The BanklessDAO Constitution failed to capture the operational realities of the Grants Committee, and incorporated incorrect requirements (quorum, ungated polls) for grant proposals. This bDIP will bring the Constitution in line with the practices of the Grants Committee, providing clarity for future funding requests.

BDIP BACKGROUND

The BanklessDAO Constitution lists Forum quorum requirements for grant applications which are specified in the Firming Up Governance 6 Snapshot vote. Those quorum requirements were interpreted by the Grants Committee as having been vacated by the Quorum Removal Vote 2. In the perceived absence of a quorum, the Grants Committee created its own quorum adjustment method 2, with help from the GSE, and this has been in operation since July, 2022. Later, the Constitution was enacted via a Snapshot vote which incorporated the incorrect quorum information 4.

The BanklessDAO Constitution also states that proposal votes are REQUIRED to be ungated. This was never specified in any seasonal specification or previous Snapshot, and introduces significant security issues (sybil attacks). There have already been one suspected and one confirmed case of non-BanklessDAO members voting for grant proposals to meet quorum requirements, so it’s important we ensure the Constitution does not encourage this.

This bDIP’s intent is to patch the two bugs listed above.

BDIP SPECIFICATION

Since this is a “bug fix”, this bDIP can be considered a patch.

Current Form

Forum voting leverages one vote per user and is not token-weighted or gated. Forum proposals require 70% approval to pass to successive stages of governance. Proposals must be posted for one week unless the request exceeds 1M BANK. In these instances, they must be posted for two weeks. Forum quorum is the minimum number of voters that need to be present for the vote to be valid and is listed in the following table. For example, if your Forum post is asking for 50,000 BANK or less, only 25 voters need to cast their votes for the vote to be valid.

|Requested Bank|Forum Quorum| | --- | --- | |< 50k BANK|25| |50k - 250k BANK|31| |250k - 500k BANK|40| |500k - 1M BANK|51| |> 1M BANK|63| |Governance (Major)|63| |Governance (Minor)|51| |Governance (Patch)|40|

[See Snapshot 6]

Proposed Form

Proposal votes are one vote per user and are not token-weighted. Grant proposals must meet the quorum requirements set by the Grants Committee (available on their Notion page 3), which may be adjusted seasonally at their discretion.

Governance quorums are listed below.

|Governance Update|Forum Quorum|Approval %|Timeline| | --- | --- | --- | --- | |Major|63|70%|1 week| |Minor|51|70%|1 week| |Patch|40|70%|1 week|

EXPECTED IMPACT

The Constitution will accurately reflect the current quorum requirements in effect at BanklessDAO.

NEXT STEPS

1. Get Forum consensus (40 votes) - DONE
2. Get Snapshot consensus
3. Update the Constitution

WORKING GROUP BACKGROUND

links was the Grants Committee Lead from S4-5 and Champion of Bankless Card. HiroKennelly is a long-time DAO member and helps lead various projects… Trewkat is a member of Writers Guild and Lead Staff Editor of the EPA. Siddhearta is the Writers Guild Coordinator and Newsletter Team Champion.

Poll

Approve Reject

Forum Posts: Post 1, Post 2

SUMMARY

This snapshot is to adopt the BanklessDAO Constitution as our lead governance document and the location of our living agreements within the DAO.

The BanklessDAO Constitution represents BanklessDAO’s values, mission, structure, processes, and governance according to the best of our community’s ability to capture it. It is the codification of our community operating system and is meant to serve, rather than constrain its members.

The constitution includes sections defining:

• BanklessDAO
• DAO Membership Levels
• DAO Organizational Units
• DAO Cycles (Time Cycles)
• DAO Governance
• DAO Funding
• Code of Conduct

Additionally, this document and snapshot formally instantiates and adopts the BanklessDAO Improvement Proposal (bDIP) as the standard for making changes to the BanklessDAO Constitution and updating our living agreements.

