ParticleDAO Purpose Statement

ParticleDAO Purpose Statement

Several LIITA holders came together to form the first working group of the newly formed ParticleDAO. They collaboratively produced the following purpose statement:

The DAO’s purpose is to:

  1. Represent the Community’s interest in democratized and distributed access, participation, responsible stewardship, and a heartfelt connection with art
  2. Empower the Community by giving them the responsibility and power to vote on actions that will radically change the way people own, collect, experience, and ultimately enjoy art
  3. Act as a conduit to bridge the non-profit, for-profit, and artists’ interests in the Art Ecosystem through an engaged and dedicated Community
  4. Partner with the Particle Foundation to develop a world-class, revolutionary, and creative ecosystem in a mutually beneficial manner
  5. Partner with Community artists to create an environment for growth
  6. Work to enhance the value to the Community, the assets it represents, and the collections it obtains
  7. Focus on the pursuit of Community-driven ideas and projects that bring value to Particle holders
  8. Help make the joyful pursuit of collecting and displaying fine art accessible to a wider range of people
  9. Develop an engaging, informative, and educational community that makes Particle a highly-desirable organization to join for to art lovers and NFT enthusiasts alike
  10. Make a positive impact on our Community, the Public, and the Arts
  11. Put genuine and concerted efforts toward altruistic pursuits that help underserved communities to share in the experience of fine art

How does the community feel about this articulation of the DAOs purpose?

  • Yes - Great purpose statement!
  • No - Not good at all (please comment)
  • Getting close but needs more work (please comment)

0 voters

Please see the follow-up and a correction on the above here:

This has been edited from what was proposed by the Genesis team. I would suggest we post the original Genesis statement and allow the community to comment.

The DAO’s purpose is to

  1. Represent the Community’s interest in democratized and distributed access, participation, responsible stewardship, and a heartfelt connection with art
  2. Empower the Community by giving them the responsibility and power to vote on actions that will radically change the way people own, collect, experience, and ultimately enjoy art.
  3. Act as a conduit to bridge the non-profit, for-profit, and artists’ interests in the Particle Ecosystem through an engaged and dedicated community
  4. Partner with Particle, the Foundation, and Artists on developing a world class, revolutionary, and creative ecosystem in a mutually beneficial manner
  5. Work to enhance the value to the Community, the assets it represents, and the collections it obtains
  6. Focus on the pursuit of Community driven ideas and projects that bring value to Particle holders
  7. Help make the joyful pursuit of collecting and displaying fine art accessible to a wider range of people
  8. Develop an engaging, informative, and educational Community that creates a highly-desirable ecosystem for art lovers and NFT enthusiasts alike
  9. Make a positive impact on our Community, the Public, and the Arts
  10. Put genuine and concerted efforts toward altruistic pursuits that help underserved communities to share in the experience of fine art

It seems like #5 is new compared to original. I don’t mind it except I don’t know what “create an environment for growth” means. Also the first version has typo in #9 “for to art…”.

The original is what was I posted. The one above was edited by Particle without Genesis feedback. We can fill you in on all the background of any of these statements. You can also read them in the Notion which is linked here in the website. If you need help, please let me know.

The edits were done in good faith in order to incorporate what Genesis had suggested.

I believe what is meant here is to help artists that find themselves in the community grow –provide a platform for them to promote their art and leverage the community and the ecosystem!

With all due respect, I’m not sure you understand what good faith means. Particle has changed the scope and remit of the DAO as well as the already voted upon proposal unilaterally, without approval, and without notice to the group who drafted them. While simultaneously ignoring the Statement of Expectations and releasing a whitepaper on our behalf. And then sent them for a vote in an ecosystem we’re being told the community controls. None of these are good faith actions.

The whitepaper is one that explains what the whole ecosystem looks like to begin with.

To be very clear, the governance structure (once again, to begin with) exists to provide a framework for the works of art in the collection to be governed by their respective Particle owners.

This is the most important thing to achieve. There needs to be a framework that allows for the all the documentation pertaining to the works of art to be shared (i.e. storage contracts, insurance contracts, etc.), and for the collective of owners to decide on what to do with it via a proposal and voting process.

