Excited to share that we are going 100% opensource with all our current and future tools. This includes Grape NFT marketplace, the Verification Network and our Grape Dashboard.
We will start issuing Grape-backed tokens for each of the tools (thanks to Strata Protocol). These tokens will be used for different protocols and users to take part in the development of these opensource solutions.
Im sharing the following article draft for more context. Please do not share this article as it is still in draft form and is not meant for a wide audience.
Id like help
-Writing this draft to be better
-Figuring out tokenomics for each tool. This could include the curve and the usage of each token related to each protocol
A lot to digest there, the draft does seemed clear in getting its messages across and have to say can see there’s a lot of exciting things coming which is great.
I appreciate its the draft and more details on these points may be coming in other annoucements, just had the following questions, and if they answers are we’ll know soon no worries
First thought is the classic “wen tokens!” are the Access/Dashboard/ Marketplace tokens available on Strata now? and will they have a bonding curve assocaited with them?
The Grape Passport NFT sounds really intriguing, excuse my naivety but how do Progamme Derived Addresses function? Will the Grape Passport NFT have to be minted, need an associated token account setup and have an actual image assocaited with it?
I can speak to the wen tokens – we are still working on that and thats where we need help! They are not currently available, but i personally would like to have them available in a “grace-period” within the next week
We’ve reached out to multiple partners in discovering the best bonded curve to use for each different tool. This is something we need to explore for sure and its the most complicated!
Grape Passport will need to be minted, but it wont be transferable. @BillysDiscord is the subject matter expert on this
I read all of it! The first part shows that we are ready in all the key parts of making tokenized communities a reality.
a) Governance is our stronger point making it easy for communities to organise, develop their operations and grow through realms , squds and meanfi.
b) Verification tool at all communities disposal!
c) A Great Grape dashboard acting as a DAO control center that will also integrate realms.
d) And last one the recent Grape.art which i believe is super stronk (nft terminology) and completes the toolset for making tokenized communities a reality.
→ If we also add the passport and the reputation metrics then we are super complete.
I don’t have experience on this field to imagine how the “tokenization” of the coomunity will happen.
Looks challenging and difficult but a great mission to accomplish and i’m so in for the kill !
Now from all my knowledge one good suggestion i can make is to try and add everything we can in Grape Dashboard (like soon to have, realms) so users do not need to go around tabs and various UI elements that when activity is high and there will be squad executions , realm votings and meanfi emissions , makes things hard for users.
I know we do that ! i just say that to keep doing it
I liked the idea of the NFT passport and the approach about getting your reputation based on the effort / contribution you make and the fact that you can’t buy your way in…
my Q, would this nullify the 3 roles available now and we move forward to any new tool using the passport with Grape? or that would be 2 separate things?
great work by the way
I was holding my breath while reading this draft. I hope to see this come to reality soon and I hope we can get enough support from our partner communities who might be of help too because this is a lot of work and requires a lot effort. I’m very positive about this and I think we’re moving in the right direction
Hm. You may know me by now as a skeptical yet open-minded person and ‘don’t run before you can walk’ is my general attitude towards all kinds of things. In this case, it feels like we’re attempting to run without me even knowing what walking might look like.
‘Each tool will be its own DAO and will organize, prioritize, and incentivize its own growth and operations.’
Right now, it seems to be too early for me since I think that our products need to be more connected resp. integrated and thoroughly tested by our community. Especially in terms of added value for other communities and us being able to refer to best practices and use cases. Not theoretical but practical experiences.
It sure sounds good and I can definitely envision it happening, but currently, how? How are we supposed to do that? I mean, we barely have enough people as it is, that are willing to organize stuff. I’d love to hear more about the details and the time frame though, so I’ll follow closely
I’m not sure I have a ton of feedback, you’ve got a good skill for writing. You hit the big items for me “Who’s my audience, what am I solving, why am I doing it, what the old way is” Great stuff
I love the call-out to the user experience so the average joe can see where they fit in. This is a very important perspective I always try to incorporate into our processes. If I’m brand new, how does it “Feel” or matter to “Me”
Perhaps one more item at the end that ties in visually what my experience in the discord or with the tools described might be.
Great work Dean, I like how the article lays out a vision for 2022 of where we intend to go. Each toolset is briefly touched upon and that it should be self governed.
Using Strata to create sub dao tokens with built in royalties helps us create a framework we could emulate in all respectful sub daos for complete autonomy and true decentralization. One of the issues we currently have in each sub dao is that its not possible to identify each “role” on chain for distribution and its ever harder to identify contributions. The holders of these tokens would be both the user contributors, and eventually network operators brining them closer together would help iterate faster, and bring more contributors to the Grape Network.
It’s sometimes hard to remember how fast things move. We didnt even have the idea for a marketplace until mid January and here we are 2 months later.
I agree we need to walk, and this is a year long plan for moving everything into a decentralized model. We’ve done it successfully for our community, now its time for the tools! I promise it wont detract from any of the focus on community processes and please hold me to that!
In verification, Grape is the giant because we have the most scalable process. @BillysDiscord is a systems architecture genius. And he sees that even ours cannot grow to verify millions of people. The only long-term solution is a decentralized verification network of people running their own nodes (think hardware, not validators). This creates an unstoppable network
As I understood the article it rests on two central axioms: 1) The tokenized community tooling we made is mature and we can now move further. 2) It has been proven that subDAOs work and can be trusted to work independently.
Discussion 1): We just had a vote on what the symbolic fee on grape.art should be and the barrier on reporting of NFTs is currently a placeholer of 200 GRAPE (IIRC). The voting time on the symbolic fees hasn’t even expired yet. So I think it’s fair to conclude that the tooling is not battle-tested by users and as such not mature yet.
Discussion 2): One point - February Emissions. The emissions per subDAO were handled by each subDAO themselves and then aggregated on the DAO level. When the February Emissions were put up to a vote suddenly people exclaimed that there are errors in the distribution. The way I see it this shows that currently we as a DAO cannot rely on the subDAOs to work independently yet.
As long as those 2 axioms are not fulfilled discussing a future that builds new things on top of our current structure of DAO, DAO Board and subDAOs is philosophical at best. I’ll stop it here. We cannot build on blocks that might break.
Please answer and help if I misunderstood something or am basing conclusions on wrong information.
Re: Discussion 2:
I can surely speak for the two SubDAOs I am part of the ‘admin/leaders’ team. We went through all the emissions for both the SubDAOs and made sure they were fair (after thorough internal= SubDAO discussions) and displayed in correctly and in detail. We have been noting the fact that the emissions were incorrect way before they were put into a vote. For some reason, they still remained wrong in the version that went up for a vote, so I do not see how we arrive at the conclusion that “currently we as a DAO cannot rely on the subDAOs to work independently yet”.
Please remember we are pioneers in what we do, operating on the edges of decentralization and we keep learning from our mistakes and from what works and what does not.
We are constantly aiming to improve the communication between the DAO Board and each SubDAO, so that in the end , all aggregated information reflects the reality per each SubDAO.