POLL

Approve

Deny

Title: DoinGud BanklessDAO Membership Authors: Tetranome Forum post: Link

SUMMARY

This snapshot is to approve BanklessDAO's application for Tier 3 membership @ 1.1 ETH for one year at DoinGudDAO - the Impact DAO behind ETHBarcelona and the hosts of their own social impact NFT marketplace on Polygon.

This is based on the votes from the proposal here.

Annual Community Membership Perks:

• BanklessDAO receives 5x governance seats at DoinGudDAO.

• BanklessDAO receives collaboration priority on events with DoinGud and the consortium of DAO members at discounted sponsorship rates. For example, at ETHBarcelona there were sponsorship tiers that enabled sponsors to present a talk, receive brand marketing around the event etc.

• BanklessDAO receives a communications boost across DoinGud socials.

• BanklessDAO L1+ members receive allow list access to the DoinGud Soulbound Membership NFT sale + an 11% discount.

Governance seats will be filled by a Discord poll in - #polls - running the length of this snapshot, in order to meet the DoinGudDAO application deadline.

Any L1+ member can apply.

Governance Application Poll:

Link

Vote:

Approve Deny

Discord Vote: Link

Forum Post: Link

TLDR

• In Balancer L2 we have a liquidity depth of $46,419 (2184423 BANK and 5.4556 ETH)
  • This translates into high slippage for AMM operations on Polygon.
• We need sufficient liquidity on every chain $BANK is implemented on to enable BanklessDAO operations.
• To resolve this we would like to migrate 50k of liquidity from L1 to Polygon Balancer
  • Sushiswap Liquidity (705,194.04 BANK and 7.49 ETH ≈ $24,122.29) - (50/50)
  • Balancer Liquidity (1217788 BANK and 3 ETH ≈ $25,878) - (80/20)

SUMMARY

BanklessDAO has the Balancer pool on Polygon which has a volume(usage) of around $1,000 daily. Currently we have a liquidity depth of 46k on L2, which is resulting in high slippage for people using and trading on L2. BanklessDAO needs to support the liquidity depth for operational usage on all chains, and so plans to migrate 24k of liquidity from Sushi (low usage) and 26k from the Balancer L1 pool for a total of 50K liquidity to support depth on Polygon L2.

This proposal is to gain approval from the DAO to migrate this liquidity to enable Polygon operations.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Sushiswap Liquidity (705,194.04 BANK and 7.49 ETH ≈ $24,122.29) - (50/50)
• A portion of Balancer Liquidity (1217788 BANK and 3 ETH ≈ $25,878) - (80/20)

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation steps would be as follows:

1. BDAO multisig would unpair the Sushiswap liquidity.

2. The multisig would unpair a portion of the Balancer Liquidity (1217788 BANK and 3 ETH ≈ $25,878)

3. The multisig would then migrate the total amount of assets to Polygon via the Treasury Guild Bridging Service (TBS) to the Polygon multisig (X ADDRESS)

4. FInally the multisig would deposit the assets into Balancer pool at an 80/20% ratio.

5. The Sushi assets (50/50) would be auto balanced to the 80/20 ratio.

Post implementation the liquidity depth will be at roughly 100k worth of depth, which should enable Polygon Operations and usage.

Forum Post: Here

TLDR

• Grendel stepped down from the Grants Committee for Season 4
• Based on the Grants Committee Spec(link) and the Grants Committee Vacancy Forum post(link) this snapshot vote is to elect applicants into the final Grants Committee seat.

SUMMARY

Grendel recently stepped down from the grants committee and due to this the Grants Committee has a vacant seat.

This post is to take applicants to fill that position, based on the initialization spec(link).

The voting period will last one week, ending on 4/27/22.

Election:

You can get more information about this election and see all applications in this forum post.

In summary these are the two candidates by their Discord handle:

• 0xRene#6523
• paul🏴.eth#1559

Because there are two candidates the voting type will be Single Choice Voting.

The candidates with the most votes will be elected as Grants Committee members for the next two Seasons.

You can read the full specification here.