All other activities are important, but are secondary to being able to provide the above to the collective of owners of the art.

Looks like we’re on the same page with @0xJustice.eth here then! I am a little unsure of why we are nitpicking here.

Ladies, Gentlemen. Let us do things set by step here. This is how I see things happening:

  1. Proposals are created and voted on regarding LIITA. What a masterpiece we have in our hands! Yes, legally in this not-for-profit’s hands, but so far we’ve voted on where its going (LA). What else would we like done with it. I personally want this led by Loic, and Charlotte. I want proposals from them, detailed, that we vote on. I don’t believe members of the community can be as useful here. Anyone can make proposals, but my eyes will be on Loic and Charlotte’s proposals first and foremost.

  2. Let’s get a second painting! And have it be 1:1 ownership. It’s a damn shame @garold mentionned US retail participants won’t be accepted, but that is the landscape we are operating in. NOTHING will change vis-a-vis the LIITA, that’s why the outrage on ownership isn’t all that justified in my most humble opinion. ONLY difference is potential sale. We still want the not-for-profit to pay for all maintenance etc. We vote on how. Once again, want to see Loic and Charlotte here.

  3. One day, someone will make an offer on the seocnd painting which we can all vote on. it goes through or does not, that does not matter. We can accept offers, and we can sell the art should we choose though. MAJOR.

  4. Lastly, and after all the above (minus point 3), let’s look at how we promote art generally, look at boosting the ecoystem, and all the other purpose statement points. AFTER. LETS NOT RUSH THIS.

Last point. Particle, in all the podcasts i’ve listen to and community calls have said they will give royalties to the artists. They cannot do it with Banksy as he’s anonymous. They will do it for the rest of them. I truly do not understand the negativity that’s coming from certain individuals. I understand frustration, but this is a work in progress. And while I’m not a member of this so called tightly closed “Genesis DAO” that has apparently been formed, I haven’t heard of anything happening there.

The above can exist with a “Genesis DAO” too -if the statement points want to be enacted ASAP right away. They are not mutually exclusive. I’ll stick to what I want to govern. The LIITA, which will hopefiully give me access to future mastperieces I can own, govern, and make key decisions about.

Sorry for the rant, but had to be said. :rofl: :melting_face:

Sincerely, one the many (i believe!) non-vocal majority :heart:

1 Like

Details are important. We spent a long time building a specific set of statements and voting on them so that we could release them to the community and solicit community feedback. They were changed without community feedback from the group Particle empowered to get this moving.

I would say that we’re concerned about another acquisition till we understand the terms we’ll be operating under. But this purpose is not really designed to address governance or stewardship. More so to outline why the DAO exists. We should open another thread to discuss Strategy and Planning.

Regarding your comment on the Podcasts, that is also where we heard about Ownership of the Banksy. It is where we heard about all of the plans Particle had for the launch. So far, fulfilling on commitments has been less than ideal. Contrary to popular opinion, Banksy does in fact work with organizations and promote his work. He is anonymous, but not unreachable. Surely someone with Loic’s art connections, charm, and influence could find out how to get in touch with Pest Control and Banksy’s PR group. Those are not closely guarded secrets

What efforts have been taken to do so already? What causes could we support that he supports? How are we contributing to the ideology of ownership by the masses and social change? How are we contributing to artists and organizations he supports?

Re your point about nothing happening in the Genesis DAO, if you have questions about the material we’ve produced, we’re happy to set up time to fill you in. It’s all accessible. It does strike me as odd that you have such a strong opinion about what we’ve produced without being an active member and participating. Why are you so negative about the Genesis group? As a community member, it doesn’t strike you as beneficial that there are collectors fighting for LIITA holders rights, needs, and concerns?

You don’t have an appreciation for a group of interested collectors with a diverse professional background weighing in on the issues with the project? Or mapping a solution for the future? What does it benefit you as a collector to assume that we are the “bad guys” here?

Attributing nefariously editorial motives will not move this discussion forward. What exactly are the points of contention in the posted version? Let’s talk about them specifically and we can all agree to change them if it makes sense. Friendly reminder that this post is categorized under RFC meaning it’s to gauge sentiment and create opportunities for feedback and collaboration. This is not being submitted to any “official” governance flow.

