible but hopefully get the conversation going.
I will try to convey my thoughts for both the structure of the DAO, Board, SubDAOs, but also chime in to the emissions discussion.
As proposed by Dim Selk here I would also like to support the idea of pushing an alternative option when we push the Election Vote On-chain as described here:
In the Realms vote pushed to confirm the results from the elections I would also like to add the option of a dissolution of the board (as it is now) and the immediate formation of the DAO Operational Team (DAO Core).
If this option is accepted by the voters, I would propose that the newly elected DAO Board serves as the first rotation that will have the added responsibility of forming the DAO Core and transitioning to this new governance structure.
DAO Board should comprise of up to 5 individuals. (IF things go very well and workload is not manageable, then we could consider 7 members).
They are the voice of the DAO, both in terms of expressing the community’s voice but also forging the path forward with their strategy
The DAO Board should set tangible & defined goals with clear timelines, both for the DAO but also toward the SubDAOs.
Make a habit of continuously assessing progress towards these goals on a weekly basis (minimum).
There needs to be better and more timely communication between the DAO board and each SubDAO, in terms of goals, tasks assigned and progress made.
Within the DAO Board, there needs to be clear and defined responsibility for each member, so that a SubDAO knows who to address to get the message across and/or the job done. The buck needs to stop at someone in every front.
Defined delegation of responsibility for each member. Said members will each be accountable for the tasks they have undertaken and they should report directly to the DAO & DAO Board in a weekly meeting on what they are working on, progress and next week/immediate goals.
Up to a certain extent, we should think of the DAO Talks/Calls as an All Hands Meeting for the whole Skill force.
The DAO Core that is currently being proposed by Dim Selk must essentially be a group of individuals with that role, practically being the workforce of the DAO Board.
I tend more and more to think that a part of the DAO Core can consist of the leaders of each SubDAO. This would definitely allow the facilitation of a better synergy between the Board and subDAOs, something that has proven to be a difficult task in the past.
These are the people that are more knowledgeable & in the know in order to facilitate requests coming from above than the SubDAO leaders.
The idea of a DAO Core where each member has specific responsibilities (i.e. emissions, DAO Additions Removals, and other operations) will allow better efficiency and organization for our governance structure.
In my humble opinion the Creative part of this SubDAO needs to scale down in order to be more nimble and, most importantly, sustainable.
There is really no point in having such a large number of designers and the majority of work (more than 80% of the work actually used) to be coming from the same people over and over again.
There is a common occurrence, apparent all across the workforce with members putting in the absolute minimum work in order to get the emission at the end of the month.
This only puts us down and does not help to move forward and evolve as a workplace.
I totally respect & understand the need for compensation for services rendered, but the way for this to be achieved in a sustainable way is by all of us working towards the goal that the value of $GRAPE emitted to a workforce member is more than enough to be able to both sell some but also hold for voting power.
This will never happen if everyone keeps selling their emissions the moment their stream ends (or sooner).
Recommended action (for now; similar approach might need to expand to all other Tiers):
All Tier 1 Designer & Tier 1 Videographer receives 0.2X in emissions (instead of current 1X). Similar, but proportionally smaller reduction should be applied to higher Tiers.
I tend to think that emissions should be at least tied to a % of revenue brought in per epoch. This sounds really harsh and radical but it is a sustainable direction. Which brings me to my next point.
Re: THOUGHTS on Metrics discussion that could apply to Content Creators: (please feel free to shut them down by recommending something better, sustainable and actionable)
-Revenue brought in: Weighs 40% in member emissions calculation
-Grape Members acquisition: monthly % of growth through content followers, subscribers, audience in AMAs will reflect on the emission. Invite tracker will possibly be large in play here. Weighs 40% in member emissions calculation
-Member retention: Hard to track?
-Ratio of resources used (designers, videographers etc) VS content produced.
Weighs 20% in member emissions calculation
Moderators are in the first line of the Grape Workforce. They are among our most active members helping out daily 24/7 users from all over Solana coming in to seek guidance.
It is also very difficult to place metrics to their work.
This is currently been discussed with Tariq here: Emissions based on market demand for grape - #10 by Takisoul
Some thoughts on what we should seek to measure in our metrics:
-Responsiveness to a member seeking assistance.
-Assist provided in Setups (this is the easiest to measure and a very helpful service by our mods) Note that currently, not all moderators assist in setups.