Read the full specification on Seasons and special Season 1 considerations

Title: Rewarding Season 0 Active Community Members Original Conversation: Recorded Discord Discussion Authors: @frogmonkee Snapshot Proposer: @0xLucas Date: 6/2/21

SUMMARY

In order to retain talent and say thank you to everyone that has contributed to Bankless DAO over these past four weeks, this proposal will retroactively distribute 1 million $BANK based on a fair voting method available to any DAO member via Coordinape.

This will serve as an initial trial for contributor compensation for future rounds in Season 1.

BACKGROUND

On Sunday May 30th, AboveAverageJoe made this post on forums, proposing a method to back pay all the valued community members and their contributions to the DAO. Shortly afterwards, people started filing into voice channels to discuss, and the conversation went on for hours.

This conversation was fated to happen as soon as the DAO was created. For four weeks, community members have lifted the DAO and carried it step by step. As time went on, this enthusiasm turned into concern about sustainability. The market had taken a dump and the hours everyone was putting in netted zero income.

From quiet whispers, Joe brought this topic in the limelight. We had a healthy discussion that reinforced the DAO’s ability to ideate and work through difficult problems as a collective.

MOTIVATION

The motivation of this specific proposal is to retroactively distribute $BANK to valuable community members from Season 0. Typically, companies don’t spend money they don’t have, and we fall squarely into that category. But, we need to give some reward, or we will inevitably lose talent that feels unappreciated.

That’s why, for Season 0 , we propose treating $BANK as equity and not a wage.

SPECIFICATION

To distribute $BANK, four questions came up as the most important:

• Who will receive $BANK?
• How much $BANK will they receive?
• How will they receive $BANK?
• When will they receive $BANK?
• Who will receive $BANK?

This is the trickiest question, isn’t it? Ideally, we want to be as inclusive as possible, but also support informed decision making and not a popularity contest.

The solution here is an opt-in program for all members. Anyone is eligible for the round and may self-select by filling out this form: https://forms.gle/4yLDFcZvq2kcFJVw7

All members who fill out this form prior to the starting period will be eligible to participate in the round

How much $BANK will they receive?

Collectively, a pool of 1,000,000 $BANK will be allocated to Coordinape.

** How will they receive $BANK?** Using Coordinape. Coordinape is a P2P budget management tool that grew out of Yearn Finance. This is explained further below.

When will they receive $BANK?

Once Coordinape is implemented, we will start a one week vote period with 1M $BANK, after which the funds will be proportionately distributed across participating DAO members based on the results from the Coordinape voting.

What is Coordinape?

Coordinape is central to this proposal. Coordinape was a project spun out from Yearn Finance You can think of Coordinape as a peer to peer payroll management system. It’s broader than that, but for our purposes, it works. (For reference, Yearn’s governing DAO is a few steps ahead of BanklessDAO, but there are many parallels.)

The essence of Coordinape is allowing your peers to determine your earnings. The process works as such:

• Each member is given 1000 GIVE tokens. Each token represents a proportional share of the salary pool (1M $BANK)
• Members can gift (or not) GIVE tokens to people they think deserve some share of the pool.
• After a voting period, all the unallocated GIVE tokens are burned. The remaining number of tokens represents a proportional piece of the salary pool, and members are programmatically paid their share based on the number of tokens they’ve received.

The simple premise is that if you ask everyone in the community who is doing good work, their collective answers will give a good sense of where the value is and who should be most rewarded. Over time, this also provides valuable insights for the DAO about what kinds of work is prioritized, what the community finds most valuable, and who are the key contributors in different areas.

You can learn more about Coordinape by reading their Medium announcement post, Docs, and Youtube demo.

How would this work?

Let’s tie all these topics back together. We’re proposing that:

1. Using Coordinape, we will let DAO members vote on how 1M $BANK will be allocated to their peers
2. Any DAO member that has at least 35K $BANK is eligible and can opt in with this form
3. Over a one week period, we will all be able to claim their tokens and allocate them to any other DAO member
4. After the voting period, the 1M $BANK will be distributed proportionally to the number of tokens they’ve received.
5. Participants will fill out a survey evaluating their satisfaction with their payout.

