This model aims to standardize and define the relationships and dynamics between the main dao
and sub-daos and set/define the way they will operate and communicate ensuring an effective and
secure collaboration towards value creation.
. This model will be the standardized framework of the everyday and weekly responsibilities,
procedures and actions that need to be executed by all members on their equivalent area of
specialization or responsibility.
This model is the 1st of the 3 we are called to apply in order to complete the 1st phase where the Main DAO can focus on the governance and growth. A similar model will be employed in all 3 models to ensure standardized and familiar procedures in all of them.
Those 3 components represent the main activities and operations the protocol offers in the first
place and those 3 models are the key to increase our quality of service, upgrade and standardize
procedures to avoid confusions and finally unlock further value from the treasury under a secure and
The way i have it in my mind is that we have 3 main components to exert governance within Grape protocol that require a standardized framework and model of operation :
Main DAO - Sub-DAO
Main DAO - Grape Communities
Main DAO - Projects that use our tools.
Main responsibility of the GRAPE DAO is to govern and unlock the value to the sub-daos. The
model presented here can provide the necessary security on any of those transactions. The main
DAO will be able to focus more on governance and growth, since now it wastes energy to fix small
details in the absence of a general, overall, “binding” framework of operation.
The Main DAO needs to apply a similar framework to govern our second area of specialization,
that of the User created communities within Grape servers so we are always ready to respond in any
support requested by those types of users.
Grape protocol also provides tools that can be used by projects and communities (ex. GAN, verif, bounties, etc).
So applying those 3 models in each main category of operations we will actually make it possible to
start unlocking and utilizing value with more confidence. This standardization of procedures in all 3
components is also important because it will give us a clearer view about compensations. I’m pretty
sure that we will never create a fair or balanced compensation system if those 3 models are not in
Read the attached pdf.
I couldnt attach it after all so i uploaded screenshots
While I understand this proposal in principle, I think it is not feasible to execute currently.
Who should be the DAO monitors?
How would the DAO monitors be compensated?
And more questions along these lines.
Love what you’ve laid out here! What is great is that you are of a unique few in this DAO that actually was part of a functioning sub-dao focused on dealing with issues like ownership, multisig operations, and asset management.
To start growing this model – could we perhaps use the NFT council as a starting example? It might be easier to lay this out with existing models; the DAO has many people that have not had to deal with this real-world application like you have
Mods, community managers, substitutions. if we want to ground someone we say “3 sub-daos” to assess as punishment
-possibility to train members that stand out in the community with their actions and want to be trained or tested from us to onboard hi on our activities are also eligible i guess.
Each cycle of monitoring (1-2-3 weeks?) should have a FIXED duration and a list of 5-10 specific thing that need to be recorded each week and reported (if needed)
-(Keep in mind that this or ANY similar models MUST be applied at some point if we really want to unlock the treasury’s value for our sub-daos with ZERO security issues aiming to create value)
For now we are waiting for the “governance tech” (for squads, cardinal or any protocol) to be complete and we are good to go.
We just need to create and decide upon some procedures for security reasons in case there is a removal or onboarding of a new member.
Nothing crazy just how this or similar situations/incidents are going to be solved in the nft-council and that’s it. its global,
This will finally allow me and the rest of the guys to create a team or invite new users and explore how this whole will go.
-if there problems etc, set up and see in detail how those new members will affect it so i make it better
I use the old OG strategy we learned from our grandmothers before we sleep:
“if It works in my sub-dao it also works in yours” (they used to say lol), is the approach we need to take here and create exactly the same “global” procedure, everywhere , even in the toiles we all need to multisig the door if someone want to pee :P"
Without setting up any model to operate like robots we are DENIED or have limited access, like when i forgot to pay the internet bill and received a message that they will slow down.
Hi @_Alexperts.sol !
I’m intrigued to see that someone picks up the topic of DAO and subDAO structuring again. It is indeed something that would help. That said, I think this is something we should discuss in a call because it is easier to talk about such stuff than doing it in writing. Otherwise it’ll take a lot of back and forth.
My main concern would be that while I understand the concept, I don’t see it as feasible, especially not in these market conditions. I remember us trying to get the subDAOs in order when we had the DAO Board. The Board acted (or tried to act) as a monitoring body. It all came (and comes) down to the subDAO Representatives. Who, if you might remember, where introduced as a concept by the former DAO Board. The DAO decided though, that all subDAOs should be free to govern as they see fit.
I don’t see the need for a redundant role per subDAO, since everything the DAO Monitor should do also would be the responsibility of a subDAO Representative.
If you think that there should be a monitoring instance within the Main DAO, you’re basically describing a business unit like Controlling; you’re calling for a Controller.
But since we never had a body with authority to give directives, it’s a bit of a moot point.
For me, it still comes down to the question I posed in this thread: [Discussion] Incubator vs. Service Provider
Because, in the end, it’s all about allocation and flow of money, information and resources and the underlying organizational structure.
This model doesnt need to be applied exactly as i say present it nor that srtict.
I just brought this back again because Rust recently left, we had to rush in our wallet; rust forgot to send back the NFTs, then he sent them on the Grapevvil wallet , that now needs a proposal to go back to the NFT council’s multisig.
If we assume that potentially new members will join i would like to have a mechanism in place so they dont get out of hand.
Thats my only concern, how to secure our assets while our community is using them.
What i actually did was to create a method of communication between the DAO/subdao by having 1 member as representative, expressing the voice of each group so communication will involve two people and not 498305904.
NFTs need to be moved sold and bought almost anytime so security here is of great importance.