See this diff if this helps the conversation (I made a few capitalization changes to reduce noise): ParticleDAO Statement of Purpose - Diff Checker

Point 3
Particle Proposal states:
Act as a conduit to bridge the non-profit, for-profit, and artists’ interests in the Art Ecosystem through an engaged and dedicated Community."

DAO Proposal States
Act as a conduit to bridge the non-profit, for-profit, and artists’ interests in the Particle Ecosystem through an engaged and dedicated community

What is the difference?
The DAO holds a unique place as customers of the Particle Brand and as independent collectors. We felt that the DAO’s value in the ecosystem is to be able to provide a conduit for artists and collectors. Influencing the Art Market does not really fit within the remit of what we are able to likely facilitate as a group. It is something we could ask for Loic and Charlotte to support, but we really don’t have that kind of influence until we’ve gotten our “house in order”.

However, influencing the partnerships with collectors, deciding on what we feel is a good use of funds, the agreements and partnerships with creators, and ensuring that artists and collectors are fairly represented in the ecosystem is a strong check and balance to make sure that the ecosystem moves in a direction that we as a community are comfortable with. It empowers the community to have a voice in how the relationships are established, how we steward those relationships in good-faith, that the way we do business is transparent, and that we are working toward a mission that is in the best interest of the Community and the Creators.

Point 4
Particle Proposal States.
Partner with the Particle Foundation to develop a world-class, revolutionary, and creative ecosystem in a mutually beneficial manner

DAO Proposal States
Partner with Particle, the Foundation, and Artists on developing a world class, revolutionary, and creative ecosystem in a mutually beneficial manner

What is the difference?
The DAO believes that the relationship between the community goes beyond a simple relationship with the Foundation. We believe that we should have a voice in the development of product and platform enhancements to create an ecosystem that includes the community + artists and that promotes solutions that create favorable environments for anyone participating in the Particalization process. We feel there is too much hidden behind the corporate structure that should be public in order to foster trust and partnership. We feel that the community is in a strong position to weigh in impartially on the interests of the general public, this community, and potentially artists from more than just the non-profit side of the house. We should have an idea of the fiduciary stewardship that is being employed throughout the ecosystem (corporation included).

We felt that the nature of the first purchase neglected critical details related to the Artist and Community interests and that the way the corporation is conducting itself is just as important as the products they help produce. We want to have the option and to remain influential in all parts of the ecosystem and set the expectation that all elements of the ecosystem are ultimately accountable to those who are putting the money and reputation forward to support and fund it. Or at least have the transparency of information and details to be able to make informed decisions. At this time, things are not “sufficiently distributed” as to identify conflicts of interest, fair dealings, responsible management, etc. These may all be above water, but we do feel it is important to be able to assess them ourselves.

Point 5
Particle Proposal States.
Partner with Community artists to create an environment for growth

DAO Proposal States
The DAO did not release this statement. We do not know what it means

What is the difference?
Taken at face value, we assume that Particle is “asking” the community to promote growth in their ecosystem. Growth is a Particle first initiative. This requires investment of community money in more paintings. It requires promotion of Particle’s plans. These are not a given, they are earned.

The Genesis group did commit to supporting Particle in their pursuits if Particle supported the community. That was noted in our Statement of Expectations. It is unclear what Community Artists are and why they are different that non-community artists. We have already addressed the need to partner with Artists in previous statements. Particle Please clarify what was meant here.

Point 9 In Particle Version and Point 8 in the DAO version
Particle Proposal States.
Develop an engaging, informative, and educational community that makes Particle a highly-desirable organization to join for to art lovers and NFT enthusiasts alike

DAO Proposal States
Develop an engaging, informative, and educational Community that creates a highly-desirable ecosystem for art lovers and NFT enthusiasts alike

What is the difference?
We did not think that our purpose as collectors was inherently to create a community for people to want to join Particle. We discussed this as a group at length. We felt that our purpose is to collect and enjoy art in a responsible manner and for the community to unite in that pursuit under some shared principles that guide those decisions. That is facilitated by making a highly desirable community for art lovers and collectors to feel heard, speak their mind, and weigh in on important decisions related to our collection. That is within the power of the DAO to fulfill.