Success is defined as a >80% satisfaction rate.

Next Steps

1. Approve the proposal on Snapshot budget (1M BANK)
2. Onboard to Coordinape
3. Begin a one week voting period
4. Distribute funds
5. Take a survey

FAQ:

How do we know if this model will work?

We don’t. That’s part of the great blockchain experiment and why we're allocating a smaller amount of BANK to this program. It's meant to act as a trial! We’re inventing new ways to distribute money in a fairer manner. But both Sushiswap, Yearn and others use Coordinape, so there is some social proof. Internally, we will define success as a >80% satisfaction rate amongst participants.

What about members that like to work solo?

These people will slip through the cracks. Right now, the community is small enough that we can recognize and vouch for these members. Also, Coordinape has a “regift” feature where members that were overcompensated can redistribute. This is not a great solution, but Coordinape is working on this problem.

Resources

Forum Post Draft Forum Post Final

Authors: @lambda @EliteViking Collaborators: @0x_Lucas @0xHouston Read the Discord discussion: Discord Date: 5/7/2021

SUMMARY

There are two options under consideration for this proposal:

• Replace the current “unique emails seen” scheme for the premium subscriber airdrop of 87M BANK with an even distribution to 2021 Bankless Badge holders as of 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC.

• Replace the current “unique emails seen” scheme for the premium subscriber airdrop of 87M BANK with an even distribution to 2020 and 2021 Bankless Badge holders as of 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC.

BACKGROUND

While the initial airdrop was meant to reward those who took the initiative to claim their badges, we still want to recognize people who subscribed to Bankless, even if they forgot to claim. This is why the original email-based distribution scheme was proposed (pro rata amount based on “unique emails seen” per Substack).

Unfortunately, the above approach has several shortcomings:

1. Some of our community members utilize privacy software that blocks Substack’s ability to track newsletter engagement. This means their newsletter activity wouldn’t have been recorded and thus they would receive a disproportionately low/no allocation in the airdrop.

2. Additionally, many Bankless fans prefer to listen to podcasts on YouTube, etc. and therefore their engagement wouldn’t be reflected in the airdrop.

3. Lastly, Bankless DAO is currently looking for community members to perform outreach in order to collect ETH addresses for the second airdrop. In terms of privacy, this is inferior to badges in which the association of claim URL to ETH address is obfuscated by POAP, which doesn’t display the claim address for a particular link. The inferior privacy of email-based distribution leads to an inconvenient experience if users wish to return BANK to their primary wallet while preserving pseudonymity. Collecting addresses needlessly expends the labor of DAO participants that could go toward more productive activities.

MOTIVATION

A badge-based scheme achieves a more equitable distribution of tokens since it doesn’t rely on inaccurate proxies for engagement. This aids in the credibility of the DAO in the eyes of its members and the general public. Given the Bankless ethos, we shouldn’t penalize users who take extra steps to protect their privacy online.

Moreover, our DAO should be equally inclusive of those who have auditory learning styles instead of biasing toward those who prefer to read.

Due to the superior privacy and accuracy of the badge-based distribution mechanism, it is inherently credibly neutral and decentralized. It’s not enough to evangelize the virtues of decentralization as a DAO; we must embody them as well.

SPECIFICATION

2021-Only Distribution

• On 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC, a snapshot will be taken of all addresses on ETH and xDAI that hold the 2021 Bankless Badge POAP.
• For each address, a count of the total number of badges held by that address will be computed.
• The total number of badges held across all addresses will be summed.
• The share of BANK to be allocated in the airdrop will be divided equally amongst all addresses according to the following formula:

BANK claim = (87M BANK / Total # of badges)

• BANK not claimed within 90 days of claims going live will be surrendered back to the community treasury.
• The snapshot for 2021 Badge addresses will be taken from here

Rationale behind switching to 2021-only: After we locked the original thread, it came to our attention that it's no longer practical to obtain 2020 badges. Due to technical difficulties, not everyone was or ever will be able to claim their badge. Details here: Discord

There are also some in the community who have expressed that 2020 badge holders have already received quite a generous airdrop, and going with 2021 only will allow the DAO to be more decentralized by making it viable for those folks to access the discord. As such, we believe the best path forward is a "true even" split among all subscribers based on the 2021 badge. I also recognize that the original naming of the "even distribution" proposal was somewhat confusing. This proposal is intended to resolve any ambiguities.

