DAO Crash Test #1 Report

#1

Time: Tue Apr 23, 5pm - 6:30pm CET

Format: Online Workshop based on the CE Ritual Dissent

Participants: DAO incubator, DAOs & mentors

Purpose: make an online workshop to test and enhance DAO concepts, mechanics and ideas.

Creators don’t like to receive negative feedback, as it demotivates. Experts don’t (usually) like to share negative feedback or harsh improvements unless they really have to. Sometimes it’s easier is to say this is an ‘ok’ idea than go into an argument. So we focus the workshop on specifically critical feedback and ask somebody to be a receiver instead of the creator himself. Also through several iterations of feedback teams work on testing and improving the concepts accelerating the learning big way. It’s also a way to work on your idea with a wide range of great experts from different fields (tech, econ, legal etc).

More details: https://app.gitbook.com/@dao-incubator/s/wiki/projects/dao-crash-test

Organization

  • wiki to describe the format
  • posting in groups/telegram
  • google form for registration
  • google cal + several invites days and minutes before the start
  • zoom + breakout room
  • org sheet
  • Timer :slight_smile:

Attendance

  • 15 people registered
  • 9 people came (2 of 4 concept owners)
  • 1 dropped a bit earlier
  • created 3x3 teams, 2 rounds of feedback
  • Timing 1 hour for everything

Concepts

  • Funds distribution for Ethereum based on BrightID identity by Auryn Macmillan
  • Research DAO by Theo Beutel and Sönke Bartling
  • Trojan DAO for artists by Adam Reese and James Simbouras

Overall feedback

  • Awesome, nice, interesting, new
  • Good concept for getting the crticism
  • Having a spokesperson and process was constructive
  • Interest in participation in the further workshops
  • Confusion with process
  • Lack of time to have a structured feedback
  • 9 mins would be even tougher for teams with more than 3 people
  • Works smoother after getting used to it

Improvements suggestions

  • ask to install zoom beforehand
  • more clear instruction / check (spokesperson still answered the feedback some times, don’t take notes)
  • put clear distinction between pitch and feedback (at one of the rounds no feedback came – most time was used for questions)
  • making a test round with everybody (first round was confusing for everybody)
  • have more rounds (also missed the last praise round)
  • have more time per round
  • somehow make timing more clear (not everybody saw broadcasted messages). Auto transfer at the middle of the sentence was traumatic
  • if group is small make internally 1 circle of pure negative and 1 circle of pure positive feedback inside 1 round
  • ask people to be more tough with the feedback
  • probably works better for fresh ideas (on ideas you’ve spent a significant time – more deep & elaborate feedback is requested)
  • use mutual doc or pad to write together & make notes
  • people could switch rooms themselves
  • prepare and send ideas for reflection preliminary. People presenting projects could pre-submit a summary of their project (200 words max) so that the “criticizers” can enter the conversation with some idea of what’s being discussed
  • have more time on the action points
  • Scope of the concept should be narrow, not for large projects
  • Introduce some activity at first 5 mins while people are gethering

Next steps: reflect a bit and plan a new one (probably longer in a few weeks)

Thanks to Auryn Macmillan, Adam Reese, Theo Beutel, Daniel Shavit, James Simbouras, Philippe Honigman, Francesco Vauban & Sönke Bartling for participating and testing it! Also Kate Beecroft and Phoebe Tickell for the tips. Your support is invaluable!

2 Likes

DAO Crash Test #3 Report