The difference here is that Particle’s version implies that the DAO’s purpose is to serve Particle. We asked Particle to instead acknowledge that Particle is a service to collectors who bought into the mission and invested in the project.

The DAO’s focus should be to use the Particle ecosystem to support Community interests, whatever we decide as a group those should be. Assuming that Particle is doing their part, this would naturally be to support the collection we hold, the artists we want to work with, and the expansion of a robust and functional community. Put another way, we did not believe that our Purpose of buying a LIITA Particle was to promote Particle’s vision. Promoting Particle is a natural byproduct of a good team, a genuine partnership, a feeling of ownership, an investment in the community, value returned to holders, and a strong collection of artwork.

1 Like

to @Cimply’s points:

Point 4:
That’s fine. But Particle’s main goal right MUST BE to create a platform where they can get us the quality art that we can purchase. They’ve already said they will be giving % of royalties to artists. That’s all we can ask for now. We cannot ask to be involved in product development process. We can make suggestions, and vote them in. But we’re governing the ART not the business facilitating the sale of it to us.

Point 5:
Agreed. I believe we should be promoting, helping, funding community artists first (those in the community). But we should be able to extend that as we please.

Point 9:
I take your point here, but i don’t like this us vs. them mentality. Yes, we buy LIITA and inherently buy into the vision, but we want to grow Particle as a brand generally (through our community efforts) so that Particle can have a bigger voice, brand etc. so that they can go out and actually get us the best art. If we don’t do that, who’s going to go get us access to Cindy Sherman’s, to Urs Fischer’s, To Basquiats, Monets etc? We need Particle name to be in what we do.

I think we’re aligned with Particle here, and once again, these seem like details that distract from what actually needs to be done:

  1. Particle to create a platform that allows the public to collectively buy art they recommend (to start)
  2. Particle to support the DAO in supporting its initiatives
  3. Governing the paintings (LIITA for now) that we own. LEAD BY PARTICLE, CHARLOTTE AND LOIC NAMELY.

We can then start looking at details. All of this can be changed anyway.

Last point for me. Where does this genesis crew come together and is the core team involved in your discussions? I believe these should all be completely open to anyone with LIITA to join. We’re a community and we don’t want a subset starting to make decisions and philosophizing on behalf of the rest of us.

I’m going to start with your last point first regarding Genesis crew. I will also take time to respond to the remaining points you put forth as they are also important, but I’d like to give you context before getting into them.

Genesis talks together in a separate discord that was created shortly after the Genesis creation so that active community members could ideate in a “clean room” and begin drafting materials to be brought back to the Particle Executive Team. We also have a dedicated Genesis channel inside of the Particle discord for dialogue between that group and the Particle leadership team.

The reason for the separate discord was to help organize our thoughts and to work to get alignment with each other before bringing ideas to Particle, but these statements have always been public for review on the Notion. I’ve posted them in the general discord a bunch of times in the global channels and within the collector channels. We even went so far as to elicit global country representatives to help with the translation of these materials so they could be read in language. There is also a notion linked to the particledao.xyz website in the Learn tab where you can see anything we’ve actually voted on releasing to Particle for comment (before it would go to the community for vote).

There are currently 24 members. Every LIITA member has the option to join the genesis group through a Particle sponsored form that is still pinned to the Particle Collector Channel. Here is the link.

When the Genesis group was formed, it was designed to represent the governance team for the initial launch and stewardship of the DAO. Because of this, we evaluated members based on active participation in the collector channel, governance calls with Particle, contributions to thought leadership, engagement with other members on topics critical to the foundation of a DAO, and ownership of the LIITA token. Basically, we asked for engagement in the Particle Discord, a filled out application, and a LIITA token. At the time, it was important to have engaged members for that leadership group.

We have drafted significant amounts of material on everything from tokenomics, fair voting principles, initial governance statements, DAO management infrastructure, legal models, and more. Our engagement with the Executive Team was very regular and included Harold, Adam, Shingo, Charlotte, Tyree, and Kenley. It is important to note that Loic has not made a single statement to the community since February or March and has never joined a DAO formation callThose meetings were once or twice weekly for almost 3 months where we debated a variety of issues with the product, the governance models Particle was proposing, background documents such as the Foundation by laws, representation on the Foundation Board for the community, binding decisions the DAO would be able to make, models for operating the DAO under a legal structure that allowed for contractual relationships (both with Particle and on the open market), Particle’s marketing and brand guidelines so we could evaluate how to coordinate marketing strategy, community management suggestions to revamp the discord, requests for roadmaps, etc.