-Knowledge: How proficient a moderator is demonstrably when dealing with out of the ordinary questions and issues.
-Activity/Engagement: This is hard to track for every moderator individually.
-Going above and beyond: Bringing perks to the Grape community. For example, many of our mods reach out to other communities, often resulting in bringing WL spots for the Grape community. This should be considered towards evaluation in my opinion.
A recent alternate version of tiering moderators is that all moderators get assigned a flat Tier (tier 2) and gain upper Tiers by participating in Setups and assisting in special events (example Jogging with Barndog live events).
This discussion is to be continued since the participation in the calls (mostly by moderators) has been almost nonexistent. Whenever there is interest in this discussion by the stakeholders within the SubDAO, we will happily participate. Until then, no need for further discussion (or emissions).
Gaming Events is one of the pillars of Grape. Back when we started, we wanted Grape events to be one of the main reasons casual normies join the community. Offering top notch gaming events, plus truly great prizes.
Unfortunately, in time we realize that these events are only used by existing members, in order to accumulate more $GRAPE to sell. Which is fine. What is not fine is that events have not been bringing new users and have been giving out way too much $GRAPE, which in its vast majority is dumped on the market.
We were recently asked why Events/Contests are offered 500k $GRAPE per epoch for prizes (which by the way is almost never utilized fully). This too will change drastically.
My proposal on this is for a 50k $GRAPE monthly allocation for Events/Contests.
Legend proposes instead that we allocate a fixed USDC value to events. Events will be categorized to big, medium, small caliber (based on participation).
These two proposals will go into an internal vote by the Community Management SubDAO.
This will not affect cross community /Solan wide tournaments, for which this SubDAO will be seeking approval via vote on Realms.
Gaming events will continue to be one of the pillars of the Grape experience, but we need to take a different approach.
Moving forward, events of medium to small magnitude/participation will not be held anymore and the primary focus will be on blockchain games.
2022 is the year when we are seeing more and more playable and enjoyable games on Solana. Heck, we even have some (if not the) top content creators for Solana Gaming in our family.
This should be the main focus for Grape Events moving forward.
Our team of researchers consists of some of the smartest people on Solana. The (back then Solana alpha) Curated Alpha channel used to be one of our flagship channels, has amassed 96 readers in the past 28 days (29 posts).
For reference, the Solana chat (researchers are not responsible for posting content there) has 130 readers, the same amount as the Grape Calendar & Announcements channels.
Of course is expected to have less viewers, being a gated channel, viewable for Great Apes & Gorillas only) but, admittedly, the content there has been subpar of expectations.
What is astounding is the level of criticism (borderline or straight up fud by certain members of this SubDAO) vs the almost complete lack of counter proposals on actionable steps, besides some recent feedback (which I was really happy to receive) re: how Grape defines itself.
One could argue that researchers provide the raw content for our content creators, but is this really a fact and to which, measurable extent? If so, who keeps track of this?
Do the researchers communicate their content to content creators or is it simply that some content creators are researchers and get the content anyway?
Has there been any discussion about metrics in the Researcher SubDAO?
Have the researchers weighed in the SubDAO tokens discussion with something more than a non response or “I am not fond of this” type of response?
Admittedly I am not that well versed as to how the Developers SubDAO operates. Mostly due to its size and the fact that moving forward we are focusing on pursuing development goals via grants, I lack the proper insight to further comment.
I would expect from this SubDAO as well to provide some information & insight on the criteria, metrics they keep to track their progress and performance.
The Grape community takes pride in its international reach. With two fully formed SubDAOs (Pandas & Garudas) and a total of almost 700 members, they are mostly independent in their strategy, as long as they support, promote & work towards the wellbeing and evolution of the Grape community in total.
Here there is a need for a better understanding of what these subDAOs do and what value is being generated. There is a need for a point of contact to provide reports on progress.
Another question revolves around their metrics and what are they (if any)?
Currently the Chinese community (Pandas) have a total of 302 members. To my knowledge, their activity has been minimal in the Grape discord and I would really like to know what are their plans, goals & actions for the foreseeable future. Here too we need to hear some proposed metrics for performance towards goals met, plus how their budget has been utilized towards growth.
The Indonesian community has a total of 359 members. Lately they have been active, organizing gaming events, which up until now were also open to Grape members. Budget for the prizepools of these events has been going out from the general Events/Contests budget but moving forward, they will be utilizing their own Garuda budget, which initially was reserved for -among other things- growth.