I’m delighted to see so many things put together in a coherent fashion! And right in time, since I was in the process of writing up a possible way forward regarding Dim’s posed question in today’s DAO Call on how to continue with his idea of introducing the ‘DAO Core’. I changed my mind and will instead write up an answer to this awesome post as it’s also better to first have a quick chat with you again, Dim 
#1 - DAO Baord confirmation vote
I’d like to reiterate the reason why I think we shouldn’t change a process we committed on (as in no change to the on-chain vote) and keep it as a simple confirmation vote for the chosen DAO Board selection.
In my view, we should never change things mid-execution. If we set out to do something and we start the process, we should always finish it (as best as possible). Even if it’s a somewhat ‘flawed’ process unless it seriously hurts Grape and everyone is aware of that and aware of the consequences. If we have the urge to change things, we can start the process of doing that. And if the majority agrees with it, it shows us that we either didn’t take enough time to talk things through before starting the first process, or that we haven’t had enough foresight to anticipate something that came up.
Changing anything mid-execution that we agreed upon and also communicated in a transparent way is potentially a dangerous thing to do, as it totally undermines transparency, reliability, and consistency.
That’s also something we talked about in the DAO Call today and hopefully, as I understand, agreed upon.
So basically: The current on-chain vote for DAO Board confirmation has nothing to do with anything we maybe want to change afterward and it shouldn’t be changed. It’s totally irrelevant whether it succeeds or not, at least in terms of any proposal that could be voted upon after that, even it’s a drastic change on the same thing we previously voted on.
#2 - DAO Core
The reason why I’m not a fan of how I initially understood the idea of ‘DAO Core’ is that I don’t think that introducing an additional layer or ring serves our idea of a truly meritocratic community. I worry that it creates an additional barrier for people to participate if they are not part of this ‘DAO Core’ group.
Here is why I think that: In the past few months, we had a lot of situations where people voiced their opinion and had ideas regarding changes and things that didn’t directly fit into any subDAO. They naturally turned to the DAO Board since they saw 5 people who agreed to help in advancing the DAO, especially in terms of organizational aspects and the facilitation of communication.
This led to a perceived assumption that the DAO Board or someone therein would ‘manage’ that stuff.
Introducing a pre-defined ‘Core Team’ would even further move us in this direction. At least that’s what I fear. Voting on the group would make it even worse because then you’d have created an additional artificial barrier for people.
What I think we need is a way for members to participate in core DAO tasks and get rewarded for it. This for me, as mentioned before, calls for the introduction of Skill Roles for the DAO. For the same reason we use them in the subDAOs. Members who want to help get a role, and are rewarded based on their Tier which in turn is based on their contribution and not on a vote to ‘get in’.
I totally support the idea of assigning tasks to people, or rather people to tasks in order to achieve results. For me, creating a barrier isn’t the way though.
It could be that I’m still not getting it. So if you all mean by introducing something like the ‘DAO Core’ that we should introduce Skill Roles to the main DAO and only call all those members part of DAO Core, then, fine. It’s basically the same thing and I’d only argue that this could have a slightly negative effect since it also creates a perceived division between DAO Members and ‘Core DAO Members’. If you intend to vote on this group though, then it’s essentially creating an artificial barrier and I’m against it and I also think that it’s against the meritocratic approach.
#3 - Working in subDAOs
For the same reason, I think we shouldn’t make it harder for people to participate in the DAO (e.g. by voting on whether they can become a part of the DAO Core team), I think we shouldn’t make it harder for members of any subDAO. If they don’t do any work, sure, then it’s obvious. But when I joined Grape, I was under the impression that every contribution counts and is welcome, and I still am. If we think that people do the bare minimum or game the system to get rewarded, then we should either raise the bar of the Tiers or create more Tiers so that people get less on the lowest one (which you already proposed); this is in every subDAOs purview though.
A simple solution for acknowledging the fact that some members do more work in a subDAO and others less is adjusting the Tier-structure accordingly. We always should try to value every contributing member and as long as it is done in a fair manner, we shouldn’t restrict participation in any subDAO or the DAO.
For me, it doesn’t matter if most of the time it’s the same members doing the work. What is important though is that they then in turn also get the most rewards. If people try to exploit our structure, there is always the option to set them as Tier 0 or to introduce what Arximedis proposed, the use of a percentage-based system. If we do it properly, the discussion regarding sustainability shouldn’t arise, a percentage-based system would see to that.
#4 - Revenue-based metrics
Incorporating revenue metrics in our considerations is a good thing I think. At the same time, it creates potential division. What I mean by that is the answer to the simple question of origin. Where did the revenue originate and who made it possible? Was it the one who conceptualized a project? The developer who programmed it or the one from the sales department who sold it to customers? In some areas it is easier to break it down, granted, but you get my idea.
The commission-based system could work very well but with everything we do in regards to a re-distribution, we should make a dry run first and evaluate the outcome. A low percentage could also work so that there is an incentive right from the start but 40% might be a bit high.
#5 - $USDC vs $Grape rewards
Regarding what is better, for us and/or e.g. community engagement, I’m not sure. On the one hand, I feel that it would be way easier for us to communicate a fixed amount of $USDC as ‘prize money’ or other incentives. On the other, it goes against what we want to achieve, doesn’t it? We want people to perceive $Grape as a community project with community rewards, right? Handing out Dollars could incentivize people to participate in activities, ok, but wouldn’t it make it even harder to convey the purpose of our community? As I said, I am unsure and I’d love to hear other thoughts on this.
What I could see though is, ‘paying’ people outside of the community in Dollars for specific tasks that we deem valuable, like the grants. We don’t necessarily need them to join the community, we primarily want to get things done.
#6 - International subDAOs
I’d also love to see some more discussion (on Discourse) regarding the goals and ideas of our international subDAOs. I know that this isn’t so easy since there always is the language barrier and also a limited amount of people who are available to translate. Maybe it is also on the rest of the DAO to come forth with questions to start the conversation. I’d be willing to take some time out of my day and relay anything that will help in the discussion and in finding a way of better understanding our common goals @natome @Ridho.alifutama @Libra.
–
Closing I’d like to thank you again @Takisoul since it’s always harder to kick off a conversation and give people talking points to either agree or disagree. Either way, what it does is promotes a critical discourse and I love it 