We also held weekly community calls prior to the relaunch where we asked community members to voice concerns, talk to Genesis, and consider joining if they had time and interest.

We also met weekly internally to discuss and vote on proposals that should represent the foundations of the DAO. Anything that has been released (which are the statements I’ve posted) has been done with an incredible amount of care and thought.

I’m surprised you did not see any of those announcements or just reach out to us. We can all be tagged with the @genesis tag. But I’m also sort of unclear why you believe we are different from you? There may be some differences of opinion, but Genesis is a group of qualified professionals with a wide range of experience that also has global representation. We’re all here for the art and while your concerns might be different than mine, I’m sure you would find that those are not unwelcome traits.

That is to say that Genesis is not an echo chamber. It is just the group that early on that proposed a DAO, that came together to produce content, remained active in drafting opinions and debating solutions, joined calls with the Particle team, and raised their hand to help us to set up an infrastructure to operate legitimately for the community so that we are protected better than what was put into the Particle T&Cs in the initial acquisition.

We are happy to set up time so you can get some of the rundown on what the group is all about, what we have learned about the Particle team, what we have tried to facilitate in the creation of a community run DAO, and any other topics you want to talk through. But we are all the same here. The only difference is that you seem more inclined to trust Particle rather than engaged thoughtful collectors like yourself.

1 Like

Look, I’m not here to debate you @Cimply, and more importantly I am not interested in looking at the past or understanding what you’ve done with Genesis. Thank you for the background, but I am interested in going forward.

I am usually sitting back on all these discussions as I am not much of a vocal person, but seeing the Discourse up etc. I thought this was a great first step, and looking forward to things actually moving forward. We have all the tools at our disposal here. You seem quite strung up on holding on to “Genesis” and the past.

A friendly suggestion: why don’t you use all that work your team did, open it up to the whole community, and post those proposals on here. We can then discuss them, vote on them, and actually move forward.

I personally am not interested in joining a separate Discord server. I want this to be open to the whole Particle community on our current Discord, with full visbility for everyone. These discussions that you’re having are what bring more engagement, and you’re having them behind closed doors. It’s a shame if you ask me.

I am going to stop engaging directly on what I deem is a silly, useless back and forth about the “Genesis”, and the work you’ve done. Post actionable proposals on here so we can move forward.

In short:

I love the weekly DAO calls with Justice giving great educational nuggets of info. I think that’s useful in what I think is quite a inexerpieced community in DAOs (not that there are many experts, but I don’t see evidence of active participation in many other DAOs). These educational pieces should be very useful for many.

We get updates on the Particle project. @garold gave some good ones in yesterday’s call. Clarity on roadmap, and what they’re focusing on building. We had a member of the community suggest something around the Particle design which we’re going to hold a session around. I don’t participate live for perosnal reasons, but i’ll be listening in for sure on teh recordings.

We have an amazing painitng we can make proposals on. What do you want to do with LIITA? Where should we ask to exhibit it next? We should all be proud by the fact we are bound to mission of never selling the art. Only by having it in OWNED by this Particle non-for-profit can we hold ourselves accountable to never selling it. This is amazing! Now, I think as @garold mentioned in the call we want to be able to sell the art should we want to. And that’s the plan. The community is becoming one and the same with Particle core team.

I am wholeheartedly against a separate Discord server for some subset of the community and will not be joining as a question of principle. Debates, work, etc. should be done in public, perhaps in a separate channel, that could be role-gated, but it needs to be seamlessly intergated with the rest of the community and we need to be more public about our engagement to show progress in the community and incentivise more people to interact with us. What you voted on in the past with genesis is not what I voted on, nor all the other collectors in the community.

I am very greateful that we’ve finally set up the framework to start making proposals, discussion and vote. Let’s use it instead of for one more time nitpick on small details that in the end a) make absolutely no difference and b) are actually taking away from this endeavour progressing forward.

