“I see the evolution of the DAO as a tree with many branches”
Many web3 enthusiasts see DAOs as the beginning of more just and reliable social institutions. But when it comes to solving specific problems it can be tricky.
As new projects appear on OG.Art its community is going to change and grow. How should that affect the existing DAO? Should there be separate DAOs for new projects? Should their members be included in the original OG: CR DAO? What configuration and rules should we accept to create a smooth social mechanism and avoid bureaucratic hell?
We asked the DAO board members to share their vision of the future community structure.
I see the expansion and evolution of OG: CR into OG.Art as a tree with many branches, each one pertaining to its own unique project but with a shared goal in mind: to nurture and support the root OG.Art platform as a whole.
While the existing OG: CR DAO will have status as the original, each new DAO will and should have a voice of its own in support of those projects, especially on shared matters that affect the entire collective.
I can’t yet pretend to know exactly what this structure will look like, but I do know that I look forward to welcoming and including these new communities into our fold. I also welcome an open discussion on matters of voting rights and how best to balance the entire structure in a way that feels fair and inclusive. Much is yet to be determined but the future of OG.Art is bright!
The first question that bugs my mind is why do we need to have a DAO for each project? I understand that OG.Art is supposed to run new generative/dynamic NFT projects. So why do these projects need to be treated as decentralized organizations?
It seems to me that creating and maintaining DAO requires some effort at least to motivate people to somehow participate in suggesting decisions and voting for them. So finding people who’ll be responsible for those things (a DAO board for each project) could be a tedious task.
But if the team feels like there is a strong need to have so many DAOs, I would say it would be nice to have them completely separate, with independent treasuries (if there is a need for them) and independent board members. Not to overload the members with the number of tasks, since it’s not a paid full-time job, but also to make those DAOs as independent from each other as possible.
I think incremental inclusion of new board members is a good idea. It will avoid the unnecessary workload of having separate DAO for each project. And OG: CR will play the genesis project role.
We can have some minimum volume size cap for projects like 1k, 3k, 5k, 10k, etc. And the number of new board members would be based on the same.
It is important that projects are mindful of not implementing structures purely to fill a promise. A lot of projects including OG: CR have DAO formations in their roadmaps. From a community perspective, a DAO always sounds nice — like a sort of formalized structure for constituents to have a voice. But, operating a DAO to incorporate community will into the decision-making process is a delicate technical and philosophical challenge.
From what I’ve seen so far, voting participation for DAOs, in general, is quite low — averaging under 7% in the vast majority of votes. Because of this, they have a tendency to operate more as defacto committee votes versus community votes where a single large holder can often determine outcomes.
At the Board level, reconciling differing points of view across multiple time zones to coordinate on decision-making is an additional complexity. To counter these complexities, I believe it is imperative that a DAO establishes clear principles and objectives that it can lean on. Inside the OG.Art DAO, we are conceptualizing a process by which board members evaluate proposals with a score for how they fit principals and objectives. It’s a work in progress and will continue to be so while the board works to find the right balance between execution efficiency and process. It’s all part of the work and contribution all DAOs are bringing to the collective consciousness of the space.
For the OG.Art Dao, we have only launched two votes since the official inception. We will need to do more before being able to properly evaluate the possible launching of sub-DAOs for any of the contemplated future projects. My view is that it will come down to finding out how effective we can be in terms of governance and implementation. For now, we are still working through the challenges of coordinating across global time zones and work schedules.
DAOs are inherently a way for decentralized parties to agree on future action items, in the hope to secure a longstanding vision that’s unified with both the creators and the community.
Ultimately, token holders should have weighed influence on an NFT’s trajectory and direction, while also using the token mechanisms to improve the community discourse. OG: CR & OG.Art can use separate token collections to create a vast ecosystem, that in theory should be more democratic as the community grows and participates toward a collective aim.