2020+2021 Distribution

• On 5/31/2021 at 11:59pm UTC, a snapshot will be taken of all addresses on ETH and xDAI that hold the following POAPs:
  • 2020 Bankless Badge
  • 2021 Bankless Badge
• For each address, a count of the total number of badges held by that address will be computed.
• The total number of badges held across all addresses will be summed.
• The share of BANK to be allocated in the airdrop will be divided equally amongst all addresses according to the following formula:

BANK claim = (87M BANK / Total # of badges)

• BANK not claimed within 90 days of claims going live will be surrendered back to the community treasury.
• The snapshot for 2021 Badge addresses will be taken from here
• The snapshot for 2020 Badge addresses will be taken from here

Distribution Amount

The amount of BANK allocated is set to 29% of the retroactive distribution (87,000,000 BANK) per the announcement post.

NEXT STEPS

• Bankless DAO shall announce the new distribution scheme on its public social media properties:
  • Medium
  • Twitter
  • Substack
• Bankless LLC, Ryan Sean Adams and David Hoffman are strongly encouraged to announce the new distribution scheme as well:
  • Podcasts
  • Discord
  • Medium
  • Twitter
  • Substack
• The Genesis Squad will oversee the computation and distribution of BANK.
• Once the computation is complete, the airdrop should be available within the next seven days.
• Ninety days after the claim site goes live, claims will be deactivated and remaining funds surrendered to the community treasury.

CONCLUSION

Fair genesis is critical for the perception and longevity of any DAO, so it’s important that we get it right. The current proposed subscriber airdrop is flawed in several ways. This proposal more closely aligns the distribution scheme with Bankless values while addressing the concerns of our community members. Vote “For” to help assure the future we all want.

VOTE

• FOR (2021-only)

Abandon the “unique emails seen” distribution scheme in favor of the 2021-only scheme described above.

• FOR (2020+2021)

Abandon the “unique emails seen” distribution scheme in favor of the 2020+2021 scheme described above.

• AGAINST

Nothing changes; preserve the status quo of using “unique emails seen” and manual collection of ETH addresses by DAO members.

FAQs

Doesn’t this mean that people who already received BANK will get a second airdrop? Yes, however, that would be the case under the current genesis proposal as well. This proposal is only concerned with the distribution mechanism, not the target audience of the second airdrop.

Won’t this cause a rush of new subscribers who are only interested in claiming BANK to dump? No. This is known as a Sybil attack and is impossible under this proposal. Anyone who subscribed in May or later would only be eligible to claim their badge on June 1st or later, which is after the deadline.

Shouldn’t we be providing extra compensation to those who forgot to claim their badge? People who already claimed are double dipping. This is a controversial topic and a distraction from the main purpose of this proposal, which is to get away from the email-based allocation scheme. If the DAO wants to provide additional compensation for those who forgot to claim their badge, that should be a separate proposal.

What happened to the duration-based option? Forum polling indicated that this was relatively unpopular compared to the "even" proposal, trailing with around half the votes. Given that the "even" proposal has a simple majority, we consider this sufficient to move forward with a formal vote. It's impossible to have a solution that satisfies everyone and the "even" proposal has the broadest support. In the original poll with no duration-based option, it achieved >80% approval.

Does this mean that users who bought badges on the secondary market would receive more BANK? Yes, however, this is believed to be quite rare. There's no practical way to exclude such cases, so the only way around this would be to issue a new NFT, which has its own set of issues (an extra step for many people to claim). Even if we went this route, people could still choose to speculate on the value of their new badge on the secondary market. As a result, we believe using the 2021 badge is our best option.