My 2 cents.

This response was not intended to spark a debate. You asked for context on the Genesis crew so I’ve done my best to take the time to provide that for you. Respectfully, I think that the details at the formation of an organization are important.

We created many robust and active public threads when the Particle Discord was still active. I can revive those for you if you’d like, but eventually they sadly died out along with the rest of the community dialogue. Also, the Genesis thread in the Particle Discord is gated by Particle. If you’d like to see those opened up, feel free to ask them to remove the gating. Kenley is the administrator.

The past is kind of important here. We all went through quite a ride from the mint forward and we’re not eager to just take things at face value when someone at Particle says that “things will be better” or to just trust that they have things under control.

We’re not holding onto Genesis. We’re holding onto the community feedback and issues with the first launch that led us here. Some of us are not comfortable restarting without some major changes. That starts with organizing as a community and setting some boundaries and ground rules. Not sure what the issue is with ironing those out or why you feel these are just minor details that we should gloss over.

As a post script, are you part of the Particle Team, investor group, contractors, or employees if you don’t mind me asking?

Pursuant to your comments on the Points:

Point 4:
Particle’s purpose can be on creating a platform. Our focus is on using it. They can also focus on procuring art. They said a lot of things when they launched the LIITA. But the reality is that things were different in writing and contracts than how they were positioned in public statements and whitepapers. If we’re going to invest in the art and the platform, why shouldn’t we have a say in how the business is managed? If we’re going to purchase from a dealer than we should know everything about them. Isn’t that how collector relationships typically work with established galleries? And if it isn’t how it happens today, isn’t that the dream of opening the “art world” to the general public? We should not aim to go at that process halfway.

Point 9:
I’m not sure where us vs. them was brought up, but it’s not really intended to reflect that. We should however not lose sight of the fact that the Corporation, The Foundation, and The Community (DAO) all make up different parts of the ecosystem. Growing the community will happen naturally if the community is happy. Wouldn’t you agree?

Regarding “what actually needs done”:

  1. Particle is obviously free to pursue it’s platform developments. Those don’t really have much to do with what we’re discussing here
  2. I would love to hear what you meant here. I’m not really clear on what this is referring to.
  3. Frankly, a lot of us don’t really know what “governing the painting” really means. If that is just deciding what city it will show up in next, that seems a bit narrow and does not really require much more than a discord poll.

And regarding this can all be changed anyway, why are we not trying to get our best versions of these statements out first? Do you feel that we should default to Particle’s versions of these statements for feedback or the ones the community produced? If this is not really a major detail in your opinion then why not just default to the community versions…

Good to see a back and forth going on here, regardless of differences. I propose we submit was was suggested by the community in terms of documents and start from there. As you said Cimply, these can always be changed according to majority sentiment.

Just a note on purchasing. Very often, sellers wish to remain anonymous. The most important is provenance (i.e. where the Art has been in the past), and authenticity of the work. Who it was owned by previously is often just referred to as Private Collection if not from an institution.

As to what else we can do to govern the Art, well that’s a good question and something that’s up to all of us as Particle collectors really. In my opinion it is to get the physical work in front of as many collectors as possible and within an educational setting. I am requesting the foundation release the documents related to the LIITA (Insurance, Storage documentation, and related costs and contracts) so everyone has visibility on that.

Again, super to see back and forth here, and would love to see more short form organic discussions on Discord, but this forum is quite good as it seems some of you are taking more time to structure your thoughts –which is very useful to understand where everyone is coming from.

I do commend you for the effort you put into this, it shows that you are very much involved which is more of what we need here. All I am saying is we need to move forward, and while yes we are here due to past events etc., we must move forward and the actions so far have been positive in my humble opinion. I think my thoughts are echo’d by others as they were voiced similarily in last weeks community call.

And no, I am not part of the Particle Team and am not affiliated with them in a commerical way apart from having minted Particles. Like I said, I am generally very much a passive participant but felt the need to jump in here as I believe everyones efforts should be guided in the right direction. I’ll leave it at that for now as to follow my own advice, I do not want to repeat myself over and over again, nor do I want to focus on details at this point!

1 Like