Disclaimer: just the quick transcript from the talk. Sorry for errors. Probably not all is clear – treat that as the raw material for finding insights or continuing the conversation.
When more people are contributing, and funds decrease, more smaller don’t come. How it becomes sustainable?
Didn’t design Moloch to be sustainable e.g. spending $30-50k/month, $1.5M fund max. Mostly for learning. The other strategy is to transition to something for-profit. Like some fees from the mixer business.
Have you decided it?
Can’t decide anything. Goes proposal to proposal. Funny thing about DAO – it’s hard to get shelling force for continuous fundined.
That can be put as an expectation.
The only expectation is we’re not giving all the money next month.
Here’s where the tap mechanism can come.
Tap is more suitable for permissionless systems.
What is Tap? it’s the specific limit to max monthly spending in contracts for aragon fundraising with the bonding curve.
What helped Moloch with Vitalik and Joe?
Relations. They want Ethereum to grow, can’t do by themselves. We proved the grassroots community they know and trust. It’s unaffiliated. Seeing Eth community itself to try to solve this challenge. Also I said it would be less fun to do if they don’t join. We can thus have more reach with it. I like my job and and want to continue that. Moloch is now a noun. Another reason – it adds the credibility to the their story – unlike centralized management. Some of the original idea was to put money in DAOs.
If you redo the Moloch again how would you run it?
Establish the forum and discord earlier, start funding earlier.
After I joined the YangDAO – the next day we started to use discord.
How are you scaling?
That about scaling the responsibility. I didn’t know – let’s start a forum and structure later. I make proposal and means. One thing we’re experimenting – in DAOs we use shares. But it’s not fair in many senses. How do you make a more actual representation. One of the ways – the second layer reputation. Doesn’t influence anything, but for signaling. NFTs – like Chili NFT. Maybe you brought a good member before – we reward you with that. When we give them out we can count scores. And see if that’s something we want. When it’s fungible – the decisions are being lost. While this reputation doesn’t influence votes it can swing. You can make mistakes in a cheap manner. When you scale DAO beyond 40 people – they won’t know each other. But need to trust anyways. So you need to lean on something. Because you’re scalling to bigger community.
For mechanism wise – have you checked the conviction voting?
Not really, was doing what looked fun. We’re not design for a lot. Dunbar number for DAOs is around 40. Not everybody is attending, reading notes etc, just trust.
If there’s lot of people not participating? It it apathy, or else?
Can be ok as well. I outsource a lot of the judgement to DAO now. When we need to make a decision on a proposal for example. When collectively put together – it’s a good judgement. I can spend some time.
Is that a work, to be a curator?
Yes, a lot of DAO members are founders. You have a really good group to operate on. Bullshit proposal won’t be put through.
Do you worry if the substantial portion would be delegating their decisions. There was no ragequit situation YET. What are the parameters, how people would be notified etc.
The first barrier – the proposal needs to pass. We requested as a norm, to treat work and shares separately. Can shoot some proposal in the chat. If you know you’re gonna ragequit it’s worth to say it. The flipside – the most controversial issue with Peter’s Yang DAO. I had to make the final decision – i said in the chat about that. Part of the game theory - there was another proposal for a bigger sum, and I was specifically not participating in it so far. The other side of this – if enough people will ragequit – everybody gonna ragequit – is that what you want?
Technically some people quit to cash their funding. But they needed to leave at least 1 share to be in the community.
What was the highest turnout in Moloch?
top one for Aragon was 6.7% contentious. The typical rate is 4%.
Not a lot of 100 shares people vote, 10 shares do. If somebody would like to troll – it can be done easilly. We hadn’t got so much contention proposal in Metacartel so far. If somebody will still do that – i’ll ask to return the money.
How you can fuck the bad guy. We can restrict from further participation. We can also send Eth to another address (cause you can loose the address kinda). We can also decide to burn the shares - so leave or we’ll get your money.
The GQ mech is neet. But there’re some pitfalls to pool funds in the first place. They are limited by the amount they raise and loose as well. There’s another way to do it. Use fake money as the marker to where send real money. It gives you more agility.
It makes sense, but i wouldn’t build that.
Was thinking about how i can fire someone – can remove from discord and ban all his proposal. It’s a lot about having the voice in the DAO.
DAOs compete to fund Eth, how compete?
Probably with some specialization and knowledge. You can see a marketing DAO on explaining Ethereum or Lobbying DAO. Don’t think there would be one DAO. Metacartel was specifically build for the Dapps.
Don’t think there would be 1 DAO. But many DAOs is also limiting. Would be harder to establish the culture and identify right people. There would be not enough social pressure.
Don’t how much everybody looked in the Source Cred – this is how we can scale the trust.
How do you use Source Cred? It’s connected with Discord, Github etc – you get cred(ibility) for actions like commits, messages etc. You can build a social graph. That’s how we can build an ecosystem, not participating in every DAO.
We need a TCR of DAO to know cool DAOs. If you’re not in DAOs what do you do anyway.
What DAO are you even in?
If there’s gonna be a hundred of DAO – we can use Source Cred, until then we need small level of coolness.
Memes is a new gang tag.
A have a comparison to the GoT, what house are you loyal to. You here someone builds on Substrate… well you’re not my people, you’re from the north =)
You can argue that Ethereum is a DAO, but with treasury management. My interest is to make a lived experience in Ethereum closer to the video game, have it fun. If it’s fun we can keep doing it for longer.
At some point it will be about the purpose, values and consensus. Merely about the technology. When we’re talking about purpose driven communities – values would be the core thing.
Know that Aragon has a manifesto. Moloch and Metacartel?
Metacartel is all build around our logo. If you like it – you stick with us. It’s just funny as shit.
Moloch has no principle, maybe except of make Ethereum win. Everybody can has own vision about that of course. Devtools, cheaper to build etc. I would embrace the chaotic movement and rely on the people inside.
It’s basically the value statement of Eth - it’s Eth. Panvala works the same. If we succeed we continue with tokens. We want to make as much cooperation as possible.
YangDAO is the clone of Moloch to support Andrew Yang campaign. We’ll fund memes and good pr stances.
Why then it as funded (as Moloch is around Eth2)?
Cause Eth2.0 was the main risk at that time. I upvoted it and that’s how it works. Many of the members felt it should be a continuous issue. My belief is YangDAO is an important experiment. Can get mainstream press coverage important for the movement.