Expectation Setting by the DAO | Basic Rules of Engagement

Request for Comment
1

Expectation Setting | Basic Rules of Engagement
The Genesis crew has spent a significant amount of time outlining issues with the Particle relationship to date. We understand the skill, value, and technology the Particle team brings to the table and assumes the Particle team understands the value the DAO brings in representing the interests of the community. As representatives of the community, and the initial DAO members, we want to set expectations to enable a successful relationship for all parties involved.

We, the Genesis members, expect:

  1. All three Organizations (Particle, DAO, and the Foundation) will commit to a good-faith relationship based on trust, transparency, and partnership. This commitment includes, but is not limited to:

    • Frequent, timely, and open communication with the Particle Team.
    • Following through on promises and timelines.
    • Full transparency and sharing of founding/governing documents between the DAO, Particle Corp, and Foundation.

  2. That Particle Corp and the Foundation will provide ongoing roadmaps to their areas of pursuit and allow the DAO first look at concept drafts while building this project to allow full consideration of each others interests in the development of this ecosystem. All timelines and final decisions will be agreed upon together.

  3. The DAO to own our communication channels, messaging, brand, and image. All statements and updates about the DAO will be released through our owned channels first, with support from Particle and The Foundation. We expect Particle and the Foundation to do the same for their respective organizations.

  4. To govern ourselves and to have the final say in how we are governed.

  5. To own the DAO treasury, token allocations, and exchanges and have full discretion on actions governing those items.

  6. That the necessary payment rails and terms to be set up to allow each group to transact with each other and maintain trust, transparency, and cooperation

  7. Consideration with the “right of first refusal” on any services needed by the Particle Foundation or the Particle Corporation. This includes activities related to the strategy or operations of the Particle Ecosystem. Any future services the Community provides Particle Corporation or the Foundation will be fairly compensated.

1 Like
2

Thanks for posting this, Cimply!

I think I’m in agreement with all of these with a few caveats:

  1. I think number 3 is a destination and ultimate goal and not a prerequisite to getting started.
  2. I think number 5 will surely be a joint venture in the token allocation design.
  3. I don’t think number 7 works anymore given the independent and autonomous approach. I def support open communication and a complementary and cohesive roadmap but saying HQ has to get all their resources from the DAO is a stretch in my opinion.
2 Likes
3

Agreed with the above caveats.

4

  1. Makes sense. Never seen founding documents for any businesses i’ve been involved with in this space before but hey if Particle want to share that why not. Can’t hold them to it IMO.

  2. Roadmaps must be shared yes. Foundation must be transaprent about plans (though once again I believe we should trust Charlotte and Loic to deliver here. Furthermore, this is completely pro-bono for the community (I mean the exhibits etc.). Particle should share roadmaps but we cannot expect to change their roadmaps no.

  3. Agreed, but Discord should be one and the same. Brand and image should also be completely aligned. We cannot start diluting the message just because we want to be independent. We have a Particle brand we can leverage already.

  4. Goes without saying. We have all the tools at our disposal. We’re on on of them right now.

  5. 100%. I don’t think this community is ready for a multi-sig honestly. There is too much bad blood. IMO, we should start with Particle funding it, and have a 60/40 slit of Particle Core Team / Community key holders to start.

  6. To some degree I agree with this. Particle should seek to leverage its community as much as possible. Codifying this however I don’t believe is the right way to go about it. Good faith in making proposals, and showing value add is what will put the members of the community that want to be involved in a better position to do so IMHO.

5

  1. The founding documents would be great to have. If the intent is to operate as a community then this helps build trust. For the SPV/Delaware C Corp those are requests which are difficult to hold Particle to, but they are not unreasonable to ask for and it’s not clear why they would not want to be transparent. For the Foundation they are legally obligated to provide them. They were requested in March and have not been delivered.

  2. Loic has been absent since very early on in this process. We trust his taste in art, expertise, and connections. We have nothing to base our trust on with regard to the foundation since his presence is nonexistant. To date most of the promises and commitments by Particle have been missed or unfulfilled. We do want to see timelines and weigh in with feedback to ensure that the organization is acting in the best interest of the Artists, the Art, and the Community. Does not seem like that is too much to ask. Especially for a group that is interested in participating actively in the art world.

  3. We requested all the Brand Guidelines back in March and April and presented a Discord redesign plan to streamline community conversations. Neither were provided by Shingo so we were unable to continue to work toward an alignment plan. The idea that the Community is not able to weigh in on the design of the DAO image, appearance, and messaging without perfect alignment with Particle doesn’t feel particularly community centric. We did expect the Community to manage it’s social and owned platforms directly with Particle input. The DAO is not a Particle Owned Entity by its nature.

  4. I don’t agree that this goes without saying. Web3 requires that they all be written out, codified, and mapped. How familiar are you with the tech stack that has been deployed? These are such a basic set of tools and platforms with a very loose non-codified set of governance protocols. Discourse is one small element in a wide and dense governance structure. There are collectors here that are interested in building a governance structure that actually protects us and allows for a sustainable platform. This is a start, not a destination.

  5. We disagree. But that is a matter of opinion. What bad blood are you speaking of? Why is that a concern with regard to the DAO setting up a proper legal structure and financial infrastructure? Also where is this money coming from? Shouldn’t we know who is funding this? Where the funding goes? If the community wants to raise funds on its own how will we do that without a proper infrastructure in place? What are we splitting with Particle Corp?

  6. To be honest, in DAOs that are functional, members are compensated and incentivized to participate. That might be for building technology infrastructure, operating day to day, drafting materials, providing services. DAO models typically have some way to incentivize participants with stake in the organization etc. We are a sophisticated community with a lot of skillsets at our disposal. It seems like you’re imagining just coming in here and making suggestions that Particle implements where we were imagining a model where active community members are able to provide actual services to build the ecosystem.